CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India

Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 1 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 TDSAT CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Chairperson · Subodh Kumar Gupta, Member
CASE NUMBER
Telecom Petition No. 19 Of 2024 With Misc Application No. 160 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

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

8 paragraphs · 395 words
1.

Looking to the contentious issues raised in this Telecom Petition, the same is Admitted.

2.

Notice upon respondent to be served by dasti service as well as by email.

3.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Tribunal to paragraph 1 which is having a table known as Table A and demand raised by the respondent for various circles for different Financial Years starting from 2010-11 to Financial Year 2022-23 for the “Spectrum Usage Charges”.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Tribunal to UASL Agreement which is also known as Licence Agreement 2004 Clause 18.3.1 which is incorporated in paragraph 7 in the memo of this petition and it is submitted that in the present case there is no allocation of spectrum for lease lines used by this petitioner for wireline subscribers and hence there is no usage of spectrum whatsoever arises and, therefore, Spectrum Usage Charges are not leviable.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Tribunal to Annexure II to at page no.906 of the memo of the petition and it is submitted that the revenue collected by this petitioner has been mentioned in the format of Statement of Revenue and Licence Fee in column no.1(A). Merely because the word ‘bandwidth’ has been mentioned even for usage of wireline that does not mean that spectrum has been used by this petitioner for the wireline subscribers.  This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated while issuing the impugned notices.

6.

In view of the aforesaid facts, that neither the spectrum has been allotted nor it has been used for wirelines subscribers and also looking to Clause 18.3.1 of the Licence Agreement to be read with page no.906 of the memo of this petition specially column 1(A), there is a prima facie case in favour of this petition and balance of convenience is also in favour of this petitioner and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, the same will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.

7.

We, therefore, direct the respondent not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned demand notices which are enumerated in paragraph 1 of the memo of this petition which are annexed as Annexure P-1 (Colly) till next date of hearing.

8.

List the matter under the heading “For Directions” on 30.07.2024.