Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"50. The learned TDSAT, therefore, has posed absolutely a wrong question and thus its impugned decision suffers from a misdirection in law".
"53. Furthermore, TDSAT failed to advert unto itself the following issues:
(1) Non-compliance with Sections 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii), (2) Non-compliance with the fifth proviso by the authority in view of the divergence of opinion between the recommendation dated 8-1-2001 and guidelines made by the Government of India on 25.1.2001;
(3) The issue of substitutability of Cellular Mobile Service with WLL with limited mobility within the area of SDCA like Delhi, Kolkata etc. particularly in a case where the subscribers of cellular phone have not chosen to opt for the roaming facility.

54. Having regard to the assertions made by the appellants herein that 85% of its business is related to SDCA only and only 15% subscribers have roaming facility, TDSAT ought to have addressed itself on the issue as to whether one service is a substitute of the other or not.

55. TDSAT had also failed to give its findings on the following issues:

(1) That WLL with limited mobility with the existing service is a new service within the meaning of NTP, 1999.
(2) Whether it is within the policy or outside the policy amounting to a change in the policy.

57. TDSAT proceeded on the basis that the Central Government is entitled to change its own policy decision without taking into consideration the fact that according to the Central Government itself it was merely a "fine-tuning" of the policy and not a change of policy.

58. The jurisdiction of the Central Government to effect change in the policy decisions was also in question. If a national policy had been adopted by the Cabinet, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, although (sic) change in the policy would be permissible, but the procedure laid down therefore was required to be followed. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by TDSAT".

"61. Before TDSAT, the appellants argued that the decision of the Central Government was arbitrary. The said question was also not answered.
62. As regards the level playing field, TDSAT did not refer to a large number of materials at all. It took a wrong decision that the appellants had conceded the power of the Central Government in the matter of change of policy and further more agreed thereto in the event, its offers are satisfied.
63. We may notice that most of the findings recorded by TDSAT are not supported by any cogent reason. It arrived at some findings without referring to any material on records. As for example we may notice that it referred to a chart purported to have been handed over by Dr. Singhvi but the contents of the chart had not been disclosed. In any event, the materials on the basis whereof the chart was prepared had not been disclosed at all.