LOOP TELECOM LTD ( RAJASTHAN) Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

By its order dated 11.11.2011 the Respondent had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 crores on the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed this petition seeking quashing and setting aside the said impugned order of the Respondent. This Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.9.2012 allowed the petition. The operative portion of the said judgment may be read as below:

“45 In the case of this nature, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has been prejudiced by reason of non compliance of the principles of natural justice. 46 For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioners are allowed an opportunity of being heard. 47 The Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside with the aforementioned observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs”

2. Earlier this Tribunal vide its interim order dated 12.12.2011 had stayed the operation of the demand notice made by the Respondent subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit 10% of the impugned demand within a period of two weeks from date of the interim order. Accordingly, the Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 5 crores on 23.12.2012.

3. The Petitioner has filed this application with a prayer to pass an order directing the Respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 5 crores to the Petitioner along with interest @ PLR + 5%.

4. The Respondent in its short reply has submitted that this Tribunal has disposed off the petitions, interalia, on the ground that Petitioner was prejudiced by reason of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

Further it had been directed that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioner were allowed an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the Committee Members have issued a letter on 23.12.2012 for providing an early hearing for the petition.

As the Respondent in compliance to the direction of this Tribunal is giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, status-quo may be maintained regarding 10% amount which was deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent.

The Respondent further opposed the grant of interest to the Petitioner on the grounds that the judgment was on the ground of non-providing of any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and not on merit. Therefore, no interest should be granted.

5. By its order dated 28.9.2012 this Tribunal had set aside the impugned order of the Respondent by which it had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 crores and the petitions were allowed. Once the order of the Respondent has been set aside any interim order passed in the same petition gets merged with the final order. By its order dated 12.12.2011, this Tribunal had stayed the operation of the order dated 11.11.2011 subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the impugned demand. We may read the interim order :

“41. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for passing of an order of interim injunction directing the respondent not to give effect to the impugned order dated 11.11.2011 subject to its depositing 10% of the impugned demand within a period of two weeks from date.”

6. Whatever opportunity of hearing is being provided by the Respondent to the Petitioner now the Respondent will be passing a separate order in this regard. The proposed order, if any will be altogether a new order. Therefore, any amount deposited by the Petitioner in pursuance of this Tribunal’s order is not related to the order passed by the Respondent in future. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by it.

7. The Respondent is accordingly, directed to refund the amount within four weeks. If the amount is not refunded to the Respondent within this period, the Petitioner will be entitled to get an interest @ 9% from that date.

8. This M.A. is disposed of with the above directions.

……………….. (P.K.Rastogi) Member /NC/