9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 580 - SC - Indian LawsWhether after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007 of the Union of India against the order dated 07.07.2006 of the Tribunal, by this Court by order dated 19.01.2007, the Union of India can re-agitate the question decided in the order dated 07.07.2006 that the Adjusted Gross Revenue will include only revenue arising from licensed activities and not revenue from activities outside the license of the licensee? Whether the TRAI and the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide whether the terms and conditions of license which had been finalised by the Central Government and incorporated in the license agreement including the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue? Whether as a result of the Union of India not filing an appeal against the order dated 07.07.2006 of the Tribunal passed in favour of some of the licensees, the said order dated 07.07.2006 had not become binding on the Union of India with regard to the issue that revenue realised from activities beyond the licensed activities cannot be included in the Adjusted Gross Revenue? Whether the licensee can challenge the computation of Adjusted Gross Revenue, and if so, at what stage and on what grounds?
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) in telecom licenses. 2. Jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to decide on the terms and conditions of telecom licenses. 3. Applicability of res judicata to the Tribunal's orders. 4. Stage and grounds on which the computation of AGR can be challenged by licensees. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) in Telecom Licenses: The dispute arose with the introduction of the National Telecom Policy 1999, which allowed telecom licensees to migrate from a fixed license fee regime to a revenue-sharing regime. The definition of AGR included various revenue streams, some of which the licensees argued were unrelated to telecom operations. The Tribunal initially ruled that only revenue from licensed activities should be included in AGR. However, the Supreme Court held that once the licensees accepted the terms of the license, including the definition of AGR, they could not challenge it. The Court emphasized that the license agreement, including the definition of AGR, was a contract between the licensor (the Central Government) and the licensee, and the licensees were bound by its terms. 2. Jurisdiction of TRAI and TDSAT to Decide on the Terms and Conditions of Telecom Licenses: The Supreme Court examined whether TRAI and TDSAT had the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the terms and conditions of the licenses, including the definition of AGR. The Court noted that under Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act, the Central Government has the exclusive privilege to establish, maintain, and work telegraphs, and can grant licenses on such conditions as it thinks fit. The TRAI Act, while conferring certain functions on TRAI, did not alter the contractual nature of the license agreements. The Court held that TRAI's recommendations on license terms are not binding on the Central Government, and the final decision rests with the Government. Consequently, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to alter the terms and conditions of the license, including the definition of AGR. 3. Applicability of Res Judicata to the Tribunal's Orders: The principle of res judicata was invoked by the licensees, arguing that the Tribunal's order dated 07.07.2006, which excluded revenue from non-licensed activities from AGR, had become final as no appeal was filed by the Union of India against some licensees. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction and a nullity, as it questioned the validity of the license terms, which it had no authority to do. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply, and the Union of India was not bound by the Tribunal's order. 4. Stage and Grounds on Which the Computation of AGR Can Be Challenged by Licensees: The Supreme Court clarified that licensees could challenge the computation of AGR when a specific demand is raised by the licensor. Such disputes can be adjudicated by TDSAT under Section 14(a)(i) of the TRAI Act, which allows the Tribunal to interpret the terms and conditions of the license agreement. However, the Tribunal cannot question the validity of the terms of the license itself. The appropriate stage for raising such a dispute is when the licensor makes a demand based on the computation of AGR. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2007, and remitted the matters back to the Tribunal to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the terms and conditions of the license, including the definition of AGR, are binding on the licensees, and the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to alter these terms. The licensees can challenge the computation of AGR only when a specific demand is raised, and such challenges should be based on the interpretation of the license terms, not their validity.
|
