Case: Union Of India Vs. S Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd

given to it in the Notice Inviting Tenders. The argument of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent is that the expressions licensor and licensee are defined in the Act and the respondent had not become a licensee and the appellant had not become a licensor since the agreement was never entered into between the parties for providing telecom services in the Karnataka Telecom circle and the attempt to rope in an intending licensee to whom a Letter of Intent has been issued or the entering into a contract is proposed, cannot be countenanced since the respondent has not become a licensee within the meaning of the Act and consequently this was not a dispute that came within the purview of Section 14 (1) of the Act. ( 15 ) WE have already indicated that a specialised tribunal has been constituted for the purpose of dealing with specialised matters and disputes arising out of licenses granted under the Act. We therefore do not think that there is any reason to restrict the jurisdiction of the tribunal so constituted by keeping out of its purview a person whose offer has been accepted and to whom a letter of intent is issued by the government and who had even accepted that letter of intent. Any breach or alleged breach of obligation arising after acceptance of the offer made in response to a notice Inviting Tender, would also normally come within the purview of a dispute that is liable to be settled by the specialised tribunal. We see no reason to restrict the expressions "licensor" or "licensee" occurring in Section 14 (a) (i) of the Act and to exclude a person like the respondent who had been given a Letter of Intent regarding the Karnataka Circle, who had accepted the Letter of Intent but was trying to negotiate some further terms of common interest before a formal contract was entered into and the work was to be started. To exclude disputes arising between the parties thereafter on the failure of the contract to go through, does not appear to be warranted or justified considering the purpose for which the TDSAT has been established and the object sought to be achieved by the creation of a specialised tribunal. In Cellular Operators Association of India and others vs. Union of India and others [ (2003) 3 SCC 186 ] this Court had occasion to consider the spread of Sections 14 and 14a of the Act. This Court held that the scope of Sections 14 and 14a are very wide and is not confined by restrictions generally imposed by judge made law on the tribunal exercising an appellate jurisdiction. Of course, their lordships were considering in particular, the case of appellate jurisdiction. But this court further said that the tribunal has the power to adjudicate on any dispute but while answering the dispute, due weight had to be given to the recommendations of the authority under the Act which consists of experts. This decision, though it did not directly deal with the power of the TDSAT as the original authority but was dealing with the power of the TDSAT as an appellate authority and the power of this court in appeal, clearly gives an indication that there is no need to whittle down the scope of Sections 14 and 14a of the Act. ( 16 ) IT has also to be noted that while prescribing the procedure under Section 16 of the Act, what is said is that the TDSAT shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. It is significant to note that it is not a case of exclusion of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and conferment of specific powers in terms of sub-section (2) of that Section. It is really a right given to the TDSAT even to go outside the procedural shackles imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure while dealing with a dispute before it. Therefore, it will be difficult to keep out the provisions for the filing of a counter claim enshrined in Order VIII, Rule 6a of the Code of civil Procedure which could be applied by the TDSAT. The sweep of Order VIII, rule 6a of the Code now takes in even claims independent of the one put forward in the application if it is one the respondent therein has against the applicant. On the whole, we are of the view that the TDSAT was in error in dismissing the counter claim as not maintainable. ( 17 ) IN the light of our finding that the counter claim was maintainable and it requires to be investigated, we think that the proper course is to set aside the finding rendered by the TDSAT on the plea of set off raised by the appellant. This is in view of the fact that acceptance of the counter-claim or even a part thereof might throw open the question of legal or equitable set-off, to be considered in the light of the finding on the counter-claim. Therefore, we think this to be an appropriate case where we should reopen the whole matter without going into the merits of the contentions of parties on the plea of set off raised by the appellant and leave the question to be decided by the TDSAT along with the counter claim that has been made by the appellant. On taking note of the objection that the counter claim has not been made specific and has not been put forward in a proper manner, we are satisfied that it would be appropriate to direct the appellant to make a proper counter claim before the TDSAT within three months from today. The TDSAT thereafter will give the respondent an opportunity to file its written statement to the counter claim and then decide the claim made by the respondent and the counter claim afresh in accordance with law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]If we hold that the counter claim is maintainable, necessarily the same would have to be adjudicated on, on merits and the result of such an adjudication would have impact on the plea of set off put forward by the appellant. Of course, if our answer to the said question is that the counter claim is not maintainable, then we have to decide independently whether the finding entered by the TDSAT on the plea of set off is vitiated by a substantial error of law or not. We will, therefore, first tackle the question whether the counter claim made by the Union of India was maintainable.( 4 ) IT may be true that in the prayer portion in the written statement an order or decree in terms of the counter claim had not been sought for by the appellant. But the claim as made in the written statement relates to the claim based on the failure of the respondent, after having conveyed its acceptance of the Letter of Intent to provide service in the Karnataka Telecom Circle and the damages allegedly suffered by the appellant as a consequence and the entitlement of the appellant to reimbursement of the specified sum from the respondent. Even if there is some vagueness in the counter claim, as felt by the TDSAT, we think that the TDSAT might have directed the appellant before us, to make its counter claim more specific and in a proper manner. After all, a defect of deficiency could be permitted to be cured. We are, therefore, not impressed by the argument on behalf of the respondent before us that the counter claim was rather vague and the same was rightly rejected for that reason by the TDSAT. After all, this vagueness can be directed to be removed in the interests of justice, if it were to be held that the counter claim can be maintained by the Union of India.(9 ) THE conspectus of the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that disputes between the licensee or licensor, between two or more service providers which takes in the Government and includes a licensee and between a service provider and a group of consumers are within the purview of the TDSAT. A plain reading of the relevant provisions of the Act in the light of the preamble to the Act and the Objects and Reasons for enacting the Act, indicates that disputes between the concerned parties, which would involve significant technical aspects, are to be determined by a specialised tribunal constituted for that purpose. There is also an ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the TDSAT is empowered by or under the Act to determine. The civil court also has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. The constitution of the TDSAT itself indicates that it is chaired by a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme court or sitting or a retired Chief Justice of the High Court, one of the highest judicial officers in the hierarchy and the members thereof have to be of the cadre of secretaries to the Government, obviously well experienced in administration and administrative matters.( 10 ) THE Act is seen to be a self contained Code intended to deal with all disputes arising out of telecommunication services provided in this country in the light of the national Telecom Policy, 1994. This is emphasised by the Objects and Reasons also.( 11 ) NORMALLY, when a specialised tribunal is constituted for dealing with disputes coming under it of a particular nature taking in serious technical aspects, the attempt must be to construe the jurisdiction conferred on it in a manner as not to frustrate the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In this context, the ousting of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court contained in Section 15 and Section 27 of the Act has also to be kept in mind. The subject to be dealt with under the Act, has considerable technical overtones which normally a civil court, at least as of now, is ill-equipped to handle and this aspect cannot be ignored while defining the jurisdiction of thethe purpose for which the Act is brought into force and the tdsat is created, we think that there is no warrant for accepting such a narrow approach or to adopt such a narrow construction. It will be appropriate to understand the scope of Section 14 (a) (i) of the Act and for that matter Section 14 (a) (ii) of the Act also, as including those to whom licenses were intended to be issued and as taking in also disputes that commence on the tender or offer of a person being accepted. In other words, a dispute commencing with the acceptance of a tender leading to the possible issue of a licence and disputes arising out of the grant of licence even after the period has expired would all come within the purview of Section 14 (a)of the Act. To put it differently, Section 14 takes within its sweep disputes following the issue of a Letter of Intent pre grant of actual licence as also disputes arising out of a licence granted between a quondam licensee and the licensor.(17 ) IN the light of our finding that the counter claim was maintainable and it requires to be investigated, we think that the proper course is to set aside the finding rendered by the TDSAT on the plea of set off raised by the appellant. This is in view of the fact that acceptance of the counter-claim or even a part thereof might throw open the question of legal or equitable set-off, to be considered in the light of the finding on the counter-claim. Therefore, we think this to be an appropriate case where we should reopen the whole matter without going into the merits of the contentions of parties on the plea of set off raised by the appellant and leave the question to be decided by the TDSAT along with the counter claim that has been made by the appellant. On taking note of the objection that the counter claim has not been made specific and has not been put forward in a proper manner, we are satisfied that it would be appropriate to direct the appellant to make a proper counter claim before the TDSAT within three months from today. The TDSAT thereafter will give the respondent an opportunity to file its written statement to the counter claim and then decide the claim made by the respondent and the counter claim afresh in accordance with law.