Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. In contrast to this recommendatory nature of the functions of TRAI under clause (a) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act, the functions of TRAI under clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act are not recommendatory. This will be clear from the very language of clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act which states that TRAI shall discharge the functions enumerated under sub­clauses (i), (ii) and (ix) under clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Under clause (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act, TRAI performs the function of levying fees and other charges in respect of different services and under clause
20
45. The scheme of the TRAI Act therefore is that TRAI being an expert body discharges recommendatory functions under clause (a) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act and discharges regulatory and other functions under clauses (b),
(c) and (d) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act. TRAI being an expert body, the recommendations of TRAI under clause (a) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act have to be given due weightage by the Central Government, but the recommendations of TRAI are not binding on the Central Government. On the other hand, the regulatory and other functions under clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub­section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act have to be performed independent of the Central Government and are binding on the licensee subject to only appeal in accordance with the provisions of the TRAI Act.

The word “means” in Sections 2(e) and 2(ea) of the TRAI Act indicates that the definitions of licensee and licensor in Sections 2(e) and 2(ea) of the TRAI Act are exhaustive and therefore would not have any other meaning. As Justice G.P. Singh puts it in his book Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edn., at pp. 179­80:

“… When a word is defined to ‘mean’ such and such, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive;”
47. A dispute between a licensor and a licensee referred to in Section 14(a)(i) of the TRAI Act, therefore, is a dispute after a person has been granted a licence by the Central Government or the Telegraph Authority under sub­section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act and has become a licensee and not a dispute before a person becomes a licensee under the proviso to sub­section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act. In other words, the Tribunal can adjudicate the dispute between a licensor and a licensee only after a person had entered into a licence agreement and become a licensee and the word “any” in Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act cannot widen the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide a dispute between a licensor and a person who had not become a licensee. The result is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the terms and conditions incorporated in the licence of a service provider, but it will have the jurisdiction to decide “any” dispute between the licensor and the licensee on the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the licence.
50. Regarding the recommendations of TRAI under Section 11(1)(a)(i) of the TRAI Act, we find that the Tribunal in its order dated 7­7­2006 has held that the opinion of the renowned expert on Accountancy that any other definition of adjusted gross revenue would lead to reduction of licence fee liability by way of accounting jugglery was not placed before TRAI and as a result there was no proper and effective consultation with TRAI and the weightage that was due to the recommendations of TRAI was not given effect to. In our considered opinion, if the Tribunal found that there was no effective consultation with TRAI on the opinion of the expert on accountancy, the Tribunal could have at best, if it had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, directed TRAI to consider the opinion of the expert on accountancy and send its recommendations to the Central Government and directed the Central Government to consider such fresh recommendations of TRAI as provided in the provisos to Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act. Instead, the Tribunal has considered the recommendations of TRAI and passed the impugned fresh order dated 30­8­2007 contrary to the very provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the TRAI Act and the provisos thereto. At any rate, as the Central Government has already considered the fresh recommendations of TRAI and has not accepted the same and is not agreeable to alter the definition of adjusted gross revenue, the decision of the Central Government on the point was final under the first proviso and the fifth proviso to Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act, 1997.