S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2005 in Petition No.49(C) of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein was allowed.
(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A notice inviting tender was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in the month of October, 1999 from the companies registered in India for grant of licence to operate FM broadcasting service at Mumbai. The respondent herein was one of the successful bidders along with four others. It is not in dispute that in terms of the agreement, it was stipulated that holders of 10 licences, which were planned for the city of Mumbai, would co-locate the transmission infrastructure on a common transmitter tower, as required in Clause 14 of the Licence Agreement, as also Article7.1(i) of the Schedule (C) of the said Licence Agreement. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said scheme, the cost of creating the common infrastructure to transmit from a common transmission tower was to be shared by the ten licensees in Mumbai. It is admitted that five licensees who were successful bidders in the auction process defaulted and did not sign the agreements for grant of licences in Mumbai. Having regard to the default on the part of the said five bidders, the costs of co-locating on a common transmission tower for the remaining five licensees was almost doubled. The appellant herein, thereafter, issued guidelines permitting the five licensees in Mumbai to broadcast from interim independent facilities for an interim period of 24 months, during which period the five licensees were required to set up a common transmission tower.
(3.) It is also not in dispute that the said guidelines were followed for two years only, but, having regard to the difficulties faced by the said five licensees to co-locate the transmission for broadcasting, they were permitted to make their own arrangement to enable them to operationalize their individual interim stations within a period of four months. It stands admitted that the Respondent herein paid licence fees and also furnished a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.9.75 crores.;