ICONET COMMUNICATION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAPT A K MIDHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, M/s ICONET Communication Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is in the field of radio communication and is providing Public Mobile Radio Trunking Services (PMRTS). For this purpose, it is associated with companies like Motorola, Kenwood, ICOM and uses their radio equipment. For the purpose of provision of PMRTS at Kodai Kanal, Kotagiri and Yercaud in Tamil Nadu, the Company has obtained three licences. In addition, the petitioner has obtained licences for the purpose of demonstration of their equipment at various localities. THE respondents are Union of India, Department of Telecommunications, who issued the licences to the petitioner. THE petitioner had given bank guarantees of Rs. 5 lakhs each for the three licences respectively amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs by way of three securities for the due observance of licences. According to the petitioner, it had been operating its services strictly in accordance with the terms of the licence agreements, but was issued notice by the respondent on 2nd June 2003 who subsequently encashed the bank guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs despite the reply having been given to all the issues raised in the show-cause notice. THE petitioner in this petition filed under Section 14(a)(i) of TRAI Act, 1997 has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Since the bank guarantee had already been invoked by the respondent, the interim prayer sought for by the petitioner, therefore, became infructuous. The case was finally heard on 09.10.2006.

(3.) HAVING heard the arguments of both the sides, we do not find much merit in this particular aspect of show-cause notice. Possibility of provision of communication is different from actually providing the same. The respondent has not been able prove its point by showing some evidence of such communication having been provided by the petitioner. The integration of two networks also seems to be only a statement without any substantive documentary evidence. In any case, if a third company like KPN Travels has got its licence, it is for the respondent to take revenue from that third company. Quoting from the website only does not prove the point of the respondent.