Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.73 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India Act, 1997
Section 4 in The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015
40. After appeals were dismissed, the appellants therein preferred
appeals under Section 18 of the TRAI Act. The grievance related to
seeking of an extension of the period of licence. The Court in Bharti
Airtel Limited v. Union of India8, relying on Union of India and
another v. Assn. of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
and others9, came to hold that it is a settled position of law that a
licence granted under Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act such as the
one granted to each of the licensees herein is a contract between the
licensor and the licensee. Thereafter, the Court posed the question,
whether there was any right of extension of licence granted in favour
of the licensee under the contract.
Union Of India vs Association Of Unified Telecom Service ... on 26 February, 2016
In Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of
India (supra), the Court has held that notwithstanding sub-section (1)
of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act vesting exclusive privilege in the
Central Government in respect of telecommunication activities and
notwithstanding the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the
Telegraph Act vesting in the Central Government the power to decide
on the conditions of licence including the payment to be paid by the
licensee for the licence, TRAI has been conferred with the statutory
power to make recommendations on the terms and conditions of the
licence to a service provider and the Central Government is bound to
seek the recommendations of TRAI on such terms and conditions at
different stages, but the recommendations of TRAI are not binding on
the Central Government and the final decision on the terms and
conditions of a licence to a service provider rests with the Central
Government. The legal consequence is that if there is a difference
between TRAI and the Central Government with regard to a particular
term or condition of a licence, as in the present case, the
recommendations of TRAI will not prevail and instead the decision of
the Central Government will be final and binding. The Court has
54
further laid down that TRAI, being an expert body, discharges
recommendatory functions under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 11 of the TRAI Act and discharges regulatory and other
functions under clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11
of the TRAI Act and it being an expert body, the recommendations of
TRAI under clause (a) of sub-section (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.
The Court has further ruled that the regulatory and other functions
under clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the
TRAI Act have to be performed independent of the Central Government
and are binding on the licensee subject only to an appeal in
accordance with the provisions of the TRAI Act. Thus, the
interpretation made in the said case makes it clear that the
recommendations given by TRAI are not binding but deserve to be
given due weightage. Certain areas have been separated regard being
had to the nature of the language employed in the TRAI Act where the
authority can act independent of the Central Government. We are
only concerned with the part that pertains to recommendation. In the
case at hand, the Central Government had sought the
recommendation and then referred it back. Ultimately, it formulated
the policy for auction of the spectrum. Therefore, the criticism that is
55
advanced that once there is a reference back, the Central Government
should have been guided by the recommendations has no justification
inasmuch as the Central Government has the ultimate authority to
take a decision. Of course, such a decision, especially a decision
relating to frame a policy for NIA has to be in accord with the norms of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and
others10, it has been held that the award of a contract, whether it is by
private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction and prudent principle of commerce do weigh
while making a commercial decision.
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
In Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and
others15, this Court, applying the principles enunciated in Tata
Cellular (supra) and Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra), held
that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial
15 (2004) 4 SCC 19
59
scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract; that the
Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender;
that it must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere
and the courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision
only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias and
the courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by
the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender
would have been fair, wiser or logical. The courts can interfere only if
the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 2002
In Cellular Operators Association of India & Others v. Union
of India & Others12, this Court, after referring to Tata Iron & Steel
Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and another13, held that where legal
issues are intertwined with those involving determination of policy and
a plethora of technical issues, courts of law have to be very wary and
must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not
transgress into the realm of policy-making, unless the policy is
inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. It has been further
ruled that on matters affecting policy and those that require technical
expertise, the court should show deference to, and follow the
recommendations of the Committee which is more qualified to address
the issues.
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 23 July, 1996
In Cellular Operators Association of India & Others v. Union
of India & Others12, this Court, after referring to Tata Iron & Steel
Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and another13, held that where legal
issues are intertwined with those involving determination of policy and
a plethora of technical issues, courts of law have to be very wary and
must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not
transgress into the realm of policy-making, unless the policy is
inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. It has been further
ruled that on matters affecting policy and those that require technical
expertise, the court should show deference to, and follow the
recommendations of the Committee which is more qualified to address
the issues.