dishnet

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Release of Performance Bank Guarantees as the roll out obligation was performed=It is seen that the petitioner has fulfilled its roll out for the 2 nd phase within three years of issue of start up spectrum. In all these cases, the test certificate has been issued by TERM Cell based on registration with Term Cell, it is seen that the roll out obligation have been completed in all the cases starting from November 2010 to Jan 2011. If the roll out of 2 nd phase has been done within 3 years of date of start up spectrum, there is no need to go into the issue of various contentious issues related to definition of start up spectrum, delay in SACFA clearance etc. These become immaterial. Therefore, we do not agree with the submissions of the respondent that they are unable to decide the same due to our order dated 13.01.2012. 20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the release of PBG in respect of (a) Maharashtra; (b) Andhra Pradesh ; (c) Gujarat; (d) Rajasthan; (e) Mumbai ; (f) Karnataka; (g) Delhi; (h) 28 Punjab; (i) Uttar Pradesh(East); (j) Kerala; (k ) Madhya Pradesh; (l) Haryana; (m) Uttar Pradesh(West); (n) Kolkatta. However, if the LD amount imposed on the petitioner is to be released, the petitioner will provide the PBG to the equal extent. 21. The chart shows that there was abnormal delay in meeting out the roll out obligation for the Ist phase in respect of following circles : Orissa, North-East, West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, J & K There is a delay in meeting Ist phase roll out obligation in case of Himachal Pradesh also. According to the respondent, the calculation of LD for both Ist and 2 nd phase roll out obligation has to be done and the same is pending for calculation by them. The respondent cannot hold the PBGs indefinitely without taking any action on its part. In view of the abnormal delay in fulfilling its Ist phase roll out obligation by the petitioner, we do not propose to order any release of PBG at present in respect of these seven circles. However, the respondent is directed to take expeditious action for calculation of the LD amount, if any, and as early as possible but not later than 3 months. The petitioner will be at 29 liberty to approach this Tribunal, if any occasion arises thereafter on the same cause of action. 22. Regarding Tamil Nadu and Chennai Circles, i.e. Petition Nos. 512 of 2011 and 513 of 2011, the petitioner got CMTS licenses and not UASL licenses. The relevant conditions related to PBG and roll out obligations are different. Therefore, we do not propose to pass any order at present in respect of these circles. The Petition No. 512 and 513 of 2011 will be heard separately. 23. In view of the aforementioned reasons, these petitions are partly allowed in terms of aforementioned directions

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 11 th April, 2012 Petition No.491 of 2011 Aircel Limited (Maharashtra) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent Petition No.492 of 2011 Aircel Limited (A.P.) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent Petition No.493 of 2011 Aircel Limited (Gujarat) …Petitioner Vs. Union of India,New Delhi …Respondent … Continue reading →