TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

 

 

Dated 22^nd May, 2006

 

Petition No.20 of 2002

 

 

 

Hughes Escorts Communication Ltd.                          …..Petitioner

 

Versus

 

Union of India                                                                  …..Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE

                                                      CHAIRPERSON

MR.VINOD VAISH, MEMBER

LT. GEN.(RETD.) D.P. SEHGAL, MEMBER

 

 

For Petitioner                          :        Dr.A.M. Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with

                                                         Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Advocate

                                                         Mr.Priyabrat Tripathy, Advocate

                                                         Mr.Mohd.Akram, Advocate

                                                         Ms.Mandakini Singh, Advocate

 

 

For Respondent                      :        Mr.P.P. Malhotra, ASG with

                                                         Mr.Rakesh Gosain, Advocate

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

         Brief facts of the case:  The petitioner is engaged in establishing/maintaining/operating a Closed User Group Domestic 64 KBPS Data Network via satellite using VSAT systems throughout India.  In August, 1999 the respondent constituted an Inspection Team to verify the records of VSATs of the petitioner and the inspection was done jointly with petitioner on 16.03.2000.  Based on reconciliation of figures, the petitioner had to pay Rs.1.59 crores to respondent as on 15.04.2000.  But respondent issued show cause notice claiming charges retrospectively for 702 under-reported VSATs and proposing levy of License Fee from 17.02.1995, which the petitioner disputed and represented against the same.  Thereafter, respondents constituted a Committee to examine the representations of aggrieved operators and the Committee submitted its report, which report the petitioner alleges, has not been supplied to it.  Based on the report, further Demand for Rs.11.69 crore was proposed, which the petitioner protested vide letter dated 25.09.2001.  Respondent, based on representations, reduced the claim to Rs.11.25 crores and further to Rs.10.33 crores, which amount the petitioner paid under protest and represented again to the Committee.  Committee again submitted report on January, 2002.  Based on the report, the respondent rejected the representations of the petitioner.

         Aggrieved by the above, by way of this Petition the petitioner seeks to set aside letters dated 22.02.2002 and 30.05.2002 issued by respondent, DoT and direction to the respondent to provide details of claims levied and demand accounts of various amounts received from petitioner as also direction to the respondents to modify its Demand Note dated 24.05.2001 under the Migration Package and refund all the excess amount.

2.      The dispute which basically pertains to pre-migration period hovers around identifying the exact number of VSATs which were according to the respondent under-reported and according to the petitioner the same were not activated at all.  The matter was part-heard twice, but was adjourned time and again and now long over due.  We heard the matter in detail once again on 2^nd March 2006.  We were however, unable to identify from the pleadings and even arguments the exact number of VSATs which were allegedly reported by the petitioner.

3.      We, of course, have no doubt about the procedure adopted by the petitioner from procurement stage to the stage of making the VSATs operational.  We tried to find if there was an organisation where the records of transmissions made by the VSATs of the petitioner could be available, but unfortunately we could not get a satisfactory answer to this question.

4.      To arrive at the final solution and to pin-point the number of VSATs which were actually under-reported, we, with the concurrence of the learned counsel for both the parties, have today decided to appoint a Commissioner for the same.  We have identified and requested Dr.N. Vijayaditya, Director General, National Informatics Centre, MC&IT, A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 for this purpose.  The Commissioner will be assisted by the nominees of the petitioner and respondent who are as under:

(a)     Nominee of the petitioner        - Mr.Partho Bannerjee, President &

                                                           Managing Director, HECL

 

(b)     Nominee of the respondent      - Mr.Arun Golas, DDG (Satellite),

                                                           TEC, New Delhi

 

5.      We hereby request the committee headed by Dr.Vijayaditya to go into the following aspects to identify the allegedly non-reported 243 terminals with their locations and to find whether they were made operational or not:-

(i)              The committee will identify all the VSATs of the Company which were procured and were to operate under the license in SCPC DAMA MESH Configuration from the date of issuance of license for the same.

(ii)           The date of procurement, the date of receipt and the date of installation of each terminal to be identified.

(iii)        SACFA clearance for each terminal with location to be listed.

(iv)         Petitioner will give details of all the terminals with SACFA clearance which were declared as operational, with date of installation/ commissioning.

(v)            The committee will check remaining terminals with their locations whether they were made operational or not & identify the exact number of such VSATs.

6.      Suitable remuneration will be paid to the Commissioner appointed hereinabove.  The committee is also empowered to engage such Secretarial/Technical assistance as it considers necessary, cost of which will be borne by the parties to this Petition.  If any advance payment is required, same may be indicated to this Tribunal.  We expect that the representatives of the petitioner and respondent will give full support to the Commissioner in this regard.

7.      The report of the Commissioner is requested to be submitted within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 

…………………...J

(N. Santosh Hegde)

Chairperson

 

 

 

……………...

(Vinod Vaish)

Member

 

 

 

……………...

(D.P. Sehgal)

Member