RELIANCE INFOCOMM LIMITED Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this Petition, the Petitioner - M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd (RCom) - has challenged the Circulars dated 16.6.2006 and 24.7.2006 issued by the Respondent - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), revising the infrastructure sharing charges for Passive links of private telecom service providers, of which, the Petitioner is one, and also imposing certain conditions of choice of Active links.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that it had entered into an interconnect Agreement with the Respondent on 25.1.2002 to facilitate telecommunication across the networks of both these service providers. Interconnection between two service providers may be achieved either through Active links or Passive links. The Petitioner stated that it had established Interconnection with the Respondent on several occasions on Passive links charges, for which the Respondent indicated, would be prescribed subsequently. Since at a later stage, the Respondent determined arbitrary and exorbitant charges for such Passive Interconnection without mutual Agreement and also since the Respondent started compelling the Petitioner to shift from Passive Interconnection to Active links. The Petitioner was a party in Petition No. 123 of 2005, separately filed before this Tribunal, by the Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India (AUSPI), of which the Petitioner is a member, against the Respondent. This Tribunal had, in the Order dated 3.3.2006 in the said Petition, directed the Respondent to work out a realistic formula for charging the rentals for Passive links based on actual use of infrastructure. The case of the Petitioner is that despite this Order, the Respondent issued an impugned Circular dated 16.6.2006 prescribing therein minimum infrastructure sharing charges @ 5 E1s. The Petitioner's case is that this minimum amount is without any basis and is arbitrary.

(3.) COUNTERING this Petition, the Respondent stated that the Order of the Tribunal dated 3.3.2006 in Petition No. 123 of 2005 was in the context of the compulsory provision of Active links to ensure safety and that necessary instructions were issued, by way of a Circular dated 27.3.2006 to all the Circles. Its case is that the Petitioner had not raised any grievance or challenge against this Circular, which speaks of provision of Active links wherever the required space and infrastructure is available with BSNL. The Respondent stated that since use of optic fibre for setting up of transmission links is most suitable and advantageous, the Petitioner had itself set up Active links with all other private operators. The Respondent also pointed out that pursuant to the Order of this Tribunal dated 3.3.2006, it had re-worked a minimal and realistic formula for the rentals for Passive links. Referring to the contention of the Petitioner that all services should be permitted on the same POIs, the Respondent stated that it was only relying on and following a Circular of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) dated 27.9.2002.