Holding

The Tribunal erred in refusing condonation of delay and in treating the appellant’s earlier support for a review petition as abandonment; the appeal was within the scope of Section 14A(3) and the limitation period must be measured from the specific order appealed, so the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Bharti Telenet Ltd., a basic telephone service licensee in Madhya Pradesh, disputed the interconnection points with BSNL and sought a TRAI order on 15 June 2001, which was declared of general applicability. The company asked its industry association (ABTO) to file a collective review, which was dismissed; subsequently Bharti filed an appeal before the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) after a 172‑day delay, seeking condonation of the delay. The Tribunal rejected the condonation and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, and later did the same for a separate appeal concerning the Haryana circle. The Supreme Court held that Bharti’s earlier support for a review petition did not abandon its right to appeal, that the 172‑day delay could be condoned under Section 14A(3) of the TRAI Act, and that the limitation period must be measured from the date of the specific order appealed, not from earlier orders. Consequently, the Court allowed both appeals, set aside the Tribunal’s orders, condoned the delays, and remitted the matters for fresh adjudication on merits.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 14A(3) of the TRAI Act for condoning delay in filing a statutory appeal.
Whether the appellant’s support for a collective review petition amounts to abandonment or estoppel of its right to file an appeal.
Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal should be measured from the date of the order being appealed, especially when different orders pertain to different service circles.
The relevance of the association’s (ABTO) participation or non‑participation in the appeal to the appellant’s right to seek condonation.

Legislation cited

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997s. 11(l)(b)(i), s. 11(l)(b)(ii), s. 14A(2), s. 14A(3), s. 18

Subjects

interconnectiontelecom licensingTRAI orderlimitation periodcondonation of delaystatutory appealassociationabandonmentestoppeltelecom regulatory law

Judgment

A BHARTI TELENET LTD.
v. :- ~·
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 31, 200S

B [ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MA THUR, JJ.]

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997-Section 14A(2) &
(3)--Licence for providing basic telephone services - Order passed by Telecom
C Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) in respect of dispute between appellant-
/icensee and BSNL-Appellant requested its Association(ABTO) for collective
action against the order-ABTO filed petition seeking review of the order-
Petition dismissed by TRAl-Appellant filed appeal before Tribunal - Delay
of I 72 days in filing the appeal-Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by
limitation-On facts, held: Mere acquiescence ofappellant at one stage to file
D review petition instead of the appeal did not amount to abandonment of its
right to file the statutory appeal - Whether or not ABTO.joined the appeal
is irrelevant-The Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the
appeal on merits.

The appellant is a licensee providing basic telephone services to
E subscribers in the Madhya Pradesh Telecom Circle. It was required to
develop its own telecommunication network within its own service area,
viz. Madhya Pradesh and also to inter-connect with the network of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). Dispute arose between the appellant and
BSNL regarding location of points of interconnection. Appellant
F approached Telecom Regulatory Authc_>rity of India (TRAI) for
appropriate orders and directions. TRAI passed order on 15-6-2001 and
communicated the same to the appellant on that very day. Since the order
stated that it would have "general applicability in similar interconnect
scenarios", the appellant instead of challenging the order individually,
requested its Association, i.e. Association of Basic Telecom Operators
G (ABTO) to seek review of the order in coHective interest. The Association
filed review application. before TRAI, but the 'Same ~as dismissed. The
order passed in review was discussed amongst the members of ABTO but
no consensus was forthcoming. By way of abundant caution and since the
appellant was the most affected by the order of TRAI, it filed appeal before
H 54
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. 55
the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal within 30 days A
from the communication of the order dismissing the review application
but after delay of 172 days from the passing of the order dated 15-6-2001.
Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation holding that the
application for condonation of delay submitted with the appeal was
speculative and not bona fide and that the appellant had failed to make B
out a case for condoning the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal.

The appellant in the connected appeal is a licensee in the Haryana
Telecom Circle. Its representation was put on hold by TRAI awaiting the
decision of the Tribunal in the Madhya Pradesh case. Thereafter, on 29-
8-2002, TRAI rejected the representation upon dismissal of the Madhya C
Pradesh case by the Tribunal. Appeal filed before the Tribunal was
dismissed on the ground that there was an enormous delay of more than
450 days in preferring the appeal from the earlier order of the TRAI dated
15-6-2001.

Hence the two appeals filed under Section 18 of the Telecom D
Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. Before passing of the order dated 15.6.2001 the issue of
BSNL's refusal to accept intermediate handover of transit calls of long E
distance charging area in Madhya Pradesh Circle was specific and
confined to. the appellant and therefore it directly approached TRAI for
appropriate direction to BSNL. Since the order dated 15.6.2001 expressly
stated that the order would have general applicability in similar
interconnect scenarios, the appellant being a member of the Association .F
not only had an option but was also bound by the spirit of .unity to
approach the Association and consult other members. In any event being
a member of the Association, it had the option to either challenge the order
individually or through the aegis of its Association and neither course of
action could be said to be inexplicable. (63-B-CJ
G
2.1. Mere acquiescence of the appellant at one stage to file the review
petition instead of the appeal would not amount to abandonment of its
right to file the statutory appeal or to an estoppel disentitling it from
claiming the relief in appeal. (6~-E)

H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R.

A 2.2. The mere letter of the appellant stating that it would extend
support to the Association· if review peti1ion is filed instead of appeal
cannot amount to abandonment of its right to challenge the invasion of
and interference with its legal/contractual r.ight. The Tribunal failed to
appreciate that filing of an appeal or review petition by the appellant or
B through its Association or joining 'itself or the Association as a party to
the proceeding initiated by either of them to avail of either of the alternate
procedures available to the aggrieve<_I party in the given circumstances
could not be said to be inexplicable or fatal for not choosing the other
procedures. [64-A-B]

C Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd v. 'Jawahar Mills Ltd, Salem, AIR (1953)
SC 98, referred to.

3. The Tribun_?I has misconstrued the fact that ABTO kept itself
away from the appeal filed by the appella_nt. Firstly, action of the
Association was guided by the majority opinion of its members. Secondly,
D in the given circumstances of stiff competition amongst members it was
the lack of consensus amoi1gst the members and the failure/delay on the
part of the Association wh,ich drove the appellant to file the appeal before
the Tribunal. Hence whether or not the Association joined the appeal filed
by the appellant is irrelevant for considering the merits of the appellant's
E case much less· for deciding whether or not to condone the delay in filing
the appeal. Acceptance of TRAl's det~rmination dated 15.6.2001 by other
members of ABTO, signing of interconnect agreements with BSNL by
other members on the basis of the said determination or signing ofsuch
agreement by the appellant in respect of Haryana Circle or any other
service area except ·the Madhya Pradesh circle, have no relevance to the
F case at hand. Merely because the interconnect scenarios in other service
area/circles permit or enable the licensees there to sign the interconnect
agreement even though such agreement is contrary to the express
provisions in the licence agreement for the M.P. Telecom Circle the
appellant cannot be denied its legal/contractual right flowing from ·the
G subsisting licence agreement Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that
having accepted and acted upon the determination made by TRAI in
Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Circles, the appellant cannot
contend to the contrary in .respect of Madhya Pradesh Circle alone. The
licensees have varying levels of network in the various licensed areas and
if the network in one service area permits the licensee to accept the said
H
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. 57
determination, it does not follow that the licensee in another service area A
could be denied his contractual rights regardless of the nature and extent
of its network there. (64-C-GJ

4. The Tribunal erred in holding that on the facts of the case, ground
for condonation of delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal was not made
out. The point in issue was ofgeneral importance and since there was no B
authoritative pronouncement of the Tribunal or of this Court on the point,
the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on
merits. (64-H; 65-A)

5. The appellant in the connected appeal filed appeal on 27-9-2002. C
There was no delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed within 30
days of the rejection of the representation finally by the TRAI on 29-8-
2002. The Tribunal erred in taking the starting point for limitation from
the determination made by the Tribunal on 15:-6-2001 which was in
relation to Madhya Pradesh Circle. The order dated 15-6-2001 and the
order dated 29-8-2002 are twe separate orders passed by TRAI relating D
to different Circles and the starting point for limitation for the same could
not be taken from the previous order passed by TRAI in relation to the
Madhya Pradesh circle. [65-E-F)

6. The orders passed by the Tribunal in both the appeals are set
aside, delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the case is remitted back
E
to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. [65:G:..H)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7200 of2002.

From the Judgment and order dated 29.7.2002 of the Telecom Disputes F
Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in M.A. No. I/ 2002 in A. No.
I of 2002.

C.A. Sundaram, Ramji Srinivasan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Divya Roy
and Ms. Mrinalini Chandy with him for the Appellant.
G
T.S. Doabia, Shailendra Sharma, V.K. Verma and Navin Chawla with
him for the Respondents.

R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Maninder Singh and Angad
Mirdha and Ankur Talwar with for B.S.N.L.
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAN, J. These appeals are statutory appeals under Section 18 of the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 [for short "the Act"] against
the final judgments and orders dated 29.7.2002 and 19.12.2002 passed by the
Telecom Disputes Settlement &. Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [for short
B "the Tribunal"] dismissing the appellant's applications· for condonation of
delay and consequently the statutory appeal No. 1 of 2002 and Appeal No.
9 of2002 under Section 14 A read with Section 14A (2) of the Act challenging
the order/determination dated 15.6.2001 and order/letter dated 29.8.2002
passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.
c At the first instance Appeal No. 7200 of 2002 arising from the Appeal
No. I of 2002 decided on 29;7.2002 will be taken up for consideration and
thereafter the second
.
appeal No.1816 of 2003.
.

We are stating the facts as found by the Tribunal, as there is no dispute
D on them:
Appellant is a licensee to provide basic telephone services to subscribers
in Madhya Pradesh. As a part of the licence agreement the appellant is
expected to develop its own telecommunication network within its own service
E area, viz., Madhya Pradesh and also interconnect with the network of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, respondent No. 2, [for short. "the BSNL"] so as ~o
provide national and inter-circle links which is currently available with only
BSNL. This link is also re.quired to connect the subscribers of the appellant
with the subscribers of BSNL within the same service area, viz., Madhya
Pradesh. The issue under dispute is the location of points of interconnection
F between the appellant and BSNL. The appellant claims that as per the terms
and conditions of its licence it is entitled to carry the traffic originating from
its own subscribers to the farthest point through its own network before
handing it over to BSNL at the point of interconnection [ for short "the
POI"]. BSNL, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the licence agreement
clearly stipulates that the two respective networks and the points of
G interconnection of the appellant and BSNL would have to be at equivalent
level. Thus within the short distance charging area [for short. "the SDCA"],
the interconnections would have to be at the level of locar and tandem
exchanges. In so far as long distance charging area (for short "the LDCA"]
are concerned, the point of interconnection would have to be located between
H the trunk automatic exchanges of the long distance charging area of both
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.] 59
BSNL and the appellant. For this, BSNL contends that the appellant would A
have to build up a parallel network within their long distance charging atea
on the same pattern as the network hierarchy of BSNL starting with the short
distance charging area. In case the appellant does not have its own trunk
automatic exchange in the long distance charging area it would have to bring
the traffic from its own short distance charging area tandem with local B
exchange to the nearest to the trunk automatic exchange of BSNL for onward
transmission/carriage to any other trunk automatic exchanges. Since BSNL
has the trunk automatic exchange in each fong distance charging area this
practically means that the appellant would have to handover all long-distance
traffic in the same long distance charging area in which it has originated.
c
The dispute arose in October 2000 when the Chief Genral Manager,
Madhya Pradsh Circle, BSNL informed the appellant in a meeting about the
manner in which BSNL would provide points of interconnection in handing
long distance traffic originating from the subscribers of the appellant. Since
mutual discussions held subsequently did not prove fruitful, the appellant
approached Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [for short "the TRAI"] D
for appropriate orders and directions on 6.12.2001.

After hearing both the parties, TRAI decided the case as under :
-...... "In the light of the foregoing the Authority has come to the following
conclusions :- E
(i) BSNL's refusal to accept at Ujjain and Indore, the STD inter
network traffic for calls originating in other LDCAs is in
~ accordance with the stipulations in the license agreement as well
'
as interconnect agreement signed by both the contending parties.
F
(ii) Clause 1.7.6.5. of the licence agreement gives the licensee option
of carrying a STD call entirely on his own network within the
circle/service area.

(iii) This clause (l.7.6.5.) also gives the licensee the option of far end
" hand over of calls to BSNL for termination only. The licensee G
may, therefore, also use his network to carry inter-Network calls
to the Far End and hand over in the terminating LDCA/SDCA to
the DOT (now BSNL) in the same manner as is permitted to the
DOT (now BSNL) in the license agreement. The BSNL should
not refuse such Far End hand over from licenses received by· H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A . them for termination within the LDCA. ·

(iv) Intermediate hand over of calls for tenninating is not in confonnity
with the license agreement as well as interconnect Agreement
and, therefore, neither the licensee nor the BSNL is obliged to
accept any such hand over of calls.
B
Though this Order has been made in. relation to the specific
complaint relating to Madhya Pradesh Circle, it will have general
applicability in similar interconnect scenarios. "

[Emphasis supplied]
c Since the Tribunal did not decide the dispute on merits and dismissed
the appeals as barred by limitation we would also confine ourselves to the
question as to whether "in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant
had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the
Tribunal has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that sufficient
D cause for condoning the delay had not been shown and consequently dismissing
the appeal barred by time.

Section l 4A (2) and (3) of the Act which is relevant for this c·ase are
reproduced below :

E "I 4A. Application for settlement ofdisputes and appeals to Appellate
Tribunal.-(!) The Central Government or a State Government or a
local authority or any person may make an applicatiori to the Appellate
Tribunal for adjudication of any dispute refereed to in clause (a) of
section 14.
F (2) The Central Government or a State Government or a local authority
or any person aggrieved by any direction, decision or order made by
the Authority may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (2) shell be preferred withih a
period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the direction
G
or order or decision made by the Authority is received by the Central
Government or the State Government or the local authority or the
aggrieved person and it shall be in such form, verified in such manner
and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.] 61

the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there A
was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period."

TRAI passed the order on 15.6.2001 and communicated the same to the
appellant on that very day under a covering letter dated 15.6.2001. On
17.8.2001 a review application was filed which was dismissed by the TRAI
on 27.11.2001. A copy of the said order was received by the appellant on B
5.12.2001. The appeal was filed on 2.1.2002, i.e., within the period of 30
days from the communication of the order dismissing the review application
and after a delay of 172 days from the passing of the order dated 15.6.200 I
along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

TRAI made its order under Section 11 (l)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. C
Though the order was made in relation to specific complaint relating to
Madhya Pradesh Circle but was same was ordered that "it will have general
applicability in similar interconnect scenarios." Since that order was made
applicable generally to all the telecom operators, appellant forwarded a copy
of the said order under cover of letter dated 17.06.2001 to its Association D
(Association of Basic Telecom Operators - 'ABTO' for short), for seeking
review of the order in collective interest. ABTO circulated the said order
among its members vide its circular dated 19.06.2001. Executive council of
ABTO met on 20.6.2001 and 26.6.2001 in which the order/determination of
the TRAI was discussed and deliberated. At the subsequent meeting held on
27.6.2001, Executive Council of ABTO observed that members had agreed E
for the need to file a petition challenging the order of the TRAI before the
Tribunal. On 17~ 7.200 I appellant reminded the Secretary General of ABTO
about the said decision of the executive council and requested to convey the
action taken, if any.

On 26.7.2001 ABTO informed the appellant that some of the members
F
of ABTO had reservation about filing the appeal before the Tribunal
challenging the said order. It was contended by them that since the order was
passed affecting all the members/basic service operators without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the members (except the Appellant herein), it would
be appropriate to file a review application before the TRAI. Appellant again G
represented to the ABTO that the said order dated 15.6.2001 was causing
huge loss and financial hardship to the appellant and requested for collective
action under the aegis of ABTO at the earliest. On 17.8.2001 ABTO filed a
review application before the TRAI for review of the order dated 15.6.2001.

TRAI dismissed the review application on 27 .11.200 l. The order passed H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A in review was again discussed amongst the members of the ABTO but no
consensus was forthcoming till 2.1.2002. By way of abundant caution and
since the appellant was the most affected by the order of the TRAI the
appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 2.1.2002 challenging the
order of the TRA/ dated 15.6.2001 along with application seeking condonation
B of delay in filing the appeal. To the application filed by the appellant reply
was filed by the respondent and on the direction issued by the tribunal the
appellant filed a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and
held that the application for condonation of delay was speculative and was
C not bona fide. That the appellant had failed to make out a case for condoning
the· delay for 172 days in filing the appeal. The tribunal recorded the following
three findings for coming to the aforesaid decision:

"It will be clear from this letter that BTNL abandoned its earlie,r
decision to prefer an appeal and decided to extend full support to
D ABTO if a review petition was filed instead of an appeal. This review
petition was filed on 17.8.2001 well after expiry of the period of
limitation for preferring an appeal i.e. 14.7.2001."

"In the review petition filed by ABTO before TRAI, the appellant did
not separately join as a party even though TRAI had passed the
E determination order on the application made by the appellant. It is
also significant that. ABTO has kept itself away from the present
appeal filed by the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
the appellant has failed to furnish sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within the statutory time limit."

F "There is another aspect of this case. The review petition made
by ABTO was dismissed by TRAI on 5.12.2001. The determination
made by TRAI has been accepted by the other members of ABTO.
A number of interconnect agreements with BSNL have been signed
by the members of ABTO on the basis of the determination made by
TRAI on 15.6.2001. The petitioner who. has preferred this appeal
G
before us also signed an interconnect agreement with BSNL on
6.12.2001 in respect ofHaryana Circle. After filing this appeal in this
tribunal, the petitioner on 15.2.2002 has entered into two more
agreements with BSNL in which the determination made by ·TRAI
has been accepted and made part of the agreements."
H
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.] 63
With respect we do not agree with either of these reasons recorded by A
the Tribunal for dismissing the _appli~ation filed by the appellant in condonation
of delay.

In the instant case before passing of the order dated 15.6.2001 the issue
of BSNL's refusal to accept intermediate hand over of transit calls of long
distance charging area in Madhya Pradesh Circle (licensed to the appellant), B
was specific and confined to the appellant and therefore the appellant directly
approached TRAI for appropriate direction to BSNL. Since the order dated
15.6.2001 expressly stated that the order would have general applicability in
similar interconnect scenarios, the appellant being a member of the Association
not only had an option but was also bound by the spirit of unity to approach C
the Association and consult other members. In any event being a member of
the Association the appellant had the option to either challenge the order
individually or through the aegis of its Association and neither course of
action could be said to be inexplicable. The Tribunal has erred in holding that
the appellant had abandoned its decision to prefer an appeal or its right of
appeal merely because it conveyed to the Association that it will extend its
-.....
D
support to the Association if a review is filed instead of an appeal against the
said order. The appellant's support to the Association in filing review petition
is not indicative of its abandonment of its right to file appeal. Mere
acquiescence of the appellant at one stage to file the review petition instead
of the appeal would not amount to the abandonment of its right to file the
statutory appeal or to an estoppel disentitling it from claiming the relief in E
appeal.

This Court in Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem,
AIR (1953) SC 98 held :

"Further, whatever be the effect of mere waiver, acquiescence or
F
laches on the part of a person on his claim to equitable remedy to
enforce his rights under an executory contract, it is quite clear, on the
authorities, that mere waiver, acquiescence or !aches which does not
amount to an abandonment of his right or to an estoppel against him
cannot disentitle that person from claiming relief in equity in respect G
of his executed and not merely executory interest. [See per Lord
Chelmsford in Clarke's case (supra) at p. 657.) Indeed, it has been
held in 'Garden Gully United Quartz Mining Co. v. Mclister ', (1876)
1 A C 39 that mere laches does not disentitle the holder of shares to
equitable relief against an invalid declaration of forfeiture. '."
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A In the instant case, the mere letter of appellant stating that it would
extend support to the Association if review petition is filed instead of appeal
cannot amount to abandonment of its right to challenge the invasion of and
interference with. its legal/contractual right. The Tribunal failed to appreciate
that filing of an appeal or review petition by the appellant or through its
B Association or joining itself or the Association as a party to the proceeding
initiated by either of them to av~il of either of the alternate procedures available
to the aggrieved party in the given circumstances could not be said to be
inexplicable or fatal. for not choosing the other procedures.

Tribunal has misconstrued the fact that the ABTO kept itself away
C from the present appeal filed by the appellant. Firstly, action of an Association
was guided by the majority opinion of its members. Secondly, in the given
circumstances of stiff competition amongst members it was the lack of
consensus amongs't the members and the failure/delay on the part of the
Association· which drove the appellant to file the appeal itself before the
D Tribunal. Hence whether or not the Association joined the appeal filed by the
appellant is irrelevant for considering the merits of the appellant's case much
less for deciding whether or not to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Acceptance of TRAI's determination dated 15.6.2001 by other ~embers of
ABTO signing of interconnect agreements with BSNL by other members on
the basis of the said determination or signing of such agreement by the
E appellant in respect of Haryana Circle or any other service area except the
Madhya Pradesh circle, have no relevance to the case at hand. Merely because
the interconnect scenarios in other service area/circles permit or enable the
licensees there to sign the interconnect agreement even though such agreement
is contrary to the express provisions in the licence agreement for the M.P.
F Telecom Circle the appellant cannot be denied its legal/contractual right
flowing from the subsisting licence agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal erred
in holding that having accepted and acted upon the determination made by
TRAI in Haryana, Kamataka and Tamil Nadu Circles, the appellant cannot
contend to the contrary in respect of Madhya Pradesh circle alone. The
licensees have varying levels of network in the various licensed areas and if
G the network in one service area permits the licensee to accept the said
determination, it does not follow that the licensee in another service area
could be denied his contractual rights regardless of the nature and extent of
its network there.

In our view, the Tribunal erred in holding that on the facts of the case
H
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. [BHAN. J.] 65

a ground of condonatiori of delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal was A
not made out. The point in issue was of general importance and since there
was no authoritative pronouncement of the Tribunal or of this Court on the
point in our view the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided
the appeal on the merits.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1816 OF 2003 B

The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant relating to
Haryana Circle by holding that there was an enormous delay of more than
450 days in preferring the appeal from the earlier order of the TRAI dated
15.6.2001 although the licence for Haryana Circle was granted to the appellant C
on 8.10.2001, the interconnect agreement which gave rise to the issues in
dispute was signed on 6.12.2001 and the appellant's representation was rejected
by the TRAI on 29.8.2002. Appellant filed the appeal on 27.9.2002 within
the period of limitation, i.e., 30 days. In our considered view the Tribunal has
erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal on the ground of bar of limitation.
D
The licence agreement was signed on 6.12.2001. The appellant's
representation was put on hold by the TRAI by its order dated 24.7.2002
awaiting the decision of the Tribunal in appellant's appeal No. I of 2002
relating to the Madhya Pradesh Telecom Circle. Thereafter, by letter dated
29.8.2002 TRAI rejected the appellant's representation upon dismissal of
Appeal No. I of2002 by the Tribunal on 29.8.2002. The appeal was filed on E
27.9.2002. In this case there was no delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has
been filed within 30 days of the rejection of the appellant's representation
finally by the TRAI on 29.8.2002. The Tribunal has erred in takin~ the
starting point for limitation from the determination made by the Tribunal on
15.6.2001 which was in relation to Madhya Pradesh circle. The order dated F
15.6.2001 and the order dated 29.8.2002 are two separate orders passed by
the TRAI relating to different circles and the starting point for limitation for
the same could not be taken from the previous order passed by the TRAI in
relation to the Madhya Pradesh circle.

For the reasons stated above, both the appeals are accepted. The crders G
passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. I of 2002 and Appeal No. 9 of 2002
dated 29.7.2002 and 19.12.2002 are set aside, delay in filing the appeals is
condoned and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision
on merits of the dispute and in accordance with law.

H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 3 S.C.R.

A Nothing stated herein-above be taken as an expression of opinion on
merits of dispute. The Tribunal shall be at liberty to decide the dispute on
merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the
observations made in this judgment touching upon the merits of the dispute.
There will be no order as to costs.

B B.B.B. Appeals allowed.