Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Bharath Sampath, Advocates v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

$-18 to 38 HIGH COURT OF DELHI -I- W.P.(C) 72/2013 & CM Nos. 143-145/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Bharath Sampath, Advocates

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Id. ASG with Ms. M Maneesha Dhir and Ms. Sadhvi, Advocates for the respondent/UOI
Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate for R-2/TRAI V -I- W.P.(C) 73/2013 & CM Nos. 146-148/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (ASSAM) Petitioner Advocates

Maneesha Dhir andMs. Sadhvi, Advocates for the
Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate for R-2/TRAI '

W.P.(C) 74/2013 & CM Nos. 149 to 151/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (MADHYA PRADESH) Petitioner
Through: Mr. RajivNayar, Sr. Advocate with

WP(C) 72/2013 8l connected matters Page 1of11
2013:DHC:7782 Mr. Akshay Ringeand Mr. BharathSampath, Advocates

UNION OF INDIA ANDANR Respondents Maneesha Dhir and Ms. Sadhvi, Advocates for the respondentTJOI

W.P.(C) 75/2013 & CM Nos. 152 to 154/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (KARNATAKA) Petitioner Advocates

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents

W.P.(C) 76/2013 & CM Nos. 155 to 157/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (WEST BENGAL) Petitioner
Through: Mr. RajivNayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Ringe andMr. Bharath Sampathj
Advocates

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters Page 2 of11
\ \
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Id. ASG with Msf

W.P.(C) 77/2013 & CM Nos. 158 to 160/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (UP EAST) Petitioner Advocates

W.P.(C) 78/2013 & CMNos. 161 to 163/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (PUNJAB) Petitioner Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. BharathSampath, Advocates

W.P.(C) 79/2013 & CM Nos.. 164 to 166/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD. (BIHAR) Petitioner

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters
Advocates

respondent^OI

W.P.(C) 80/2013 &CMNos.l67tol69
LOOP TELECOM LTD (DELHI) Petitioner Advocates

W.P.(C) 81/2013 & CM Nos. 170 to 172/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (ORISSA) Petitioner Advocates

WP(C) 72/2013 & connected matters Page4 of 11

W.P.(C) 82/2013 & CM Nos.173 to 175/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (JAMMU & KASHMIR) Petitioner
Through: Mr. RajivNayar, Sr. Advocatewith Advocates yersus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents

W.P.(C) 83/2013 & CM Nos. 176 to 178/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (HARYANA) Petitioner Advocates

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, id. ASG with Ms. W.P.(C) 84/2013 & CM Nos. 179 to 181/2013

WP(C) 72/2013 & connected matters Page 5 of11
LOOP TELECOM LTD (MAHARASHTRA) Petitioner Advocates

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondent
Through; Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Id. ASG with Ms. W.P.(C) 85/2013 & CMNos.182 to 184/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (GUJARAT) Petitioner Mr. Akshay Ringeand Mr. Bharath Sampath, Advocates

W.P.(C) 86/2013 & CMNos. 185 to 187/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (NORTH EAST) Petitioner Mr. Akshay Ringe andMr. Bharath Sampath, Advocates

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters Page 6of11
Maneesha DhirandMs. Sadhvi, Advocates forthe Mr. Saket Singh, Advocatefor R-2/TRAI

W.P.(C) 87/2013 &CM N0S..I88 to 190/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (ANDHRA PRADESH) Petitioner Advocates

Maneesha Dhir andMs. Sadhvi, Advocates for the

W.P.(C) 88/2013 & CMNos.191 to 193/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (RAJASTHAN) Petitioner Advocates

Through; Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Id. ASG with Ms. Mr. SaketSingh, Advocatefor R-2/TRAI

W.P.(C) 89/2013 & CM Nos. 194to196/2013

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters Page 7of11 v., •c
LOOP TELECOM LTD (TAMIL NADU) Petitioner Advocates

UNIOIN OF INDIA AND ANR Respondents respondentAJOI

W.P.(C) 90/2013 & CM Nos. 197 to 199/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (U.P.WEST) Petitioner Advocates

W.P.(C) 91/2013 & CM Nos. 200 to 202/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (KERALA) Petitioner Advocates

WP(C) 72/2013 & connected matters
-

W.P.(C) 92/2013 & CMNos. 203 to 205/2013
LOOP TELECOM LTD (KOLKATTA) Petitioner Advocates

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
07.01.2013 The challenge laid in these writ petitions is to the order dated
02.01.2013 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate
Tribunal (in short TDSAT).
The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that by virtue of the aforementioned order, its bank guarantees in issue, which pertain to financial obligations as well as its obligations qua its performance, will get encashed. Before the TDSAT, a challenge had been laid to the following

WP(C) 72/2013 & connected matters Page9 of 11 o communications which emanated from the respondents by which encashment is sought. These being letters dated: 02.11.2012, 08.11.2012, 09.11.2012, 12.11.2012, 16.11.2012 and 22.11.2012.
It may be noted that the petitioners have been issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.2012, by the Department of Telecommunication (DOT).
It is not disputed that the petitioners are yet to file a reply to the aforementioned show cause notice, and that, as a matter of fact they have assailed the show cause notice dated 22.11.2012 before the TDSAT. The challenge to the said show cause notice is pending adjudication before the
TDSAT.
I amtold by the learned senior counsel forthe petitioner thatthe main petition cannot be adjudicated upon as there is only one Member presently available in the TDSAT. The learned ASG informs me that the Government of India is in the process of finalizing the appointment of the Chairman as well as other Member(s) to the TDSAT.
Be that as it may, I am informed that there is no stay inthe petition filed by the petitioners before the TDSAT qua the show cause notice dated
22.11.2012. Therefore, the DOT, as of today, is free to adjudicate upon the said show cause notice.
Mr. Nayar, on instructions, submits that in these circumstances, the petitioners will extend the validity period of the bank guarantees in issue initially for a period of three months from today.
This direction ispassed based on an undertaking given by the learned counsels for the petitioner(s) that they will file their reply to the show cause notice by 15.01.2013.
Needless to say, the petitioners shall issue a mandate to their bankers

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters Page 10of11
V- fl for extension of the bank guarantees in issue by 08.01.2013 with due intimation to the respondents. Ifsuch an intimation is given then the bank guarantee in issue, will not be encashed. Itis also made clear that during the interregnum, that is, between today and tomorrow, no coercive steps will be taken, which is the time accorded to the petitioners to issue the necessary mandate. In case no intimation is received by the respondents by 5.00 p.m. on 08.01.2013, the protection given today shall automatically dissolve. The respondents shall beatliberty toencash the bank guarantees inissue.
Having regard to the above, the respondents shall adjudicate upon the show cause notice dated 22.11.2012, as expeditiously as possible, though, notlater than three months from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions and the applications are disposed of.
Dasti under the signaturesofthe Court Master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 07,2013 yg

WP(C) 72/2013 &connected matters Page 11 of11