Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 280 (SC)

Centre for P. I. L. v. Union of India

2013-03-11

G.S.SINGHVI, K.S.P.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 9 of 2012 in WP(C) No. 423 of 2010 1. This application has been filed by Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. with the following substantive prayer: Pass an order allowing the Applicant to continue providing telecom services for a reasonable time period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit post the last date that may be allowed by the Hon'ble Court to the GoI for completion of the auction process as mentioned in GoI's present application, if the Hon'ble Court agrees to grant the extension as prayed for by the GoI in order for the Applicant to operate under these UAS Licenses until such extended period as prayed for by the Applicant in this application. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that in view of the developments which have taken place today, the application has become infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such, Ordered accordingly. I.A. No. 15 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010. 2. This application has been filed by Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. with the following substantive prayer: Pass an order allowing the Applicant to continue providing telecom services in the Mumbai Circle for a reasonable time period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit post the last date that may be allowed by the Hon'ble Court to the GoI for completion of the re-auction process for the Mumbai Circle as mentioned in GoI's present application, if the Hon'ble Court agrees to grant the extension as prayed for by the GoI in order for the Applicant to operate under these UAS Licenses until such extended period as prayed for by the Applicant in this application. 3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that in view of the developments which have taken place today, the application has become infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. I.A. No. 10 of 2012 and I.A. No. 14 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010 4. Heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant - Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited and Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India. 5. Shri Rao gave out that in the auction conducted today, the applicant was the only bidder for 800 MHz. band for eight service areas. 6. Heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant - Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited and Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India. 5. Shri Rao gave out that in the auction conducted today, the applicant was the only bidder for 800 MHz. band for eight service areas. 6. In view of the above, the applicant shall be entitled to continue to operate its services in the eight service areas for which bid has been given by it. 7. The applications are disposed of in the manner indicated above. I.A. No. 12 of 2012 In I.A. No. 11 of 2012 in WP(C) No. 423 of 2010 8. The application is allowed and delay in the filing of an affidavit in I.A. No. 11 of 2012 is condoned. I.A. No. 13 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010 9. This is an application by Vodafone Spacetel Limited for grant of permission to approach the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal or other appropriate forum for enforcement of its rights with respect to the issue of technology neutrality/liberalisation of its existing spectrum holding and for adjudication of the said dispute. 10. In this regard, it is sufficient to say that the applicant is not required to obtain permission from this Court for the purpose of approaching appropriate judicial or quasi judicial forum. 11. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. I.A. No. 16 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010 12. Issue notice to the non-applicants. 13. Learned counsel assisting Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the Union of India, accepts notice. 14. Reply to the application be filed within two weeks. I.A. No. 17 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 423 of 2010 15. This application has been filed by the Union of India for clarification of order dated 27.08.2012. The averments contained in the application shows that the applicant has approached this Court because the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on its behalf before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 617 of 2013 and CM No. 1167 of 2013 had made a statement to this effect on 08.02.2013. 16. We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. In our view, orders dated 02.02.2012, 24.04.2012 and 27.08.2012 passed by this Court are self-speaking and do not require any clarification. 17. 16. We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. In our view, orders dated 02.02.2012, 24.04.2012 and 27.08.2012 passed by this Court are self-speaking and do not require any clarification. 17. The application is accordingly disposed of. I.A. No. 18 of 2013 in WP(C) No. 423 of 2010 18. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior, counsel for the applicant - Idea Cellular Limited states that he has been instructed to withdraw the application. 19. In view of the statement made by Dr. Singhvi, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. W.P. (C) No. 408 of 2012 20. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have made the following substantive prayers: (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside and quash the Press Release dated 15.02.12 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and to direct the Respondent No. 1 to correct its records which wrongly refers to only 122 licenses as being cancelled by the Judgment dated 02.02.2012; (b) direct the Respondent No. 1 to take back 19 spectrum allocations, totalling 83.6 spectrum in 1800 MHz band given to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which stands quashed by the Judgment dated 02.02.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court. 21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in view of the directions contained in detailed order dated 15.02.2013 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 11 of 2012, no further order is required to be passed in this petition and the same is disposed of as such. W.P.(C) No. 415 of 2012 22. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have made the following substantive prayers: a) issue a writ, order or direction to set aside and quash Clause 4 of the impugned Guidelines dated 03.07.2012 issued by the Respondent; b) issue a writ, order or direction/s in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent to put the entire freed up/quashed spectrum of 514.8 MHz in the 1800 MHz band to auction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in view of the directions contained in detailed order dated 15.02.2013 passed in I.A. No. 11 of 2012, no further order is required to be passed in this petition, which is disposed of as such.