Cable station fee: No stay on single judge order

The first bench comprising acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice RMT Teeka Raman observed, “Having gone through the various provisions of law as also the amendment made to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (TRAI Act) and also taking into consideration the financial implication involved in the matter and in the light of the contentions advanced by the senior counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the matter has got wider ramifications both on the perspective of the consumers as also the Department on the financial aspect, and therefore it would be wholly unsafe to pass any interim orders at this point of time.” 

As per the case, a cable landing station is the physical place where international undersea cables land and connect to the domestic network. There are about 13 submarine cables landing into India at 11 cable-landing stations. While Tata Communications owns five of these, Bharti owns two. The other stations are owned by Reliance Communications (2), Sify (1) and BSNL (1). In 2013, TRAI had ordered a 90 per cent cut in the cable-landing station charges. This was opposed by Bharti and Tata Communications on the ground that the regulator did not include all aspects of the costs before arriving at the new pricing.

Since, a single judge of the Madras High Court had dismissed the two operators’ plea and had allowed TRAI to implement the nearly four-yearold order, the present appeal has come forth. The bench also held that “Further the amendment to the TRAI Act being of recent origin, the provisions with regard to any legislative defect in the said enactment with regard to drafting or the interpretation to be attached to any of the provisions of the said enactment requires to be dealt with in depth so that a proper and definitive Judicial interpretation could be given to the said provisions. In such a scenario, this court is of the considered opinion that an exhaustive hearing is very much essential for passing any order. In that view of the matter, this court at this point of time, is not inclined to grant any interim order at this stage, but to hear the main case itself on April 17, 2017,” the bench added.