ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELE SERVICES PROVIDERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 17,2014

Association Of Unified Tele Services Providers Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SARVESH BISARIA VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-127] [REFERRED TO]
MEGA CABS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE TELECOM LTD. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
INDITRADE DERIVATIVES & COMMODITIES LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-263] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED RWAS JOINT ACTION AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-324] [REFERRED TO]
JANHIT ABHIYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
CABLE T.V. OPERATORS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
BIKRAM CHATTERJI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2019-7-89] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)WE are in these appeals concerned with the scope and ambit of the powers and duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in relation to the proper computation and quantification of Revenue in determining the licence fee and spectrum charges payable to Union of India under Unified Access Services (UAS) Licences entered into between DoT and the private service providers.
We have to examine the above -mentioned issue in the light of the various constitutional, statutory and licensing provisions, bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with "spectrum", which is universally treated as a scarce finite and renewable natural resource, the intrinsic utility of that natural resource has been elaborately considered by this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1 and in the Presidential Reference, the opinion of which has been expressed in Natural Resources Allocation, in Re: Special Reference No.1 of 2012 decided on September 27, 2012, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1. This Court reiterated that the spectrum as a natural resource belongs to the people, though State legally owns it on behalf of its people because State benefits immensely from its value. This Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others (supra) referring to the intrinsic worth of spectrum stated as follows:

"75. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e. forest, air, water, coastal zones, etc.

76. The ownership regime relating to natural resources can also be ascertained from international conventions and customary international law, common law and national constitutions. In international law, it rests upon the concept of sovereignty and seeks to respect the principle of permanent sovereignty (of peoples and nations) over (their) natural resources as asserted in the 17th Session of the United Nations General Assembly and then affirmed as a customary international norm by the International Court of Justice in the case of Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda...

77. Spectrum has been internationally accepted as a scarce, finite and renewable natural resource which is susceptible to degradation in case of inefficient utilisation. It has a high economic value in the light of the demand for it on account of the tremendous growth in the telecom sector. Although it does not belong to a particular State, right of use has been granted to the States as per international norms.

78. In India, the courts have given an expansive interpretation to the concept of natural resources and have from time to time issued directions, by relying upon the provisions contained in Articles 38, 39, 48, 48 -A and 51 -A(g) for protection and proper allocation/distribution of natural resources and have repeatedly insisted on compliance with the constitutional principles in the process of distribution, transfer and alienation to private persons.

85. As natural resources are public goods, the doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concepts of justice and fairness, must guide the State in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. In this regard, the doctrine of equality has two aspects: first, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis -à -vis its people and demands that the people be granted equitable access to natural resources and/or its products and that they are adequately compensated for the transfer of the resource to the private domain; and second, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis -à -vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the procedure adopted for distribution is just, non - arbitrary and transparent and that it does not discriminate between similarly placed private parties."

(3.)WE have indicated, the worth of spectrum to impress upon the fact that the State actions and actions of its agencies/instrumentalities/licensees must be for the public good to achieve the object for which it exits, the object being to serve public good by resorting to fair and reasonable methods. State is also bound to protect the resources for the enjoyment of general public rather than permit their use for purely commercial purposes. Public trust doctrine, it is well established, puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest. Further it mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.