Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1312 - SC - Indian LawsVoice telephony - Allegation of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid amount at which the license for voice telephony is granted to Respondent No. 2 is a pittance inasmuch as in normal course grant of this license would have fetched a whopping sum of ₹ 25000 crores approximately. This insinuation is based upon a draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) which report estimated the aforesaid license fee/entry fee. It is also alleged that Respondent No. 1, while allowing voice telephony to Respondent No. 2, has not revised the Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) matching with the charges which are paid by other operators who bought voice telephony. Held that: - it follows that a policy decision was taken by the Government not only with regard to introduction of Unified Licensing regime but it also including allowing migration to UL from UASL as well as ISP to UL regime. This meant that those having UAS license which permitted data services only were allowed to migrate to Unified License enabling them to provide both data service as well as voice telephony. This was a pure policy decision after due deliberations by the experts in the fields and even TRAI had recommended allowing such migration - Such a policy decision, when not found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations or mala fide or against any statutory provisions, does not call for any interference by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. Such a policy decision, when not found to be arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations or mala fide or against any statutory provisions, does not call for any interference by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. There is one more reason not to interfere with the aforesaid stipulation of SUC. The Government has taken the position that the conditions in the license granted to Respondent No. 2 empower the licenser/Government to change the terms of license and, therefore, whenever it is felt necessary and expedient in public interest, the percentage of SUC can be increased. Petition dismissed.
|