Bharti Airtel Ltd. And Another v. Union Of India .

Shiva Kirti Singh, Chairperson:— Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner/applicant and Mr. Lekhi, learned ASG appearing for the respondent/non applicant.

2. It is made clear that this order is being passed in respect of M.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2020 which have been dealt with in the last order also passed on 10.1.2020. That order shall be treated as a part of this order.

3. Some prima facie findings recorded in the order dated 10.1.2020 notwithstanding, four days' time was granted to non-applicant by way of special indulgence to show that the demand which the petitioner is now being required to pay were issued prior to the letter dated 10.4.2019.

4. Learned ASG for the respondent/non applicant has submitted that the liability upon the merging entities under clause (e) of letter dated 10.4.2019 are wider and capable of covering subsequent demands atleast till the respondents passes a final order granting approval of transfer/merger on all the conditions of transfer/merger being satisfied. He further submits that on account of aforesaid understanding of the scope of clause (e), the respondent have been raising demands subsequently also after the letter dated 10.4.2019 and the same have been paid also by the petitioner and therefore, respondent should not be held to have acted in deliberate dis-obedience of the interim order passed on 2.5.2019.

5. There is no difficulty in appreciating the anxiety of the respondent/non applicant to keep their powers intact for recovery of lawful demands or dues from the petitioner in accordance with law but that anxiety or any possible interpretation of clause (e) cannot grant any immunity to the respondent not to accept the interim order and to implement the same when it was passed long back on 2.5.2019 and has acquired finality due to dismissal of SLP by the Apex Court. In the subsequent demands even after the matter was settled by the Apex Court, there was no mention that the respondent intend to act on the order passed on 2.5.2019 nor subsequent demands have been shown to be a condition for implementing the order dated 2.5.2019.

6. Certain views recorded in the last order as prima facie are only because the views may have to be finally re-determined at the stage of final hearing. So far as interim order dated 2.5.2019 is concerned, it is found that inspite of adequate opportunity, the respondent has chosen not to act in accordance with that order by issuing letters similar to those contained in Annx. 10 of the M.A. No. 3 of 2020.

7. At this stage, Mr. Lekhi, learned ASG has suggested that instead of exercising powers under section 20 of TRAI Act, 1997 some further reasonable time be granted to show compliance with the order dated 2.5.2019 in clear terms. He further submits that it be made clear that respondent's right to recover the subsequent demands including the demand raised on 20.12.19 shall not be affected in any way on account of interim order dated 2.5.2019 or the subsequent interim orders.

8. So far as the subsequent demands are concerned, it goes without saying that respondent will be always entitled to recover their lawful dues including the one raised on 20.12.2019 in accordance with law.

9. It further goes without saying that the other party shall also be free to exercise its rights in accordance with law.

10. The respondent is given final opportunity to show clear compliance with the order dated 2.5.2019 by the next date.

11. Post the matter under the same head on 7.2.2020.