Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. It will thus be seen that though the regulation-making power under the said Act is wide and pervasive, and is not trammelled by the provisions of Sections 11, 12(4) and 13, it is a power that is non-delegable and, therefore, legislative in nature. The exercise of this power is hedged in with the condition that it must be exercised consistently with the Act and the Rules thereunder in order to carry out the purposes of the Act. Since the regulation-making power has first to be consistent with the Act, it is necessary that it not be inconsistent with Section 11 of the Act, and in particular Section 11(1)(b) thereof. This is for the reason that the functions of the Authority are laid down by this section, and that the impugned Regulation itself refers to Sections 11(1)(b)(i) and (v) as the source of power under which the impugned Regulation has been framed. 5(as) With regard to Call drop case, it is the specific submission of TRAI that it does not apply to the instant case and that the appellants cannot press into service the same as it is completely and clearly distinguishable on facts. According to TRAI, call drop case is a matter where there was admission on facts that 36.9% of call drops are attributable to the customers.

5(bm) With this, we move on to legal proposition No.4. This legal proposition as propounded and advanced before us is to the effect that the impugned Regulations are inconsistent with Section 36 and Section 11(1) of TRAI Act. With regard to Section 36 of TRAI Act, we have already dealt with the same in detail while dealing with legal proposition Nos.1 and 2 supra. With regard to Section 11 of TRAI Act, it deals with functions of TRAI. It is the specific submission of TATAs and Bharti that the impugned Regulations are not in conformity with Regulation making powers and the impugned Regulations do not fit into any of the functions of TRAI enlisted and adumbrated in Section 11 of TRAI Act. Though Section 11 only deals with functions of TRAI, it is Section 36 that deals with Regulation making powers of TRAI. We are applying the principle to test whether a particular subordinate legislation is ultra vires/intra vires qua parent Act, which was laid down by the Supreme Court in the celebrated P.Krishnamuirthys case (State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs P. Krishnamurthy & Ors) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 517. The principle is, if a subordinate legislation does not fit into any one of the specific sub-sections, it can be traced to sub-section (1) which generally is to the effect that all that is necessary to further the objectives and purposes of the Statue (in this case TRAI Act), can be done.

(x)Avishek Goenka case was cited by TRAI. Petitioner in this case filed a petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India before Hon'ble Supreme Court, contending that norms of issuing calling cards was violated by service providers and as there is no verification method for the same, Supreme Court partly allowed the petition and constituted a committee to look into the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government of India and TRAI have to attain a delicate balance of interest between relevant instruction and guidelines. The purpose of TRAI is to develop, facilitate competition and promote efficiency in Telecom sector. Supreme Court further held that the regulatory regime is expected to fully regulate and control all activities in this sphere. Finally, Supreme Court held that Courts should not examine merits of the policy and that is best left to experts. However, the Court can direct the body to consider the matter by law.

(xi)Star Vs. TRAI case cited by TRAI arose from Delhi High Court, wherein the petitioner challenged proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act, tariff orders dated 15.01.2004, 01.10.2004, 01.12.2004 and 29.11.2005 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting in Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004, as TRAI is not competent and the tariff order is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench held that TRAI has authority and competence of tariff fixation with respect to broadcaster. It also held that TRAI has clearly demarcated functions first advisory and second regulatory. Enlarging will not include terms of interconnectivity between service providers.