Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5059 OF 2007

Union of India & Anr. …

Appellants

Versus

Association of Unified Telecom Service

Providers of India & Ors. …

Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.179-180 OF 2008, 363 of 2008,

1229- 1230 of 2008, 2065 of 2008, 2479 of 2008, 1552

of 2009, 3868 of 2009, 7049 of 2010, 7062 of 2010,

7063-7064 of 2010, 7443 of 2010, 7446 of 2010, 7126

of 2010, 7444 of 2010, 7445 of 2010, 9646-9661 of

2010, 2030 of 2011, 2031 of 2011, 2270 of 2011, 3245

of 2011, 5450-5451 of 2011, 311-314 & 317-318 of

2008, CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8627-8628 OF 2011 (Arising

out of SLP (C) Nos. 1786-1787 of 2009) AND CIVIL

APPEAL Nos. 8625-8626 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C)

Nos. 6641-6642 of 2010)

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5059 of 2007, 179-180 of 2008,

311-314, 317-318 of 2008, 363 of 2008, 2065 of

2008, 1229-1230 of 2008 and 3868 of 2009:

These are appeals under Section 18 of the Telecom

Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short “the

TRAI Act”) against the common judgment and order

dated 30.08.2007 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement

and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the

Tribunal”) in Petition No. 7 of 2003.

2.The relevant facts very briefly are that with the

introduction of the National Telecom Policy, 1994

liberalizing the Telecom Sector, telecom licenses were

issued to different service providers. The licenses

granted to the service providers stipulated a fixed license

fee, which was payable by the service providers every

year. During the period 1994 to 1999, the licensees

defaulted in payment of license fee and made a

representation to the Government of India, Ministry of

Telecommunications for relief against the high license

fee for the survival of the telecom industry. The

Government of India considered the representations and

after a number of deliberations with the licensees offered

a new package, known as the “National Telecom Policy

2

1999 - Regime” giving an option to the licensees to

migrate from fixed license fee to revenue sharing fee.

Accordingly, letters dated 22.07.1999 were sent to

different licensees offering them a change over to NTP-99

regime, which inter alia stated:

“(i)The cut off date for change over to NTP-99 regime

will be 01.08.1999.

(ii)The licensee will be required to pay one time Entry

Fee and License Fee as a percentage share of gross

revenue under the license. The Entry Fee chargeable

will be the license fee dues payable by existing licensees

upto 31.07.1999, calculated upto this date duly adjusted

consequent upon notional extension of effective date as

in para (ix) below, as per the conditions of existing

license.

(iii)The license fee as percentage of gross revenue under

the license shall be payable w.e.f. 01.08.1999. The

Government will take a final decision about the quantum

of the revenue share to be charged as license fee after

obtaining recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory

Authority of India (TRAI). In the meanwhile, Government

have decided to fix 15% of the gross revenue of the

Licensee as provisional license fee. The gross revenue

for this purpose would be the total revenue of the

licensee company excluding the PSTN related call

charges paid to DOT/MTNL and service tax collected by

the licensee on behalf of the Government from their

subscribers. On receipt of TRAI’s recommendation and

Government’s final decision, final adjustment of

provisional dues will be effected depending upon the

percentage of revenue share and the definition of

revenue for this purpose as may be finally decided.”

3

3.After receipt of the letter dated 22.07.1999, some of

the service providers applied and took new licenses

which provided that the licensee will have to pay a

certain percentage of the Gross Revenue as license fee

annually. After the Government of India, Ministry of

Telecommunications finally took the final decision on the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue, the license

agreement was amended and signed by the licensees and

the amended license agreement was effective from

01.08.1999. Clause 19 of the amended license

agreement, which defines Adjusted Gross Revenue, is

extracted hereinbelow:

“19. Definition of ‘Adjusted Gross Revenue’:

19.1Gross Revenue:

The Gross Revenue shall be inclusive of installation

charges, late fees, sale proceeds of handsets [or any

other terminal equipment etc.’, revenue on account of

interest, dividend, value added services, supplementary

services, access or interconnection charges, roaming

charges, revenue from permissible sharing of

infrastructure and any other miscellaneous revenue,

without any setoff for related item of expense, etc.

19.2 For the purpose of arriving at the ‘Adjusted

Gross Revenue [AGR]’ the following shall be excluded

from the Gross Revenue to arrive at the AGR:

I.PSTN related call charges [Access

Charges] actually paid to other eligible/

4

entitled telecommunication service

providers within India;

II.Roaming revenues actually passed on to

other eligible/ entitled

telecommunication service providers

and;

III.Service Tax on provision of service and

Sales Tax actually paid to the

Government if gross revenue had

included as component of Sales Tax and

Service Tax.”

4.In the year 2003, some of the licensees questioned

the validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue

in the license agreement before the Tribunal and

contended that Adjusted Gross Revenue can only relate

to the revenue directly arising out of telecom operations

licensed under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act,

1885 (for short “the Telegraph Act”) after adjustment of

expenses and write offs and revenues directly not

attributable to the licensed telecom activities. They also

contended that miscellaneous and other items including

interest income, and dividend income, value of rebates,

discounts, free calls and reimbursement from USO fund

etc. ought not to be included in the Adjusted Gross

Revenue for the purpose of computation of license fee.

5

The Union of India filed its reply before the Tribunal

contending that the licensees having unconditionally

accepted the migration package and having taken the

benefit of the same are bound by the terms and

conditions of the license agreement and cannot be

permitted to resile from the same. In its order dated

07.07.2006, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the

Union of India and held that under Section 4 of the

Telegraph Act, the Central Government can take

percentage of the share of gross revenue of a licensee

realised from activities of the licensee under the license

and therefore revenue received by a licensee from

activities beyond licensed activities would be outside the

purview of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act. The Tribunal

further held that Section 11 (1) (a) of the TRAI Act

mandates the Central Government to seek

recommendations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority

(for short ‘the TRAI’) on the license fee payable by the

licensee and as no effective constitution had been made

by the TRAI, the matter should be remanded to the TRAI

and the TRAI can consider the matter and send its

6

recommendations to the Tribunal. The Tribunal however

made it clear that the TRAI will bear in mind the findings

of the Tribunal that revenue of the licensee derived from

non-license activities will not be included in the Adjusted

Gross Revenue for the purpose of determining the

license fee payable by the licensee.

5.The Union of India, challenged the order dated

07.07.2006 of the Tribunal before this Court in Civil

Appeal No. 84 of 2007 under Section 18 of the TRAI Act.

While this Civil Appeal was pending before this Court,

the TRAI sent its recommendations on the incorporation

of the Adjusted Gross Revenue which had been sought

by the Tribunal by its order dated 07.07.2006.

Accordingly, when Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2007 came up

for hearing before this Court on 19.01.2007, this Court

took the view that as the TRAI had already submitted its

recommendations to the Tribunal, there was no reason

to interfere and dismissed the appeal giving liberty to the

Union of India to urge all the contentions raised in the

Civil Appeal before the Tribunal.

7

6.When the Tribunal heard the parties on the

recommendations of the TRAI, the Union of India

contended that as this Court had given liberty to urge all

the contentions raised in the Civil Appeal before the

Tribunal, the Union of India was entitled to re-open the

issue whether the validity of the definition of Adjusted

Gross Revenue in the license agreement could be

questioned before the Tribunal. The licensees, on the

other hand, contended before the Tribunal that as the

Civil Appeal of Union of India has been dismissed by this

Court, the Union of India was not entitled to argue the

matter de novo and the earlier order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal had become final. In its fresh order dated

30.08.2007 (for short ‘the impugned order’) the Tribunal

held that its earlier order dated 07.07.2006 having

become final, it cannot be re-opened after the dismissal

of Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007 by this Court. The

Tribunal held that its finding in the earlier order dated

07.07.2006 that Adjusted Gross Revenue will include

only revenue arising from licensed activity and not

8

revenue from activities outside the license cannot be re-

agitated by the Union of India.

7.Having held that Adjusted Gross Revenue will

include only revenue arising from licensed activity, the

Tribunal in the impugned order considered the

recommendations of the TRAI regarding the heads of

revenue to be included and the heads of revenue to be

excluded from the Adjusted Gross Revenue and decided

as follows:

(i) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that income from dividend even though part of the

revenue does not represent revenue from licensed

activity and, therefore, cannot be included in the

Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(ii) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that interest earned on investment of savings made

by a licensee after meeting all liabilities including

liability on account of the share of the Government in

the gross revenue cannot be included in the Adjusted

Gross Revenue, but, interest on investment of funds

received by a licensee by way of deposits from customers

9

on account of security against charges and on account of

concessions given in the charges payable for using the

telecom services have to be included in the Adjusted

Gross Revenue as these are related to telecom service,

which is part of the licensed activity.

(iii) The Tribunal did not fully accept the

recommendation of the TRAI on capital gains and held

that sale of assets of a licensee such as immovable

properties, securities, warrants or debt instruments are

not part of the licensed activity and, therefore, capital

gains earned by a licensee on such sale of assets cannot

form part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(iv) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that gains from Foreign Exchange rates

fluctuations are also not part of the licensed activity of

telecom service providers and, therefore, cannot

constitute part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(v) The Tribunal did not fully accept the recommendation

of the TRAI on reversal of provisions like bad debts,

taxes and vendors’ credits and held that all these

10

reversals have to be excluded from the Adjusted Gross

Revenue.

(vi) The Tribunal also accepted the recommendation of

the TRAI that rent from property owned by the licensee

should be excluded from the Adjusted Gross Revenue,

provided it is clearly established that the property is not

in any way connected with establishing, maintaining and

working of telecommunication.

(vii) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that income from renting and leasing of passive

infrastructures like towers, dark fibre, etc. should be

part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue as they are parts of

the licensed activity of the licensee.

(viii) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that revenue from sale of tenders, directories,

forms, forfeiture of deposits/earnest money in relation to

telecom service should form part of the Adjusted Gross

Revenue, but held that management fees, consultancy

fees and training charges from telecom service should

11

not form part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue as these

activities do not require a license.

(ix) The Tribunal held that payments received on behalf

of third party should not form part of the Adjusted Gross

Revenue and did not accept the recommendation of the

TRAI in this regard.

(x) The Tribunal did not accept the recommendation of

the TRAI that the revenue from TV up-linking and

Internet service should form part of the Adjusted Gross

Revenue as these activities are covered under a separate

license.

(xi) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that sale of handsets or telephone equipment

bundled with telecom service should be part of the

Adjusted Gross Revenue because such sale comes within

the licensed activity.

(xii) The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that receipts from USO Fund will not form part of

the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

12

(xiii)The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of

the TRAI that revenue receipts on account of

ADC (Access Deficit Charge) should form part

of the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(xiv)The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of

the TRAI that costs on account of port

charges, interconnection set-up charges,

leased lines sharing of infrastructure, roaming

signaling charges and content charges should

form part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(xv)The Tribunal did not accept the

recommendation of the TRAI that bad debts,

waivers and discounts should form part of the

Adjusted Gross Revenue and held that such

losses incurred by a licensee should be

excluded from the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(xvi)The Tribunal accepted the recommendation of

the TRAI that service tax payable by the

licensee should be included or excluded from

13

the Adjusted Gross Revenue on accrual basis

and also accepted the recommendation of the

TRAI that interconnection usage should also

be included or excluded from the Adjusted

Gross Revenue on accrual basis.

(xvii)The Tribunal did not accept the

recommendation of the TRAI that its

recommendations with regard to items, which

are to be included or excluded from the gross

revenue, should be effective from a prospective

date and instead held that the findings of the

Tribunal with regard to items, which are

included or excluded from the Adjusted Gross

Revenue, will be effective from the date the

licensee approached the Tribunal.

8.Mr. Soli Sorabjee and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned

senior counsel appearing for the Union of India in the

different Civil Appeals before us submitted that the

Union of India had challenged the order dated

07.07.2006 of the Tribunal before this Court in Civil

Appeal No.84 of 2007 and this Court while disposing of

14

the Civil Appeal gave liberty to the Union of India to urge

all the contentions raised in the Civil Appeal before the

Tribunal. They submitted that the Tribunal was thus

not correct in coming to the conclusion that Union of

India could not re-open the issue decided in the order

dated 07.07.2006 that revenue realised from activities

beyond the licensed activities cannot form part of the

Adjusted Gross Revenue when the said issue had been

raised by the Union of India in the Civil Appeal before

this Court. They further submitted that in any case the

Union of India had taken a specific ground in ground

No.4 of the Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.84

of 2007 that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction or power to

examine the correctness of the terms of the license

which had been unconditionally accepted and acted

upon the licensee. They submitted that it is well settled

by decisions of this Court that the rule of res judicata or

estoppel is not applicable to pure question of law relating

to the jurisdiction of the court and in support of their

submissions cited the decisions of this Court in Isabella

Johnson vs. M.A. Susai (Dead) by LRs. [(1991) 1 SCC

15

494] and Chandrabhai K. Bhoir and Others vs. Krishna

Arjun Bhoir and Others [(2009) 2 SCC 315] in which this

Court has taken a view that an order without

jurisdiction is a nullity and it is not binding on the

parties. They argued that as the order dated 07.07.2006

of the Tribunal questioned the definition of Adjusted

Gross Revenue in the license agreement, the order of the

Tribunal was without jurisdiction and was a nullity.

9.Mr. Sorabjee and Mr. Dwivedi next submitted that

the Tribunal failed to appreciate that license fee or

payment made under the license agreement is really in

the nature of price or consideration for parting with the

exclusive privilege of the Central Government and is

binding on the Central Government and the licensee and

the licensee having signed the contract and agreed to the

terms and conditions therein including the payment to

be made cannot question the terms of the payment

before the Tribunal. They submitted that this Court has

consistently taken this view while deciding matters of

exclusive privilege of the Government in Har Shankar &

Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner &

16

Others [(1975) 1 SCC 737], Government of A.P. vs. M/s

Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd [(1988) 2 SCC

25], Assistant Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs. Issac Peter

& Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 104], State of Orissa & Ors. vs.

Narain Prasad & Ors.[(1996) 5 SCC 740], State of M.P. &

Ors. vs. KCT Drinks Ltd. [(2003) 4 SCC 748] and State of

Punjab & Anr. vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors.

[(2004) 11 SCC 26]

10.Mr. Sorabjee and Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that

the definitions of Gross Revenue and Adjusted Gross

Revenue are part of the package comprising the terms

and conditions of the license and a licensee cannot take

the license on the one hand and dispute the definitions

of Gross Revenue and Adjusted Gross Revenue on the

other hand. They submitted that if the licensee wants to

operate the telecom license he has to accept the

definitions of Gross Revenue and Adjusted Gross

Revenue for the purpose of computing the fee that he

will have to pay for the license to the Central

Government. They relied on the decisions of this Court

in Shyam Telelink Limited vs. Union of India [(2010) 10

17

SCC 165] and in Bharti Cellular Limited vs. Union of

India & Ors. [(2010) 10 SCC 174] for the proposition that

a person taking advantage under an instrument which

both grants a benefit and imposes the burden, cannot

take the benefit without discharging the burden.

11. Mr. Sorabjee and Mr. Dwivedi finally submitted that

under Section 11(1)(a)(ii) of the TRAI Act, 1977, the TRAI

makes recommendations, either suo motu or on a

request from the licensor, on the terms and conditions of

license to a service provider and the first proviso to

Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act clearly states that such

recommendations of the TRAI shall not be binding upon

the Central Government. They submitted that the

recommendations of the TRAI with regard to what heads

of revenue should be included and what heads of

revenue should be excluded from the Adjusted Gross

Revenue, therefore, are not binding on the Central

Government. They submitted that notwithstanding the

aforesaid clear statutory provision the Tribunal has

considered the recommendations of the TRAI and

accepted most of these recommendations,

18

notwithstanding the fact that the Central Government

filed its objections to the recommendations of the TRAI

before the Tribunal and hence the impugned order of the

Tribunal is not sustainable in law.

12. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel

appearing for the Cellular Operators Association, which

is an association of some of the licensees, submitted that

the Tribunal in its earlier order dated 07.07.2006 had

merely interpreted the definition of Adjusted Gross

Revenue to cover revenue from all activities of the

licensee under the license and that the finding in its

order dated 07.07.2006 that revenue realized from

activities of the licensee which are beyond the licensed

activities cannot form part of the Adjusted Gross

Revenue for the purpose of license fee could not be re-

agitated after Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007 filed by the

Union of India against the order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal had been dismissed by this Court on

19.01.2007. In support of the submission, he relied on

K. Vidya Sagar v. State of U.P. and Others [(2005) 5

SCC 581] in which this Court has held that the reliefs

19

claimed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the

Constitution cannot be granted if he had claimed the

same reliefs in a writ petition filed in the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ

petition had been dismissed and the Special Leave

Petition preferred against the decision of the High Court

had also been disposed of by this Court with the

directions that he may ventilate his grievance in

accordance with law. He also relied on Indian Oil

Corporation Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda

[(2007) 13 SCC 803] wherein this Court has held that if

the Revenue had not appealed against an earlier order or

not pressed an earlier appeal involving an identical

issue, it was disentitled from pressing the appeal

involving the same question in a subsequent case.

13. Mr. Vaidyanathan next submitted that the TRAI

had opined that Adjusted Gross Revenue for the purpose

of levy of license fee shall mean the Gross Revenue

accruing to the licensee by way of operations mandated

under the license, but the Central Government had

rejected this opinion of the TRAI on 10.10.2000. He

20

submitted that this Court had held in Cellular Operators

Association of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

[(2003) 3 SCC 186] that the TRAI’s recommendations

have to be given weightage because the TRAI was a

specialized body and if the Central Government rejected

the recommendation of the TRAI, it has to be based on

logical and concrete reasoning. He submitted that the

recommendations of the TRAI that only revenues arising

out of the activities carried out under the license cannot

be found fault with and, therefore, the revenue realized

from non-telecom activities cannot form part of the

Adjusted Gross Revenue. He submitted that the view

taken by the Tribunal that the revenue realized from

activities outside the license of the licensee cannot be

included in the Adjusted Gross Revenue for the purpose

of levy of license fee is absolutely correct. He submitted

that under the proviso to Section 4 of the Telegraph Act,

the Central Government has the power to determine the

conditions including the payment for grant of license ‘as

it thinks fit’, but the expression ‘as it thinks fit’ does not

give a carte blanche to the Central Government to levy

21

license fee on non-telecom activities. He cited State of

U.P. v. Devi Dayal Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 5] in which Ruma

Pal, J. writing the judgment for the Court, interpreted

Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 which enables the

State Government to levy toll at such rates ‘as it thinks

fit’ and held that it is only with reference to the meaning

of the word ‘toll’ that the State Government must justify

the levy on the public by the construction of the bridge.

Mr. Vaidyanathan argued that the expression ‘as it

thinks fit’ in the proviso to Section 4 of the Telegraph Act

would therefore have to be interpreted in the context of

the license granted by the Central Government under

Section 4 of the Telegraph Act for telecom activities and

as the license granted under Section 4 of the Telegraph

Act is only for carrying on telecom activities, revenues

realized from non-telecom activities cannot be included

in the Adjusted Gross Revenue for the purpose of levy of

license fee.

14. Mr. Vaidyanathan next submitted that in any case

the discretion vested in the Central Government under

the proviso to Section 4 of the Telegraph Act has to be

22

exercised in accordance with law and in a reasonable

manner. In support of the submission, he cited the

decision in Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union of

India [(1996) 2 SCC 405] in which this Court interpreting

the first proviso to Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act held

that the power to grant license on such conditions and

for such considerations mentioned in the proviso to

Section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act can be exercised by the

Central Government only on well-settled principles and

norms which can satisfy the test of Article 14 of the

Constitution. He vehemently argued that the judgments

of this Court for grant of exclusive privilege for liquor

license cited by Mr. Sorabjee and Mr. Dwivedi have no

application to grant of a license under the proviso to

Section 4 of the Telegraph Act.

15.Mr. Vaidyanathan submitted that the appellants

have filed Civil Appeal Nos.1229-1230 of 2008 against

the impugned order of the Tribunal because they are

mainly aggrieved with the conclusion of the Tribunal in

the impugned order that the items which are to included

or excluded from the Adjusted Gross Revenue as

23

recommended by the TRAI and as accepted by the

Tribunal would be effective from the date the licensee

approached the Tribunal. He submitted that the reliefs

granted by the Tribunal to the licensees should relate

back to the date of wrongdoing and in support of this

submission he relied on Kamla Bakshi v. Khairati Lal

[(2000) 3 SCC 681]. He submitted that the Tribunal

does not possess the power of prospective overruling

and, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal

should relate back to the date of the license agreement.

16. Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned counsel appearing for

the Reliance Communications Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.

9946-9961 of 2010 submitted that the orders dated

07.07.2006 and 30.08.2007 are really declaratory in

nature and are within the powers of the Tribunal and all

licensees are entitled to benefit from the aforesaid orders

of the Tribunal and this would ensure a level playing

field for all the licensees.

17. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing

for the Association of Telecom Service Providers of India,

submitted that the Union of India is not right in its

24

contention that the Tribunal did not have the

jurisdiction to pass the order dated 07.07.2006 holding

that revenue realized from activities by the licensee

which are beyond the licensed activities cannot form

part of the Adjusted Gross Revenue for the purpose of

license fee. He argued that Section 14 (a)(i) of the TRAI

Act conferred power on the Tribunal to adjudicate “any”

dispute between a licensor and a licensee and it is in

exercise of this power conferred by Section 14(a)(i) of the

TRAI Act that the Tribunal has passed the order dated

07.07.2006. He relied on the decision of this Court in

Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Mahrashtra) Ltd.

[2007) 7 SCC 517] in support of this contention. He

submitted that the order dated 07.07.2006 of the

Tribunal was within the powers of the Tribunal and had

become final after the dismissal of Civil Appeal No.84 of

2007 of the Union of India by this Court on 19.01.2007.

18. Mr. Srinivasan next submitted that the fifth proviso

to Section 11(1) of the TRAI Act states that if the Central

Government having considered the recommendation of

the TRAI, comes to a prima facie conclusion that such

25

recommendation cannot be accepted or needs

modification, it shall refer the recommendation back to

the TRAI for its reconsideration and the TRAI may,

within fifteen days from the receipt of such reference,

forward to the Central Government its recommendation

after considering the reference made by the Central

Government and it is only after receipt of such further

recommendation, if any, of the TRAI that the Central

Government shall take a final decision. He submitted

that the Tribunal in its order dated 07.07.2006 has

found that the initial recommendation of the TRAI to

include only revenue derived from the licensee from the

licensed activities as part of the gross revenue was not

acceptable to the Central Government and hence the

Central Government referred the issue back to the TRAI

and the TRAI, after considering the views of the Central

Government, made some changes but in principle again

recommended that the gross revenue should be only that

revenue which was derived from the licensed activities.

He submitted that the Tribunal in its order dated

07.07.2006 has further found that this second

26

recommendation of the TRAI was not accepted by the

Central Government because it had obtained the opinion

of a renowned expert in accountancy, who advised the

Central Government that the definition of Adjusted

Gross Revenue should be such as to be less prone to

reduction of license fee liability by way of accounting

jugglery and something which is easy to verify. He

submitted that the Tribunal held in the order dated

07.07.2006 that this recommendation of the renowned

expert was not communicated to the TRAI and as a

result, the TRAI could not consider this opinion of the

renowned expert and give its views. He argued that the

Tribunal rightly held in the order dated 07.07.2006 that

the opinion of the renowned expert in accountancy not

having been placed before the TRAI has vitiated the

proceedings contemplated under Section 11(1)(a) of the

TRAI Act, which mandates the Central Government to

seek recommendations of the TRAI.

19. Mr. Srinivasan next submitted that the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement so as

to include in gross revenue items, which according to the

27

Accounting Standard 9 (nine), do not come within the

definition of revenue. He referred to the Format of

Statement of Revenue and License Fee (Appendix-II to

Annexure-II of the License Agreement) to show that the

licensee is required to give information in a statement on

various items which are not truly of a revenue nature

and which fall totally outside the licensed activities of

the telecom license.

20. Mr. Srinivasan submitted that since the Tribunal in

the impugned order confined the relief to the licensees

who had approached the Tribunal and that too with

effect from the date the licensees approached the

Tribunal, the Association of Telecom Service Providers of

India filed a Review Application before the Tribunal

praying that the relief granted by the Tribunal should be

extended to all members of the Association and that the

relief should be effective from the date of the demand

and not from the date the licensee approached the

Tribunal, but by order dated 14.09.2007 the Tribunal

dismissed the Review Application and, therefore, the

Association of Telecom Service Providers of India have

28

filed Civil Appeal Nos.179-180 of 2008. He vehemently

argued that the Tribunal ought to have granted the relief

to all members of the Association and should have made

the relief effective from the date of the agreement and not

from the date when the licensee approached the

Tribunal.

21. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned counsel appearing for M/s

Bharti Broadband, submitted that the Tribunal in its

order dated 07.07.2006 had already decided Petition No.

98 of 2005 of M/s Bharti Broadband and the Union of

India had not filed any appeal against M/s Bharti

Broadband and, therefore, the order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal so far as M/s Bharti Broadband is

concerned, had become final. He relied on a recent

judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v.

Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5374 of

2005 saying that there must be finality to litigation. He

argued that general principles of res judicata should

apply in a proceeding before the Tribunal and the Union

of India cannot be permitted to raise the issues which

29

had been finally decided by the order dated 07.07.2006

of the Tribunal.

22. Mr. Jain next submitted that M/s Bharti

Broadband has filed Civil Appeal No.2065 of 2008

against the impugned order because it is aggrieved by

the conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned order

that the reliefs granted in the impugned order to the

licensee will be effective from the date the licensee

approached the Tribunal. He relied on P.V. George v.

State of Kerala [(2007) 3 SCC 557] to contend that the

Tribunal does not have the power to give prospective

effect to its judgment. He argued that Bharti Broadband

should, therefore, be entitled to the reliefs with effect

from the date of demand i.e. 05.08.2005.

23. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for M/s

Bharti Airtel, submitted that the order dated 07.07.2006

of the Tribunal had merged with the order dated

19.01.2007 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007

by which the Civil Appeal was dismissed and therefore

that in these appeals this Court cannot re-open the

issues which had been closed by the order dated

30

19.01.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007. In

support of the submission, he relied on the decisions of

this Court in Kunhay Ahmed & Ors. v. State of Kerala &

Anr. [(2000) 6 SCC 359], Supreme Court Employees’

Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 4

SCC 187] and State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen

Meetei [(1996) 9 SCC 29]. He also relied on the decision

of this Court in Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited v.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs [(2011) 2

SCC 601] for the proposition that dismissal of an appeal

under Article 136 of the Constitution after grant of leave

by a non-speaking order attracted the doctrine of

merger.

24. We have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties and we find that in Cellular

Operators Association of India & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors. (supra) this Court considered the scope of the

appeal under Section 18 of the TRAI Act and held that

an appeal under Section 18 of the TRAI Act before this

Court has to be confined to only substantial questions of

law which arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We

31

have therefore formulated the following substantial

questions of law which arise for decision in these

appeals:

(i) Whether after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.84 of

2007 of the Union of India against the order dated

07.07.2006 of the Tribunal, by this Court by order dated

19.01.2007, the Union of India can re-agitate the

question decided in the order dated 07.07.2006 that the

Adjusted Gross Revenue will include only revenue

arising from licensed activities and not revenue from

activities outside the license of the licensee.

(ii) Whether the TRAI and the Tribunal have jurisdiction

to decide whether the terms and conditions of license

which had been finalised by the Central Government and

incorporated in the license agreement including the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(iii)Whether as a result of the Union of India not filing

an appeal against the order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal passed in favour of some of the

licensees, the said order dated 07.07.2006 had

not become binding on the Union of India with

32

regard to the issue that revenue realised from

activities beyond the licensed activities cannot be

included in the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

(iv)Whether the licensee can challenge the

computation of Adjusted Gross Revenue, and if

so, at what stage and on what grounds.

25.The first substantial question of law which we have

to decide is whether after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.84

of 2007 of the Union of India by this Court on

19.01.2007 against the order dated 07.07.2006 of the

Tribunal, the Union of India can re-agitate the question

decided in the order dated 07.07.2006 that the Adjusted

Gross Revenue will include only revenue arising from

licensed activities and not revenue from activities outside

the license of the licensee. For deciding this question,

we must first look at the language of the order dated

19.01.2007 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007.

The order dated 19.01.2007 is quoted hereinbelow:

“Heard the parties.

Pursuant to the direction of the TDSAT in the impugned

order, a fresh recommendation has been made by the

TRAI. In view thereof, we see no reasons to interfere.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is, however,

33

given liberty to urge the contentions raised in this

petition before the TDSAT.” (Emphasis Supplied)

It will be clear from the language of the order dated

19.01.2007 that while dismissing the appeal, the Court

has given liberty to the appellant, namely, Union of

India, to urge the contentions raised in Civil Appeal

No.84 of 2007.

26. In Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007, the Union of India

has urged 22 Grounds and Ground Nos.1 to 6 of the

Memorandum of Appeal are extracted hereibelow :

1.Because the judgment and order dated

7.7.2006 passed by the Hon’ble TDSAT is

wrong, erroneous, contrary to law and

deserves to be set aside.

2.Because the Hon’ble TDSAT failed to appreciate

that the migration package accepted and

acted upon by the respondents herein itself

provided for definition of Gross Revenue and

Adjusted Gross Revenue.

3.Because the Hon’ble TDSAT failed to appreciate

that the license unconditionally accepted the

migration package, exploited the licenses on

the terms and conditions mentioned therein

and thereafter challenged the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue.

4.Because the Hon’ble TDSAT failed to appreciate

that it had no jurisdiction or power to examine

the correctness of terms of the license which

34

had been unconditionally accepted and acted

upon by the licensee.

5.Because the Hon’ble TDSAT failed to appreciate

that in fact some licensee obtained new

license which contains the definition of ‘Gross

Revenue’ and ‘Adjusted Gross Revenue’ which

has been unconditionally accepted by the

appellants.

6.Because the Hon’ble TDSAT failed to appreciate

that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph

Act, 1885 it is the exclusive privilege of the

Central Government to establish, maintain

and work telegraph/telecom and this privilege

can be given to the private parties by granting

licenses on such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit and

appropriate.”

Thus, as per the express language of the order dated

19.01.2007 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007,

Union of India could raise each of the grounds extracted

above before the Tribunal. Hence, even if we hold that

the order dated 07.07.2006 of the Tribunal got merged

with the order dated 19.01.2007 of this Court passed in

Civil Appeal No.84 of 2007, by the express liberty

granted by this Court in the order dated 19.01.2007,

Union of India could urge before the Tribunal all the

contentions covered under Ground Nos.1 to 6 extracted

above including the contention that the definition of

35

Adjusted Gross Revenue as given in the license could not

be challenged by the licensee before the Tribunal and

will include all items of revenue mentioned in the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license.

27. The second substantial question of law which we

have to decide is whether the TRAI and the Tribunal had

jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the terms and

conditions of license including the definition of Adjusted

Gross Revenue finalised by the Central Government and

incorporated in the license. For deciding this question,

we must look at the provisions of Section 4(1) of the

Telegraph Act and the proviso thereto and the relevant

provisions of the TRAI Act which are quoted hereinbelow:

Section 4 (1) of the Telegraph Act:

“4. Exclusive privilege in respect of telegraphs, and

power to grant licenses.—(1) Within India, the Central

Government shall have the exclusive privilege of

establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs:

Provided that the Central Government may grant a

license, on such conditions and in consideration of such

payments as it thinks fit, to any person to establish,

maintain or work a telegraph within any part of India.”

Relevant Provisions of the TRAI Act:

36

Section 2(e) “licensee” means any person licensed under

sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act,

1885 (13 of 1885) for providing specified public

telecommunication services;

2 (ea) “licensor” means the Central Government or the

telegraph authority who grants a license under Section 4

of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885);

2 (k) “telecommunication service” means service of any

description (including electronic mail, voice mail, data

services, audio tax services, video tax services, radio

paging and cellular mobile telephone services) which is

made available to users by means of any transmission or

reception of signs, signals, writing images and sounds or

intelligence of any nature, by wire, radio, visual or other

electromagnetic means but shall not include

broadcasting services:

[provided that the Central Government may notify other

service to be telecommunication service including

broadcasting services.]

“11(1). Functions of Authority.—(1) Notwithstanding

anything contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

(13 of 1885), the functions of the Authority shall be to—

(a)make recommendations, either suo motu or on a

request from the licensor, on the following matters,

namely:-

(i) need and timing for introduction of new service

provider;

(ii) terms and conditions of license to a service provider;

(iii) revocation of license for non-compliance of terms and

conditions of license;

(iv) measures to facilitate competition and promote

efficiency in the operation of telecommunication services

so as to facilitate growth in such services;

37

(v) technological improvements in the services provided

by the service providers;

(vi) type of equipment to be used by the service

providers after inspection of equipment used in the

network;

(vii) measures for the development of telecommunication

technology and any other matter relatable to

telecommunication industry in general;

(viii) efficient management of available spectrum;

(b) discharge the following functions, namely, :-

(i) ensure compliance of terms and conditions of licence;

(ii) notwithstanding anything contained in the terms

and conditions of the license granted before the

commencement of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of

India (Amendment) Act, 2000, fix the terms and

conditions of inter-connectivity between the service

providers;

(iii) ensure technical compatibility and effective inter-

connection between different service providers;

(iv) regulate arrangement amongst service providers of

sharing their revenue derived from providing

telecommunication services;

(v) lay down the standards of quality of service to be

provided by the service providers and ensure the quality

of service and conduct the periodical survey of such

service provided by the service providers so as to protect

interest of the consumers of telecommunication service;

(vi) lay down and ensure the time period for providing

local and long distance circuits of telecommunication

between different service providers;

38

(vii) maintain register of interconnect agreements and of

all such other matters as may be provided in the

regulations;

(viii) keep register maintained under clause (vii) open for

inspection to any member of public on payment of such

fee and compliance of such other requirements as may

be provided in the regulations;

(ix) ensure effective compliance of universal service

obligations;

(c) levy fees and other charges at such rates and in

respect of such services as may be determined by

regulations;

(d) perform such other functions including such

administrative and financial functions as may be

entrusted to it by the Central Government or as may be

necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Provided that the recommendations of the Authority

specified in clause (a) of this sub-section shall not be

binding upon the Central Government.

Provided further that the Central Government shall seek

the recommendations of the Authority in respect of

matters specified in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a)

of this sub-section in respect of new license to be issued

to a service provider and the Authority shall forward its

recommendations within a period of sixty days from the

date on which that Government sought the

recommendations:

Provided also that the Authority may request the Central

Government to furnish such information or documents

as may be necessary for the purpose of making

recommendations under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause

(a) of this sub-section and that Government shall supply

such information within a period of seven days from

receipt of such request:

39

Provided also that the Central Government may issue a

license to a service provider if no recommendations are

received from the Authority within the period specified in

the second proviso or within such period as may be

mutually agreed upon between the Central Government

and the Authority:

Provided also that if the Central Government having

considered that recommendation of the Authority, comes

to a prima facie conclusion that such recommendation

cannot be accepted or needs modification, it shall refer

the recommendation back to the Authority for its

reconsideration, and the Authority may, within fifteen

days from the date of receipt of such reference, forward

to the Central Government its recommendation after

considering the reference made by that Government.

After receipt of further recommendation, if any, the

Central Government shall take a final decision.”

“14(a)(i). Establishment of Appellate Tribunal .— The

Central Government shall, by notification, establish an

Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes

Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to—

(a)adjudicate any dispute—

(i)between a licensor and a licensee.”

28.A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the

Telegraph Act shows that the Central Government has

the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and

working telegraphs. This would mean that only the

Central Government, and no other person, has the right

to carry on telecommunication activities. Interpreting

the expression “exclusive privilege” of State Government

40

under the State Excise Act to sell liquor, this Court has

held in State of Orissa and Others v. Harinarayan

Jaiswal and Others [(1972) 2 SCC 36]:

“the fact that the Government was the seller does not

change the legal position once its exclusive right to deal

with those privileges is conceded. If the Government is

the exclusive owner of those privileges, reliance on

Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14 becomes irrelevant. Citizens

cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on

business in the properties or rights belonging to the

Government – nor can there be any infringement of

Article 14, if the Government tries to get the best

available price for its valuable rights.”

This position of law has been reiterated by this Court in

Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Deputy Excise & Taxation

Commissioner & Others (supra) and in subsequent

decisions of this Court.

29.The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the

Telegraph Act, however, enables the Central Government

to part with this exclusive privilege in favour of any other

person by granting a license in his favour on such

conditions and in consideration of such payments as it

thinks fit. As the Central Government owns the

exclusive privilege of carrying on telecommunication

activities and as the Central Government alone has the

41

right to part with this privilege in favour of any person

by granting a license in his favour on such conditions

and in consideration of such terms as it thinks fit, a

license granted under proviso to sub-section (1) of

Section 4 of the Telegraph Act is in the nature of a

contract between the Central Government and the

licensee. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of

Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors.

(supra), relying on Har Shankar’s case and Panna Lal v.

State of Rajasthan [(1975) 2 SCC 633], has held in para

121 at page 106 that issuance of liquor license

constitutes a contract between the parties. Thus, once a

license is issued under proviso to sub-section (1) of

Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, the license becomes a

contract between the licensor and the licensee.

Consequently, the terms and conditions of the license

including the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in

the license agreement are part of a contract between the

licensor and the licensee.

30.We have to, however, consider whether the

enactment of the TRAI Act in 1997 has in any way

42

affected the exclusive privilege of the Central

Government in respect of the telecommunication

activities and altered the contractual nature of the

license granted to the licensee under the proviso to sub-

section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act. Section 2(e)

of the TRAI Act quoted above defines “licensee” to mean

any person licensed under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of

the Telegraph Act for providing specified public

telecommunication services and Section 2(ea) defines

“licensor” to mean the Central Government or the

telegraph authority who grants a license under Section 4

of the Telegraph Act. Sub-section 2(k) defines

“telecommunication services” very widely so as to

include all kinds of telecommunication activities. These

provisions under the TRAI Act do not affect the exclusive

privilege of the Central Government to carry on

telecommunication activities nor do they alter the

contractual nature of the license granted under the

proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph

Act.

43

31.Section 11(1)(a)(ii) of the TRAI Act states that

notwithstanding anything contained in the Telegraph

Act, the TRAI shall have the function to make

recommendations, either suo motu or on a request from

a licensor on terms and conditions of license to a service

provider. The first proviso, however, states that the

recommendations of the TRAI shall not be binding upon

the Central Government. The second, third, fourth and

fifth provisos deal with the procedure that has to be

followed by the TRAI and the Central Government with

regard to recommendations of the TRAI. At the end of

fifth proviso, it is stated that after receipt of further

recommendation, if any, the Central Government shall

take the final decision. These provisions in the TRAI Act

show that notwithstanding sub-section (1) of Section 4 of

the Telegraph Act vesting exclusive privilege on the

Central Government in respect of telecommunication

activities and notwithstanding the proviso to sub-section

(1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act vesting in the

Central Government the power to decide on the

conditions of license including the payment to be paid by

44

the licensee for the license, the TRAI has been conferred

with the statutory power to make recommendations on

the terms and conditions of the license to a service

provider and the Central Government was bound to seek

the recommendations of the TRAI on such terms and

conditions at different stages, but the recommendations

of the TRAI are not binding on the Central Government

and the final decision on the terms and conditions of a

license to a service provider rested with the Central

Government. The legal consequence is that if there is a

difference between the TRAI and the Central Government

with regard to a particular term or condition of a license,

as in the present case, the recommendations of the TRAI

will not prevail and instead the decision of the Central

Government will be final and binding.

32.In contrast to this recommendatory nature of the

functions of the TRAI under clause (a) of sub-section (1)

of Section 11 of the TRAI Act, the functions of the TRAI

under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the

TRAI Act are not recommendatory. This will be clear

from the very language of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of

45

Section 11 of the TRAI Act which states that the TRAI

shall discharge the functions enumerated under sub-

clauses (i), (ii) and (ix) under clause (b) of sub-section (1)

of Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Under clause (c) of sub-

section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act, the TRAI

performs the function of levying fees and other charges

in respect of different services and under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 11, the Central Government

can entrust to the TRAI other functions. These functions

of the TRAI under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 11 of the TRAI Act are also not recommendatory

in nature. That the functions of the TRAI under clause

(a) are recommendatory while the functions of the TRAI

under clauses (b), (c) and (d) are not recommendatory

will also be clear from the provisos 1

st

to 5

th

which refer

to the recommendations of the TRAI under clause (a) of

sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act and not to

clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of

the TRAI Act. The scheme of TRAI Act therefore is that

the TRAI being an expert body discharges

recommendatory functions under clause (a) of sub-

46

section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act and discharges

regulatory and other functions under clauses (b), (c) and

(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI Act. TRAI

being an expert body, the recommendations of the TRAI

under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the

TRAI Act have to be given due weightage by the Central

Government but the recommendations of the TRAI are

not binding on the Central Government. On the other

hand, the regulatory and other functions under clauses

(b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the TRAI

Act have to be performed independent of the Central

Government and are binding on the licensee subject to

only appeal in accordance with the provisions of the

TRAI Act.

33. A reading of Section 14 (a)(i) of the TRAI Act would

show that the Tribunal has the power to adjudicate any

dispute between a licensor and a licensee. A licensor, as

we have seen, has been defined under Section 2(ea) of

TRAI Act to mean the Central Government or the

Telegraph Authority who grants a license under Section

4 of the Telegraph Act and a licensee has been defined in

47

Section 2(e) of the TRAI Act to mean any person licensed

under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act

providing specified telecommunication services. The

word ‘means’ in Sections 2(e) and 2(ea) of the TRAI Act

indicates that the definitions of licensee and licensor in

Sections 2(e) and 2(ea) of the TRAI Act are exhaustive

and therefore would not have any other meaning. As

Justice G.P. Singh puts it in his book ‘Principles of

Statutory Interpretation’ 12

th

Edition at pages 179-180:

“when a word is defined to ‘mean’ such and such, the

definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive .…”.

A dispute between a licensor and a licensee referred to in

Section 14(a)(i) of the TRAI Act, therefore, is a dispute

after a person has been granted a license by the Central

Government or the Telegraph Authority under sub-

section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act and has

become a licensee and not a dispute before a person

becomes a licensee under the proviso to sub-section (1)

of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act. In other words, the

Tribunal can adjudicate the dispute between a licensor

and a licensee only after a person had entered into a

48

license agreement and become a licensee and the word

“any” in Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act cannot widen the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide a dispute between a

licensor and a person who had not become a licensee.

The result is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

decide upon the validity of the terms and conditions

incorporated in the license of a service provider, but it

will have jurisdiction to decide “any” dispute between the

licensor and the licensee on the interpretation of the

terms and conditions of the license.

34. Coming now to the facts of the cases before us,

clause (iii) of the letter dated 22.07.1999 of the

Government of India, Ministry of Communications,

Department of Telecommunications, to the licensees

quoted above made it clear that the license fee was

payable with effect from 01.08.1999 as a percentage of

gross revenue under the license and the gross revenue

for this purpose would be total revenue of the licensee

company excluding the PSTN related call charges paid to

DOT/MTNL and service tax calculated by the licensee on

behalf of the Government from the subscribers. It was

49

also made clear in the aforesaid clause (iii) that the

Government was to take a final decision after receipt of

the TRAI’s recommendation on not only the percentage

of revenue share but also the definition of revenue. In

accordance with this clause (iii) the Government took the

final decision on the definition of Adjusted Gross

Revenue and incorporated the same in the license

agreement. Once the licensee had accepted clause (iii) of

the letter dated 22.07.1999 that the license fee would be

a percentage of gross revenue which would be the total

revenue of the licensee company and had also accepted

that the Government would take a final decision not only

with regard to the percentage of revenue share but also

the definition of revenue for this purpose, the licensee

could not have approached the Tribunal questioning the

validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in

license agreement on the ground that Adjusted Gross

Revenue cannot include revenue from activities beyond

the license. If the wide definition of Adjusted Gross

Revenue so as to include revenue beyond the license was

in any way going to affect the licensee, it was open for

50

the licensees not to undertake activities for which they

do not require license under clause (4) of the Telegraph

Act and transfer these activities to any other person or

firm or company. The incorporation of the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement was

part of the terms regarding payment which had been

decided upon by the Central Government as a

consideration for parting with its rights of exclusive

privilege in respect of telecommunication activities and

having accepted the license and availed the exclusive

privilege of the Central Government to carry on

telecommunication activities, the licensees could not

have approached the Tribunal for an alteration of the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license

agreement.

35. Regarding the recommendations of the TRAI under

Section 11(1)(a)(i) of the TRAI Act, we find that the

Tribunal in its order dated 07.07.2006 has held that the

opinion of the renowned expert in the accountancy that

any other definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue would

lead to reduction of license fee liability by way of

51

accounting jugglery was not placed before the TRAI and

as a result there was no proper and effective

consultation with the TRAI and the weightage that was

due to the recommendations of the TRAI was not given

effect to. In our considered opinion, if the Tribunal

found that there was no effective consultation with the

TRAI on the opinion of the expert on accountancy, the

Tribunal could have at best, if it had the jurisdiction to

decide the dispute, directed the TRAI to consider the

opinion of the expert on accountancy and send its

recommendations to the Central Government and

directed the Central Government to consider such fresh

recommendations of the TRAI as provided in the provisos

to section 11(1) of the TRAI Act. Instead the Tribunal

has considered the recommendations of the TRAI and

passed the fresh impugned order dated 30.08.2007

contrary to the very provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the

TRAI Act and the provisos thereto. At any rate, as the

Central Government has already considered the fresh

recommendations of the TRAI and has not accepted the

same and is not agreeable to alter the definition of

52

Adjusted Gross Revenue, the decision of the Central

Government on the point was final under the first

proviso and the fifth proviso to Section 11(1) of the TRAI

Act, 1997.

36.We may now deal with the authorities relied upon by

the Tribunal and learned counsel for the parties. In

Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. v. Union of

India & Ors. (supra), the Cellular Operators Association

of India approached the Tribunal under Section 14 of the

TRAI Act challenging the decisions of the Government

permitting the fixed service providers to offer WLL with

limited mobility and the recommendations of the TRAI in

this regard. The Tribunal dismissed the application and

the Cellular Operators filed an appeal under Section 18

of the TRAI Act before this Court. This Court held that

WLL with limited mobility as recommended by the TRAI

could be permitted if the question of level playing field of

the Cellular Operators was duly considered and they

were duly compensated but the Tribunal had not

considered the relevant materials on this issue and had

only arrived at a bald conclusion that the Cellular

53

Operators have already been compensated in various

ways. With these findings, this Court set aside the

decision of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the

Tribunal for reconsideration with special emphasis on

the question of level playing field on the basis of the

materials already on record. In this decision, this Court

was not called upon to consider whether a licensee

having accepted the terms of the license could challenge

before the Tribunal the validity of a clause in the terms

of license and whether the Tribunal would have

jurisdiction to decide such a challenge.

37. In Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union of

India (supra) after the National Telecom Policy, 1994 was

announced for inducting the private sector into basic

telephone services and notice was published inviting

tenders from private parties and tenders were submitted

for different circles, but before licenses could be granted

by the Central Government, writ petitions were filed in

different High Courts as well as in this Court and all the

writ petitions filed before different High Courts were

transferred to this Court and heard together. The Writ

54

Petitioners questioned the validity and propriety of the

new telecom policy saying that it shall endanger the

national security of the country and shall not serve the

economic interest of the nation. This Court while

upholding the new Telecom Policy held that the proviso

to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Telegraph Act

enables the Central Government to grant license to

private bodies, but such power should be exercised on

well-settled principles and norms which can satisfy the

test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, this is not a

case like the present one, in which the licensees having

accepted the terms of the license have challenged the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue incorporated in the

terms of the license.

38. In State of U.P. v. Devi Dayal Singh (supra), a truck

owner, Devi Dayal Singh, challenged the right of the

State Government to recover by way of toll under Section

2 of the Tolls Act, 1851, an amount for the actual

construction of the bridge. This Court held that Section

2 of the Tolls Act, 1851 which enables the State

Government to levy toll at such rates ‘as it thinks fit’ and

55

the only restriction is latent in the word “toll” itself. This

was therefore not a case of dispute between the

Government and the contractor where the contractor

had challenged a stipulation of the contract. In the

present case, on the other hand, the licensees had

accepted the terms of the license and after having taken

the benefits of the license is now trying to wriggle out

from the terms of the license and in particular the

definition of the Adjusted Gross Revenue.

39. In Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Mahrashtra)

Ltd. (supra) cited by Mr. Srinivasan, a letter of intent was

issued to Tata Teleservices and this was accepted by

Tata Teleservices but ultimately the contract did not

come into being and the license was not actually

granted. The Union of India suffered a considerable loss

because Tata Teleservices had walked out of the

obligation undertaken by the acceptance of the letter of

intent. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for

the Union of India submitted that such a dispute would

also come within the purview of Section 14 of the TRAI

Act, going by the definition of licensee and the meaning

56

given to it in the notice inviting tenders. The Tribunal

held that expression “licensor” or “licensee” occurring in

Section 14 (a)(i) of the TRAI Act would not exclude a

person who had been given a letter of intent and who

had accepted the letter of intent but was trying to

negotiate some further terms of common interest before

a formal contract was entered into and the work was to

be started. This was thus a case where this Court

treated a person who had accepted the letter of intent of

the licensor as a licensee, although a formal contract

had not entered into. In this case this Court has not

held that a licensee could dispute the validity of a term

or condition which was incorporated in the license

agreement.

40.On the other hand, we find from the long line of

decisions in Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise &

Taxation Commissioner & Others (supra), Government of

A.P. vs. M/s Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd

(supra), Assistant Excise Commissioner & Anr. vs. Issac

Peter & Ors. (supra), State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Narain

Prasad & Ors. (supra), State of M.P. & Ors. vs. KCT

57

Drinks Ltd. (supra), State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Devans

Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Shyam Telelink

Limited vs. Union of India (supra) and in Bharti Cellular

Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), that this Court

has consistently taken a view that once a licensee has

accepted the terms and conditions of a license, he

cannot question the validity of the terms and conditions

of the license before the Court. We, therefore, hold that

the TRAI and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide

on the validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross

Revenue in the license agreement and to exclude certain

items of revenue which were included in the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement

between the licensor and the licensee.

41.The next substantial question of law which we have

to decide is whether as a result of Union of India not

filing an appeal against the order dated 07.07.2006 in

favour of some of licensees, the order dated 07.07.2006

had not become binding on the Union of India with

regard to issues which had been decided by the Tribunal

in the said order dated 07.07.2006. According to the

58

learned counsel for the licensees in whose favour order

dated 07.07.2006 has been passed and against whom no

appeal was filed by the Union of India challenging the

order dated 07.07.2006, the order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal could not be re-opened because of the

principle of res judicata. In the opening paragraph of the

order dated 07.07.2006, the Tribunal has stated:

“By this batch of petitions the Association of Unified

Telecom Service Providers of India, Cellular Operators

Association of India and some individual

Telecommunication Service Providers are questioning the

validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue

(AGR) in the licenses given to various telecom service

providers.”

Finally, in the operative part of the order dated

07.07.2006, the Tribunal has directed as follows:

“Apart from the principal question whether the State

Government can include the gross income of the licensee

from non-licensed activity in the AGR; the petitioners

have also challenged individually the various

components of AGR as enumerated in the licence.

In view of the fact we have come to the conclusion that

there has not been an effective consultation with the

TRAI which is mandatory under the TRAI Act, we think

we should not further delve into the exercise of finding

out which component of the AGR, as defined by the

Government in the conditions of licence, deserves to be

retained and which component which the petitioners

contend is not derived from the licensed revenue of the

licensee should be excluded at this stage. We think it

more appropriate that the matter should be remanded to

59

the TRAI which is the 3

rd

Respondent herein, before

whom the Government should produce the material

relied by it while rejecting TRAI’s recommendation so

that TRAI can consider the same and send its

conclusions to this Tribunal and thereafter, this

Tribunal will have the benefit of a comprehensive

recommendation of the TRAI after considering the

materials relied upon by the Government. While forming

its conclusions the TRAI shall hear the Government as

well as the licensees and consider the materials that may

be placed before it by either side. In this process it is

not necessary for the TRAI to hold fresh consultative

proceeding unless it thinks necessary. During this

proceeding before the TRAI the petitioners shall place

before it their contentions in regard to the various

components of AGR which they have challenged before

this Tribunal and the TRAI after hearing the Government

on this issue also, send its recommendations to this

Tribunal preferably within three months of the receipt of

this order.

Further, while considering the issue now remitted to the

TRAI, the TRAI will bear in mind our finding in regard to

the inclusion in gross revenue of the licensee revenue

derived from non-licensed activities…...”

Thus, the Tribunal in its order dated 07.07.2006 has not

just decided a dispute on the interpretation of Adjusted

Gross Revenue in the license, but has decided on the

validity of the definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in

the license. As we have already held, the Tribunal had

no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the terms and

conditions of the license including the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue incorporated in the license

60

agreement. Hence, the order dated 07.07.2006 of the

Tribunal in so far as it decides that revenue realized by

the licensee from activities beyond the license will be

excluded from Adjusted Gross Revenue dehors the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license

agreement is without jurisdiction and is a nullity and the

principle of res judicata will not apply. In Chandrabhai

K. Bhoir and Others vs. Krishna Arjun Bhoir and Others

(supra) this Court relying on Chief Justice of A.P. vs.

L.V.A. Dixitulu [(1979) 2 SCC 34, Union of India vs.

Pramod Gupta [(2005) 12 SCC 1] and National Institute of

Technology vs. Niraj Kumar Singh [(2007) 2 SCC 481] has

held:

“an order passed without jurisdiction would be a nullity.

It will be a coram non judice and non est in the eye of the

law. Principle of res judicata would not apply to such

cases”.

We accordingly hold that the order dated 07.07.2006 of

the Tribunal was not binding on the Union of India even

in those cases in which the Union of India did not file

any appeal against the order dated 07.07.2006 before

this Court.

61

42. The last substantial question of law which we have

to decide is whether the licensee can challenge the

computation of Adjusted Gross Revenue and if so at

what stage and on what grounds. Section 14 (a)(i) of the

TRAI Act, as we have seen, provides that the Tribunal

can adjudicate any dispute between the licensor and the

licensee. One such dispute can be that the computation

of Adjusted Gross Revenue made by the licensor and the

demand raised on the basis of such computation is not

in accordance with the license agreement. This dispute

however can be raised by the licensee, after the license

agreement has been entered into and the appropriate

stage when the dispute can be raised is when a

particular demand is raised on the licensee by the

licensor. When such a dispute is raised against a

particular demand, the Tribunal will have to go into the

facts and materials on the basis of which the demand is

raised and decide whether the demand is in accordance

with the license agreement and in particular the

definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license

agreement and can also interpret the terms and

62

conditions of the license agreement. We, however, find

from the order dated 07.07.2006 that instead of

challenging any demands made on them, the licensees

have questioned the validity of the definition of Adjusted

Gross Revenue in the licenses given to them and the

Tribunal has finally decided in its order dated

30.08.2007 as to what items of revenue would be part of

Adjusted Gross Revenue and what items of revenue

would not be part of Adjusted Gross Revenue without

going into the facts and materials relating to the demand

on a particular licensee.

43. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside

the impugned order dated 30.08.2007 of the Tribunal.

There shall be no order as to costs.

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2479 of 2008, 1552 of 2009,

7049 of 2010, 7062 of 2010, 7063-7064 of 2010,

7443 of 2010, 7446 of 2010, 7126 of 2010, 7444 of

2010, 7445 of 2010, 9646-9661 of 2010, 2030 of

2011, 2031 of 2011, 2270 of 2011, 3245 of 2011,

5450-5451 of 2011, CIVIL APPEALS ARISING OUT OF

SLP (C) Nos. 1786-1787 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPEALS

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos. 6641-6642 OF 2010 :

Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

63

2.In these appeals, different orders of the Tribunal

have been impugned. The orders of the Tribunal, which

have been impugned, are based on the order dated

30.08.2007 of the Tribunal which we have set aside.

The orders impugned in these appeals are, therefore, set

aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal to

pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

3.The appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no

order as to costs.

.……………………….J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

October 11, 2011.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5059 OF 2007

Union of India & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

Association of Unified Telecom Service

Providers of India & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.179-180 OF 2008, 363 of 2008, 1229-

1230 of 2008, 2065 of 2008, 2479 of 2008, 1552 of

2009, 3868 of 2009, 7049 of 2010, 7062 of 2010, 7063-

7064 of 2010, 7443 of 2010, 7446 of 2010, 7126 of

2010, 7444 of 2010, 7445 of 2010, 9646-9661 of 2010,

64

2030 of 2011, 2031 of 2011, 2270 of 2011, 3245 of

2011, 5450-5451 of 2011, 311-314 & 317-318 of 2008,

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8627-8628 OF 2011 (Arising out of

SLP (C) Nos. 1786-1787 of 2009) AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos.

8625-8626 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6641-

6642 of 2010)

SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER

We have delivered today the judgment in these

cases and while answering the last substantial

question of law, we have held that when a particular

demand is raised on a licencee, the licensee can

challenge the demand before the Tribunal and the

Tribunal will have to go into the facts and materials

on the basis of which the demand is raised and decide

whether the demand is in accordance with the license

agreement and in particular the definition of

Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement and

can also interpret the terms and conditions of the

license agreement.

2. It is stated by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned

senior counsel for some of the licencees that demands

have already been raised on them. He submitted that

two months' time be granted to the licencees to raise

their disputes before the Tribunal and in the

meanwhile the demands should not be enforced.

65

3. If the demands have been raised, we grant two

months' time to the licencees to raise the dispute

before the Tribunal against the demands and during

this period of two months, the demands will not be

enforced.

......................J.

( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ......................J.

October 11, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )

66