Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the DoT has not disclosed the complete Minutes of the Meeting dated 21.7.2023 which is being referred in further short affidavit filed by the respondent dated 24.4.2024.

16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Internet Service Providers Association of India & Ors. Vs. UOI reported in 2019 SCC OnLine TDSAT 1756.

17. It is submitted by Learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in view of this decision, TDSAT has set aside the demands issued by DoT on the ground of failure of DoT to consider the recommendations of TRAI and not followed the procedure set out in Section 11(1) of TRAI Act and hence, the impugned demands (Annexure P-1) as well as O.M. issued by the respondent (Annexure P-2) deserves to be quashed and set aside.

18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the decision in Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. UOI, (2003) SCC Online TDSAT 37, wherein this tribunal held that DoT cannot consign TRAI's recommendations to "a waste paper basket". DoT has done exactly that in issuing the Impugned Office Memorandum- by consigning TRAI's recommendations dated 17.08.2020 to a waste paper basket.

19. Similarly, Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India has also elucidated the principles of transparency and has held subordinate legislation can be struck down if transparent process is not followed. This decision is reported in Cellular Operators Association of India Vs. TRAI & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 703.

(xix) TRAI thereafter has to give its recommendations whether modified or by way of reiteration of the same recommendations. After receiving the second recommendation only, the Central Government can take its final decision. This final decision is binding and shall prevail upon recommendations of TRAI. This is an interpretation of law upon conjoint reading of First Proviso to Section 11(1) of TRAI Act, 1997 along-with the Fifth Proviso to Section 11(1) to be read with the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India reported in (2017) 4 SCC 269 particularly in Para 33 and decision given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India reported in (2015) 12 SCC 1 particularly in Para 68 to be read with the decision given by this Tribunal reported in (2019) SCC online TDSAT 1756 especially in Paras 67, 25 to 35 and 42 to be read with the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal reported in (2003) SCC online TDSAT 37 especially at Pg. No. 165 of the judgement compilation filed by the petitioner to be read with the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 703 especially Para 92. Thus, without following the procedure as laid down in Fifth Proviso to Section 11(1), O.M. has been issued and hence, Annexure P-2 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(ii) No reasons have been assigned by the Central Government for not agreeing with the recommendations by the Independent Statutory Body - TRAI.
(iii) The "Read and Rejected" approach followed by the Central Government for the Recommendations of TRAI runs contrary to the very basic principle of Pith & Substance of Section 11(1) of TRAI Act, 1997 to be read with the decisions rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, including (2017) 4SCC 269 particularly in Para 33 and is also in violation of judgment reported in 2019 SCC online TDSAT 1756 especially of Para 29 to 34 as well as in violation of judgment reported in (2003) 3SCC online TDSAT 37 as well as in violation of the decision reported in (2016) 7 SCC 703 especially in Para 92.