- (1.) This civil appeal is filed under Section 18 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 ("1997 Act") by M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd. against judgment and order delivered by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal ("TDSAT") dated 17.1.2006 dismissing petition No. 108 of 2005 challenging the directive dated 4.3.2005 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ("TRAI"), circulars dated 23.3.2005 and 26.8.2005 issued by DoT and demands raised by BSNL for ADC for the period 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005.
(2.) The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether "Unlimited Cordless" service" ("the impugned service" for short) of the appellant is covered under the definition of WLL(M) service as defined in Regulation 2(xxviii) of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulation, 2003 which defines WLL(M) as limited mobility service using WLL technology within Short Distance Charging Area ("SDCA"). According to TRAI and DoT, fixed wireless phones ("FWP")/fixed wireless service ("FWS") which operate beyond the subscriber's premises is classifiable as WLL(M) service for the purpose of payment of ADC to BSNL whereas, according to the appellant, FWS is limited to one base transceiver station ("BTS") within which the service operates and, consequently, this service is classifiable as WLL(F) and not as WLL(M).
(3.) On 18.3.1997, appellant was granted licence by DoT for providing basic services in Gujarat which included fixed wireless services but which preferred wireless technology for the subscriber local loop. On 20.7.2001 appellant was granted licence by DoT for providing basic services in different service areas in the country which included fixed wireline service and limited mobile service. In November, 2003 appellant was permitted to migrate to the Unified Access Service Licence ("UASL") which categorized wireless services into 3 categories, viz., fixed wireless access ("FWA"), limited mobility [WLL(M)] and fully mobile service(s). Submissions of Shri K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant:;