Union of India v. Aircel Limited and Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 23, 2012 pk

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2012 + W.P.(C) 1077/2012 & CM 2366/2012 (Stay) . UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Mr. Ritesh, Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates versus AIRCEL LIMITED AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advs. with Mr.Gopal Jain, Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Advs. + W.P.(C) 1085/2012 & CM 2374/2012 (Stay) UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Mr. Ritesh, Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates Versus IDEA CELLULAR LTD ..... Respondent Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. S. Ganeshan, Sr. Advs. with Mr.Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr.Manjul Bajpai, Mr. Anees Patnaik, Ms. Hanshita Verma, Advocates + W.P.(C) 1086/2012 & CM 2376/2012 (Stay) UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Mr. Ritesh, Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates Versus VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr.C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advs. with Mr.Manjul Bajpai, Mr. Anees Patnaik, Ms. Hanshita Verma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) Caveat No. 190/2012 in WP(C) 1077/2012 Caveat No. 191/2012 in WP(C) 1085/2012 Caveat No. 192/2012 in WP(C) 1086/2012 Since the respondents/caveators have entered appearance, Caveats stand discharged. C.M. No. 2367/2012 in WP(C) 1077/2012 C.M. No. 2375/2012 in WP(C) 1085/2012 C.M. No. 2377/2012 in WP(C) 1086/2012 (all for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CMs stand disposed off. WP(C) Nos.1077/2012, 1085/2012 & 1086/2012 1. In these three writ petitions, the challenge is to the common orders dated 24.12.2011, 20.1.2012 and 17.2.2012 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in the proceedings, filed by respondent in each of these writ petitions, before the Tribunal. While orders dated 24.12.2011 and 17.2.2012 concern interim relief/stay granted by the Tribunal, vide order dated 20.1.2012, the Tribunal has decided the question pertaining to its jurisdiction to deal with the petitions filed by the respondents before the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matters. 2. For the purpose of present order, it may not be necessary to state in detail the controversy/dispute which is raised in those petitions before the Tribunal. It would serve our purpose to point out that the proceedings before the Tribunal have been filed impugning the order dated 23.12.2011 of the petitioner calling upon these respondents to stop immediately the provision of 3G services in service areas where the said respondents were providing these services under the intra service area roaming agreements. The respondents felt aggrieved with the aforesaid orders as according to them, it was permissible for them to enter into such agreements and provide these services thereunder. Challenging this order, the respondents filed their respective petitions before the Tribunal in which impugned common orders have been passed. 3. Along with the petitions before the Tribunal, the respondents had also filed applications seeking interim stay of the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2011. It appears that the said petitions were mentioned for immediate hearing and having regard to the urgency, were taken up for hearing on 24.12.2011. On 24.12.2011, as per the impugned order passed on that date, the matter was heard at great length. The Tribunal, while adjourning the matter to 3.1.2012, directed that till the next date, the petitioner herein is restrained from taking any coercive steps against the respondents herein to enforce the impugned order dated 23.12.2011. Some other portions of this order dated 24.12.2011 which are relevant wo