Scribd
Upload
192 views2 pages

B.S.N.L Vs Telecom Regulatory Auth. of India Civil Appeal NO. 5253 OF 2010 Decided On 6, Dec 2013.

The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal regarding port charges prescribed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). [1] Port charges had previously been prescribed in 1999 regulations, but the Delhi High Court ruled those regulations could not override interconnection agreements. [2] The Telecommunications Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) then directed TRAI to review port charge regulations, but the High Court dismissed a related writ petition. [3] The Supreme Court held that while TDSAT does not have jurisdiction to review Section 36 regulations, high courts do have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the validity of such regulations.

Uploaded by

Law entrepreneur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
192 views2 pages

B.S.N.L Vs Telecom Regulatory Auth. of India Civil Appeal NO. 5253 OF 2010 Decided On 6, Dec 2013.

The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal regarding port charges prescribed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). [1] Port charges had previously been prescribed in 1999 regulations, but the Delhi High Court ruled those regulations could not override interconnection agreements. [2] The Telecommunications Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) then directed TRAI to review port charge regulations, but the High Court dismissed a related writ petition. [3] The Supreme Court held that while TDSAT does not have jurisdiction to review Section 36 regulations, high courts do have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the validity of such regulations.

Uploaded by

Law entrepreneur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Court No- 5

Bench: G.S. Singhvi, B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla

G.S. SINGHVI

Item no- 04

Civil Appeal No. 3298 of 2005

Case Title : B.S.N.L vs Telecom Regulatory Auth.Of India ... on 6 December,


2013

Case details: It is a civil appeal filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), Association of Unified Telecom
Service Providers of India (AUSPI), the Authority, M/s. Sistema Shyam
TeleServices Limited and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),
respectively, against order dated 28.5.2010 passed by TDSAT whereby the appeal
preferred by BSNL against the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges)
Amendment Regulation (1 of 2007) was allowed and the Authority was directed to
give fresh look at the regulations and BSNL was directed not to claim any amount
from any operator during the interregnum, i.e., from the date of coming into force
of the regulations and the date of the order.

However, the Hon’ble High Court dismisses the writ petition due to absence of
merit.

Facts: Port charges came to be prescribed in Schedule 3 of the Telecommunication


Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 1999, which came
into force on 28.5.1999. By virtue of Clause 8, the regulations were given
overriding effect qua the interconnection agreements. MTNL challenged the 1999
regulations before the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6543/1999,
which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated
17.1.2000 [MTNL v. TRAI, AIR 2000 (Delhi) 208] and it was held that the
Regulations framed under Section 36 of the Act could not be given overriding
effect.

Court Observed:- In the result, the question framed by the Court is answered in
the following terms:
In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the Act, TDSAT does
not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by the
Authority under Section 36 of the Act.

Held by Court: we hold that the contrary view taken by TDSAT and the Delhi
High Court does not represent correct law. At the same time, we make it clear that
the aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of the regulations
framed under Section 36 of the Act by filing appropriate petition before the High
Court.

You might also like