9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of TDSAT 2. Compliance with statutory provisions 3. Policy decision and its implications 4. Technological advancements and their impact 5. Procedural requirements and their fulfillment Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of TDSAT: The Tribunal's jurisdiction was questioned, and it was found that TDSAT failed to apply its mind on various vital issues, including its jurisdiction. The Tribunal's approach, which limited its jurisdiction akin to judicial review, was deemed unsustainable. TDSAT's jurisdiction, as per Section 14A of the Act, is wide and includes examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of a direction/order or decision of the authority. The Tribunal misdirected itself in law by not considering the amplitude of its jurisdiction. 2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions: The Tribunal did not comply with the principles analogous to Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It failed to assign sufficient or cogent reasons in support of its findings and did not fulfill the criteria of a judgment. The Tribunal also did not address the procedural requirements and non-compliance with Section 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and the fifth proviso by the authority. 3. Policy Decision and Its Implications: The Tribunal's findings included that the Government has the right to change its policy and that such decisions cannot be reviewed. However, the Tribunal failed to consider whether the Central Government's actions were within their respective jurisdiction and whether the procedural requirements for policy changes were followed. The Tribunal also did not address whether the decision was arbitrary or if the level playing field was maintained. 4. Technological Advancements and Their Impact: The Tribunal's findings highlighted the benefits of WLL with limited mobility, including uninterrupted service and cost advantages over GSM. However, it failed to address whether WLL with limited mobility is a new service within the meaning of NTP-99 and whether it amounted to a change in policy. The Tribunal also did not consider the issue of substitutability of cellular mobile service with WLL with limited mobility within the area of SDCA. 5. Procedural Requirements and Their Fulfillment: The Tribunal did not follow the procedure and did not formulate its own procedure as entitled u/s 14A(7). It also failed to address whether the procedural requirements were fulfilled. The Tribunal's decision was found to lack cogent reasons and did not refer to material on records, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order could not be sustained. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to TDSAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that TDSAT should determine the questions of law and facts to enable the Supreme Court to consider any substantial question of law arising from the judgment. The Court declined to enter into the merits of the matter, adhering to the principle that it is inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter.
|
