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 · 306 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in BP Nos. 766, 767 and 769 of 2020.
In BP No. 766 of 2020, a rejoinder has already been filed on behalf of petitioner but in the other two petitions, the same was not filed although the
issue whether respondent no. 2 should be deleted or not is scheduled to be considered today.
After hearing learned counsel for the concerned parties in respect of issue raised by respondent no. 2 in these three petitions that they are not
necessary or proper party, it appears that in similar facts and circumstances and after considering similar submissions, prayer of respondent no. 2 in
several identical petitions for deletion has been allowed. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon order dated 9.11.2021 passed in M.A. No. 76
of 2021 in BP No. 107 of 2021.
Considering that all the facts are similar, the issue raised by respondent no. 2 against their impleadment is allowed in their favour. Respondent no.
2 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents in BP Nos. 766, 767 and 769 of 2020. Amended memo of parties may be filed within three weeks.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, one week's further time is granted for filing affidavit of service in respect of M.As filed under section
20 of TRAI Act in BP Nos. 769, 773 and 774 of 2020, it appears that notice has been served in concerned M.As recently between 27th December
2021 and 10th January 2022.
Awaiting appearance of the concerned respondents for hearing of the M.As on the next date, post the matter under the same head on 25.2.2022.
In the last order, appearance of Mr. Sharath Sampath in BP No. 768 of 2020 has been wrongly recorded. Let the same be ignored. Â