Skip to main content

Supreme Court: Different tariff over making calls to another service provided arbitrary

Differential tariffs over subscribers making calls from one private provider to other private service provider and from private network to BSNL/MTNL held arbitrary

Supreme Court: While deciding that whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal was right in terming the action of the private telecom service providers (forming the appellant association) for levying differential tariffs for calls made from their network to the BSNL/MTNL networks compared to the calls made from one private telecom service provider to the other, as discriminatory, the Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and stated that such classification of subscribers into two categories on the basis of calls made by them from private network to another private network and from private network to BSNL/MTNL network is arbitrary and fails to satisfy the test for reasonable classification laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

In the instant case, the appellant raised questions at the directive issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) wherein they were directed to discontinue differential tariffs levied in the  States of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh for calls to the network of BSNL and MTNL as compared to calls terminating in the network of other private operators as it was discriminatory and inconsistent with the amended licence condition notified by the Department of Telecommunication. The counsel for the appellant Navin Chawla contended that prescribing differential tariffs does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as the similarity of the class has to be decided on basis of similarity of the features of its constituents and the costs involved in the nature of the calls are different. Mohit Paul on behalf of the respondent argued that private GSM providers were duty bound to arrange leased lines to establish direct connection to the BSNL/MTNL networks as they had done amongst each other.

The Court on perusing the arguments and the factual situation, observed that TRAI in its Telecommunication Tariff Order, 1999 which is subject to periodical amendments, had inserted a ‘non-discrimination clause’ prohibiting the service providers to discriminate between the subscribers in matter of application of tariffs, but the issue was  whether the clause is applicable to the  subscribers making call to another private network from a private network as compared to the class making call from a private network to BSNL/MTNL network, to which the Court answered in positive and upheld the decision of the Tribunal terming the classification of subscribers on the ground that the call ends with the private parties and another on the ground that the call ends with BSNL/MTNL as arbitrary and discriminatory. [Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 82, decided on 30.01.2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/02/02/differential-tariffs-over-subscribers-making-calls-from-one-private-provider-to-other-private-service-provider-and-private-to-bsnl-mtnl-held-arbitrary.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.