(Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Union of India ______________________________________ Appellant
v.
M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd. Co. Gujarat ____________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9733 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2017 [@ Civil Appeal D. 31051 of 2016], decided on January 2, 2017
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Kurian, J.:—
1. Delay condoned.
2. The issue raised in these appeals pertains to the violation of conditions of the license regarding verification of the subscribers.
3. The learned Solicitor General has invited our attention to the various Circulars issued by the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications. Going by the impugned judgments rendered by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, according to the learned Solicitor General, the instructions contained in those Circulars regarding verification have virtually been substituted by the Tribunal.
4. In the nature of the apprehensions expressed by the learned Solicitor General, and after having heard the learned counsel for the Respondent-Caveator, we feel that all what is required is to give a clarification that all the Circulars issued by the Government of India are to be followed strictly but they will only operate prospectively. Ordered accordingly.
5. The impugned judgment will stand modified to the above extent.
6. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Union of India ______________________________________ Appellant
Versus
M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. Co. Gujarat ____________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 9733/2016 with C.A. D 31051 of 2016
Date: 02/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG.
Mr. D.N. Gobardhan, Adv.
Ms. Neha Nagpal, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv.
Mr. D. S. Mahra, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Navin Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Anurup Narula, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. Delay condoned.
9. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
