Goebazar Retails Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India Ors

1. The petitioners are manufacturers of mobile phone instruments and have filed their respective petitions, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent no.l to take appropriate steps to bring forth a comprehensive system to identify mobile devices. They also pray that directions be issued to the respondents to ensure that the fifteen digits International Mobile EquipmentIdentification(IMEI)numbers are provided to the petitioners and to ensure the compatibility ofthe devices maintained in India.

2. It is stated that the petitioners were obtaining IMEI numbers from respondent no.3(AB Mobile Standards Alliance India Private Limited),and respondent no.3 was maintaining a database for theIMEI numbers issued to various manufacturers.

3. The immediate cause for the petitioners to file these present petitions is an email dated 27.03.2019 issued by respondent no.4(GSM Association), informing Indian manufacturers thatitis shifting the GSMA TAG allocation from a portal operated byrespondent no.3 to its intemational portal(GSMA IMEIDatabase).The petitioners claim thatin view ofthe above,it would no longer be possible for them to obtain fifteen digitIMEI numbers,which is necessaryforthe instruments manufactured bythem. n

4. Mr Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 (GSMA Limited)and 4 states that the aforesaid changes have been brought about, with effect from 29.04.2019. He states that in terms of the current arrangement with respondent no.3(which stands terminated with effect from today-29.04.2019),respondent no.3 is permitted to issue Type Allocation Code numbers (TAG nos.) to various mobile manufacturers on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4. He states that TAG numbers comprise the first 8 digits of IMEI numbers and are essential identification nunlbers for the manufacturers to identify the brand owner and the model ofthe instrument.

5. He states that the petitioners are not deprived of obtaining the TAG nos. except that instead of obtaining the same from respondent no.3, they could proceed to obtain the said numbers from other authorized agencies or directly through respondent no.2 and respondent no.4.

6. He states that, insofar as the remaining seven digits of the IMEI number are concerned,the said digits can be generated by the manufacturers themselves. This Court is fiirther informed that the said number is required to be generated by an algorithm. 4^, 7. Ms Acharya, learned ASG appearing for respondent no.l states on instructions that respondent no.l has no objection if the manufacturers generate the balance seven digits ofthe IMEI number on their own and it is notnecessaryforthe petitioners to obtain the same from respondentno.3.

8. She also clarified that the last seven digits ofthe IMEI numbers to be generated by the manufacturers are required to be unique and the manufacturers are required to ensure the same.

9. Ms Arora,leamed senior counsel appearing for respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 has been supplying the complete 15-digit IMEI numbers and is maintaining the database, which, according to her, is essential for various reasons. She submits that a single depository ofsuch data is necessary for security as well as other purposes. She eamestly contends that ifthe arrangement ofissuing IMEI numbers is stopped from 30.04.2019, respondent no.3 would stop maintaining the database and this would have other adverse ramifications.

10. She also submits that respondent no.3 has provided access to the database to custom authorities including various authorities, without payment ofany charge.

11. This Court is not called upon to examine the controversy or disputes between respondent no.3 and respondent nos.[2] and 4, which have arisen on account of the termination ofthe arrangement between respondent nos.2/4 and respondent no.3. The limited scope ofthe controversy to be examined in this petition is whether the petitioners are impeded, in any manner from carrying on their business. The petitioners can have no objection to directly obtain the first 8 digit ofthe IMEI number from respondent no.2/4, as it is admitted that the said number were being provided to them by respondent no.3, pursuant to an arrangement between respondent no.3 and respondent nos.2/4. Insofar as the remaining seven digits of the IMEI number are concerned, it is now clarified that the same can be generated by the petitioners themselves. Clearly,the petitioners can have no grievance in this regard.

12. The larger question whether the respondent ought to maintain a Central Equipment Identity Register(CEIR)and whether it is necessary for respondent no.l to maintain their own database for security purposes is a matter for respondent no.l to consider and it is not necessary for this Court to consider thatissue in these petitions. Needless to state ifrespondent no.l finds that there is a requirementfor maintaining a central depositary ofIMEI numbers or maintaining a database, respondent no.l would take the necessary steps for either setting up such depository and maintaining the database on own on its own or outsource the same to another agency.

13. Mr Virmani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also made a grievance on account ofthe charges imposed by respondent no2/4 for issuing the TAG no.(8 digitIMEInumber). It is contended that whereas respondent no.4 provides said numbers free of charge to manufacturers in other countries, respondent no.4 charges an unreasonable fee for providing the same to Indian manufacturers. This is disputed by Mr Krishnan. This controversy is essentially a dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.2/4 and the petitioners are not precluded in any mannerfrom availing of appropriate remedies in this regard.

14. In view ofthe clarification that the petitioners are entitled to generate the last seven digits ofthe IMEI and are at liberty to secure the first eight digits from respondent no.4,no further orders are required to be passed in these petitions. Thesame are disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU,J APRIL 29,2019 MK