AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 234 wordsAdmit No notice need be issued because Mr. Dhruv Tamta,
Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent on advance
1.  Â
As prayed, eight week’s time is granted for filing reply. Time for rejoinder shall be considered on the next date.
The interim prayers have been pressed by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. He submits that since the licence was granted in
2008 for fifteen years’ period, the petitioner has been charged licence fee as per terms of that licence but recently on 31.3.2021, the impugned
guidelines (Annexure-1) have been notified which enable the respondent to unilaterally change the definition of AGR by including revenue from Pure
Internet Services also and the effect on the liability on account of licence fee on the petitioner is likely to be forty eight (48) times in excess of the
earlier liabilities which the petitioner has been paying. It has been submitted that this will affect the entire sector and such unilateral change is
without proper study of its impact.
Considering the relevant facts, it is found that petitioner has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also requires grant of interim
prayers till the matter can be decided on merits after the pleadings are complete.
The interim prayers (a) and (b) are granted until further orders.
Post the matter under the head “For Directions†on 2.8.2021.