VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND UNION OF INDIA UOI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDESH Sanchar Nigam Limited (�VSNL�), the appellant in the instant appeal is in the business of offering International Long Distance (ILD) Service and National Long Distance (NLD) Service for which it has been granted license under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The appellant was a fully Government owned company till February 2002 when part of the Government stake was divested. The respondent is an authority constituted under the Telecom Regulatory of India (TRAI) Act, 1997. By virtue of functions conferred upon it, it regulates the telecom industry. The present appeal is filed against the direction issued by TRAI under Section 13 read with Section 11(1)(b)(i) and (iv) of the TRAI Act, 1997, wherein the appellant has been directed by the respondent vide its letter No. 416-1/2004-FN dated 21st March 2005 to stop the sale of outbound calling cards on grounds of lack of competence under NLD/ILD license and for security reasons. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent issued a show-cause notice vide No. 416-1/2005-FN dated 8th April 2005 based on some allegations made by some external sources about introduction of such cards by it without disclosing details of such sources and such letters. The appellant further contends that the respondent virtually reiterated the contents of the directive in the said show cause notice. It states that the following direction dated 21st March 2005 has been issued to it:

(2.) When the appeal came for directions on 25th April 2005, we directed the appellant to implead Department of Telecom as co-respondent since as per the respondent TRAI, the alleged letters mentioned by the appellant had been written to the DOT who in turn forwarded the same to the respondent. Respondent�s directive and show cause notice were allowed to remain operative and DOT was impleaded as respondent No.2. No stay was granted. The case was finally heard on 12.05.2006.

(3.) ON the issue of directly accessing the subscriber, the relevant extract from Clause 2.2 of the ILD License is reproduced as under: