M/S Sesa Seat Inform... v. General Manager, Ahm...

The Petitioner here is a company concerned in the business of printing and publishing Telephone Directories of various Telephone departments. It appears that the Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the General Manager of the Ahmedabad Telecom District for printing of Telecom Directories for the years 1996, 97, and 98. What it now seeks under the Dispute Settlement jurisdiction of TRAI is, relief from some of its obligation under the said agreement. In seeking this relief, the Petitioner claims to be a “Service provider” by virtue of the agreement to print Telephone Directories and also invokes the cover of the consumer Interest clause of the TRAI Act. This according to Counsel for the Petitioner is what brings the dispute raised within the purview of the TRAI Act.

It would indeed be straining one's credibility to hold that a party under contract to print Telephone Directories to be a “Service provider” or “Licensee” under the TRAI Act, nor, for that matter, can merely this activity bring it within the definition of “Tele-communication services” as defined in the clause (k) of sub-section I Section 2 of the TRAI Act. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that this Authority is clearly not the appropriate forum for the petitioner to ask for the relief sought.

What is more, on the petitoiner's own showing, this matter has already figures before the High Court and Supreme Court.

The petition is accordingly, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the authority to adjudicate upon the controversy sought to be raised.

(Justice S.S Sondhi) Chairperson (B.K Zutshi) Vice-Chairperson

January 19, 1998