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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...