Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. The important questions which arise for consideration in these petitions, one of which has been filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a registered Society formed by Shri V.M. Tarkunde (former Judge of the Bombay High Court) for taking up causes of public interest and conducting public interest litigation in an organised manner, Lok Satta, a registered Society dedicated to political governance, reforms and fight against corruption, Telecom Watchdog and Common Cause, both Non-Governmental Organisations registered as Societies for taking up issues of public importance and national interest, Sarva Shri J.M. Lingdoh, T.S. Krishnamurthi and N. Gopalasamy, all former Chief Election Commissioners, P. Shanker, former Central Vigilance Commissioner, Julio F. Ribero, former member of the Indian Police Service, who served as Director General of Police, Gujarat, Punjab and C.R.P.F. and Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, P.G. Thakurta, an eminent Senior Journalist and visiting faculty member of various institutions including IIMs, IIT, FTII, IIFT, Delhi University, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Milia Islamia University and Admiral R.H. Tahiliyani, former Chief of Naval Staff, former Governor and former Chairman of Transparency International India and the other has been filed by Dr. Subramanian Swami, a political and social activist, are:

ARGUMENTS

51. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 423 of 2010 and Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who is petitioner- in-person in Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2011 made the following submissions:

(i) The spectrum, which is a national asset, cannot be distributed by adopting the policy of first-come-first-served on the basis of the application received by the DoT without any advertisement and without holding auction.

(ix) Both, Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr. Subramanian Swamy pointed out that although the Prime Minister had suggested that a fair and transparent method be adopted for grant of UAS Licences through the process of auction, the Minister of C&IT casually and arbitrarily brushed aside the suggestion and granted licence to the applicants for extraneous reasons.

(x) Shri Prashant Bhushan also questioned the grant of the benefit of the policy of dual technology to Tata Teleservices Ltd. by contending that this was a result of manipulation made by the service provider. Dr. Subramanian Swamy also raised a concern regarding the national security and pointed out that some of the applicants who have trans-border connections have received licences and they may ultimately prove to be dangerous for the nation.

60. Learned counsel for both the sides relied upon a large number of decisions. Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr. Subramanian Swamy relied upon the following judgements: K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512, Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn. (2000) 5 SCC 287, Home Communication Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 52 (1993) DLT 168, Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214, Chaitanya Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1986) 2 SCC 594, Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558, Common Cause, A Registered Society (Petrol pumps matter) v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 530 and Nagar Nigam v. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 382. Learned Attorney General and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents relied upon Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 405, BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333, Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 561, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation v. Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. (1985) 3 SCC 594, United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.S. Vishwanathan (1985) 3 SCC 686, State of T.N. v. M.N. Sundararajan (1980) 4 SCC 592, Sunil Pannalal Banthia v. City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC 674, Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006) 3 SCC 434, Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 48 and Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC