Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With TRAI's Recommendation For Rs 1050 Crore Penalty On Vodafone, Says TDSAT Can Decide Issue On Merits

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) recommendation to impose a penalty of Rs. 1050 crores on Vodafone for failing to provide interconnectivity services to Reliance Jio Infocom Limited under an Interconnection Agreement executed between them.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that both the Central Government’s order dated 29.09.2021, imposing penalty of Rs. 950 Crores on Vodafone Idea, and TRAI’s recommendation dated 21.10.2016, are under challenge before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). Further, the TDSAT had already stayed the order passed by Central Government, the court noted.

Observing that the TDSAT has been empowered to deal with all disputes arising under the TRAI Act, the court observed that once the Tribunal gives the conclusion that the order dated 29.09.2021 of the Central Government is not sustainable in law, then automatically the recommendation dated 21.10.2016 would be set aside.

"In view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Tribunals which are expert bodies and constituted under the statute to decide the disputes arising under that statute, then Courts must not interfere with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," said the court. 

In its recommendation dated 21.10.2016, TRAI had recommended imposing penalty of Rs. 50 crores per circle for 21 Licensed Service Areas (LSA) on Vodafone, on the ground that the latter had failed to meet the benchmark of 0.5% for point of interconnection (POIs) congestion, as prescribed in the Quality of Service Regulations, 2009 (QOS regulations), while providing interconnectivity services to Reliance Jio.

Subsequently, the Central Government, in its order dated 29.09.2021, imposed penalty of Rs 950 Crores on M/s Vodafone Idea, for the 19 Licensed Service Areas (LSA) it operated in, for violating the provisions of the license agreements and the ‘Standards Of Quality Of Service Of Basic Telephone Service (Wireline) And Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Regulations, 2009’.

Referring to the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act, the court observed that the same specifically provides that recommendations of the authorities specified under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act are not binding on the Central Government. Further recommendations are first considered by the Government and only when the Government comes to a prima facie conclusion that the recommendation cannot be accepted or needs modification, the recommendation is referred back to the authority for its reconsideration, the court said.

“The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is a self-contained code which is intended to deal with all disputes arising out of the telecom services. It is well settled that when a tribunal is constituted under the Act and is looking into the issues under that Act, the Courts should not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” it added.

The court agreed that any observations by it in the instant writ petitions will have an adverse impact on the Telecom Petitions which have been filed before the TDSAT

“In view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Tribunals which are expert bodies and constituted under the statute to decide the disputes arising under that statute, then Courts must not interfere with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” it said.

Case Title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. & Anr vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 447

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manjul Bajpai, Mr. Manu Krishnan, Mr. Vipul Singh, Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. K R Sasiprabhu, Mr.Aabhas Kshetrapal, Mr. Aditya Swarup, Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Manan Shishodia, Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Advocates Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar, Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates for UOI

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment