Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Disconnection of POIs is not desirable in view of the inconvenience caused to the subscribers of the networks of both the interconnecting operators. The dispute between two operators in the matter should be resolved through mutual agreement. In case of failure in arriving at mutual agreement, the operator who wishes to disconnect the POIs should give a notice for disconnection of POI with a suitable time period (not less than ten days) and a copy of the same should be given to TRAI. In case TRAI does not intervene within the stipulated time period specified in the show cause notice for disconnection of POI, the operator concerned can go ahead with the disconnection of the POI. Alternatively, the interconnecting operator may approach TRAI with full information about the dispute for determination in the matter.

12. Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned counsel for the TRAI submitted that TRAI has no intention to usurp the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and that it was solely guided in issuing the impugned communication by the interest of the consumers if there is sudden disruption of interconnection. We need not reassure him that the Appellate Tribunal is concerned as well. It is the case of TRAI that disconnection is corollary of a dispute and if a dispute arises, one or the other party must approach either TRAI or Appellate Tribunal and not resort to unilateral disconnection as a means of settling such dispute. According to TRAI the word 'dispute' cannot be given meaning which it does not connote in view of the circumstances in which it has been used and that mere use of a word 'any dispute' cannot have general application and it has to be read in the context in which it has been used. Then Mr. Malhotra submits that the impugned direction nowhere bars any service provider from approaching the Appellate Tribunal. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning by TRAI. To support its impugned direction, it is stated that TRAI draws its powers from the provisions as contained in sub clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 which are as under:

"Suffice it to say, chapter IV containing Section 14 was inserted by amendment of the year 2002 and the very Statement of Objects and Reasons would indicate that to increase the investors' confidence and to create a level playing field between the public and the private operators, suitable amendment in the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was brought about and under the amendment, a tribunal was constituted called the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes between a licensor and a licensee, between two or more service providers, between a service provider and a group of consumers and also to hear and dispose of appeal against any direction, decision or order of the Authority. The aforesaid provision was absolutely essential as the organizations of the licensor namely MTNL and the BSNL were laso service providers. That being the object for which an independent tribunal was constituted, the power of that tribunal has to be adjudged from the language conferring that power and it would not be appropriate to restrict the same on the ground that the decision which is the subject matter of challenge before the tribunal was that of an expert body. It is no doubt true, to which we will advert later, that the composition of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India as well as the constitution of GOT-IT in April,2001 consists of large number of eminent impartial experts and it is on their advice, the Prime Minister finally took the decision, but that would not in any way restrict the power of the appellate tribunal under Section 14, even though in the matter of appreciation though the tribunal would give due weight to such expert advice and recommendations. Having regard to the very purpose and object for which the appellate tribunal was constituted and having examined the different provisions contained in Chapter IV, more particularly the provision dealing with ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court in relation to any matter which the appellate tribunal is empowered by or under the Act, as contained in Section 15, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the power of Appellate Tribunal is quite wide, as has been indicated in the statute itself and the decisions of this Court dealing with the power of a Court, exercising appellate power or original power, will have no application for limiting the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal under the Act. Since the tribunal is the original authority to adjudicate any dispute between a licensor and a licensee or between two or more service providers or between a service provider and a group of consumers and since the tribunal has to hear and dispose of appeals against the directions, decisions or order of the TRAI, it is difficult for us to import the self-contained restrictions and limitations of a Court under the Judge made law to which reference has already been made and reliance was placed by the learned Attorney General. By saying so, we may not be understood to mean that the appellate tribunal while exercising power under Section 14 of the Act, will not give due weight to the recommendations or the decisions of the expert body like TRAI or in the case in hand GOT-IT, which was specifically constituted by the Prime Minister for redressing the grievances of the cellular operators. We would, therefore, answer the question of jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal by holding that the said tribunal has the power to adjudicate any dispute between the persons enumerated in clause (a) of Section 14 and if the dispute is in relation to a decision taken by the government, as in the case in hand, due weight has to be attached both to the recommendations of the TRAI which consists of an expert body as well as to the recommendations of the GOT-IT, a committee of eminent experts from different fields of life which had been constituted by the Prime Minister."

19. Presently there is no dispute that terms and conditions of interconnection between the service providers can be superimposed by TRAI in the exercise of its powers under the Act and that is not the issue before us. Under the impugned direction when the operator who wishes to disconnect POIs (Points of Interconnections), has to give notice to TRAI. So far so good. Difficulty arises when direction says (i) in case TRAI does not intervene within the stipulated period specified in the show cause notice for disconnection of POI the operator concerned can go ahead with disconnection of POI and (ii) alternatively the interconnecting operator may approach TRAI with full information about the dispute for determination in the matter. There can be many reasons when an operator wants to resort to disconnection of POI. If the interconnecting operator feels the reasons are outside the terms and conditions of the interconnect agreement or in breach thereof he can approach Appellate Tribunal seeking appropriate relief. Prima facie if Appellate Tribunal finds that the action of the operator seeking to disconnect POI is not valid it can by ad interim ex parte order stay the notice and thereafter hear the parties and decide the dispute. For that the Appellate Tribunal has to consider the terms and conditions of the interconnection agreement under which BSNL, service provider, can resort to disconnection. These terms and conditions are subject to license/interconnect conditions/regulation/directions issued by TRAI and the orders issued by the licensor from time to time and in terms of the license and the interconnection agreements between the parties. There could not be more quicker, effective and speedy remedy for interconnecting operator for decision of the dispute and to safeguard the rights of the consumers as well. This is so, as rightly pointed out by TRAI that :