/2022 INSC 0847/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1699­1723 OF 2015
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM 
LTD. AND OTHERS ETC.        ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S TATA COMMUNICATIONS 
LTD. ETC.            ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. The   instant   batch   of   appeals   has   been   preferred   by   the
appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. assailing the judgment dated
20 th
  August, 2014 passed by the Telecom  Disputes Settlement and
Appellate   Tribunal,   New   Delhi,   followed   with   the   order   dated   14 th
October,   2014   rejecting   the   application   filed   by   the   appellant
seeking   clarification   of   judgment   dated   20 th
  August,   2014   to   the
extent   that   the   rate   of   infrastructure   charges   for   Active   Links   of
Licensed   Telecom   Service   Providers   to   be   charged   in   terms   of   the
1

circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   has   been   made   effective   from   1 st
April, 2013 instead of 1 st
 April, 2009 taking note of increase of 10%
per annum  between 1 st
  April, 2009 to 31 st
  March, 2013 as payable
on   1 st
  April,   2013.       As   consequence   thereto,   the   revised   rates
introduced  by  the appellant  as per  circular  dated  12 th
  June, 2012,
which   although   were   proposed   from   1 st
  April,   2009,   shall   be
applicable with effect from 1 st
  April, 2013 but that was declined by
the Tribunal under the order impugned. 
2. It   will   be   apposite   to   take   a   narration   of   facts   for   better
appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant appeals. 
3. The respondents herein who have been granted licenses under
Section   4   of   the   Indian   Telegraph   Act,   1885,   for   providing   telecom
services   such   as   Universal   Access   Service/Cellular   Mobile
Telephone   Service/National   Long   Distance   Service,   etc.   and   the
service providers entered into Interconnection Agreements with the
appellant   which   is   a   public   sector   undertaking   for   interconnection
of their telecom networks with that of the appellant.   
4. Whenever   a   new   operator   wishes   to   start   operations,   it   is
necessary   for   such   an   operator   to   interconnect   with   various   other
2

networks of the incumbent operators that are already in existence.
It   is   for   this   reason   that   interconnection   as   well   as   the   terms   on
which   the   same   is   to   be   provided,   is   regulated   by   the   telecom
regulations.       The   various   operators   designate   some   of   their
switches/exchanges as points of interconnect (POI) from  which the
interconnection facility is provided by a physical connection on the
ports   available   in   such   points   of   interconnect.   Sometimes,   the
newcomer   called   the   interconnection   seeker   in   common   parlance,
may   ask   for   certain   other   facilities/resources   from   the   incumbent
operators,   which   may   not   be   mandated   by   the   regulations,   on
mutually agreeable terms. 
5. The   dispute   in   the   present   batch   of   appeals   pertains   to
charges for infrastructure facilities which are being provided by the
appellant   to   the   batch   of   respondents,   which   were   increased   by   a
circular dated 12 th
 June, 2012, w.e.f. 1 st
 April, 2009.   The question
that  arose  was as  to whether  the  appellant  was justified in  raising
charges   for   infrastructure   facilities   with   retrospective   operation
from 1 st
  April, 2009, more so, when the yearly  charges are paid by
the service providers (respondents) upfront in advance every year. 
3

6. Interconnect Agreements are executed between the parties and
as per clause 2.1.9, infrastructure facilities will be provided, subject
to   availability   and   feasibility.       Rental   for   use   of   such   space   and
mounting   shall   be   determined   by   the   provider   of   such   facility.     As
per clause 6.3.3 of the Interconnect Agreement, it is not mandatory
for   the   appellant   to   provide   any   infrastructure   to   the   respondents,
which   they   are   themselves   supposed   to   arrange.       The   extract   of
clauses   2.1.9   and   6.3.3,   which   are   relevant   for   the   purpose   is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“Clause 2.1.9
Irrespective   of   who   owns   a   transmission   system   of   the   link
interconnecting   one   party’s   exchange   to   the   exchange   of   the   other
party,   each   party   subject   to   availability   and   feasibility   may   provide
accommodation   for   the   terminals   of   such   equipment   of   the   other
party   located   in   its   premises.   Each   party   may   permit   mounting   of
antennae   for   interconnect   link   owned   by   the   other   party   on   its
transmission   towers   subject   to   feasibility.   Rental   for   use   of   such
space   and   mounting   shall   be   determined   by   the   provider   of   such
facility. Arrangements for installation, operation and maintenance of
such equipment will be arrived at by mutual agreement.” 
“6.3.3   Other charges
It shall not be mandatory for BSNL to provide any infrastructure to
BSO which BSO himself is supposed to arrange. In case the BSO is
not   able   to   bring   his   interconnecting   transmission   link   upto   the
BSNL’s   designated   exchange   for   the   POI,   BSNL   may   subject   to
availability  and payment  of  the  prescribed charges  by  BSO, provide
inter   exchange   junctions   on   PCMs   from   the   exchange   upto   which
the   BSO   has   brought   its   transmission   link   to   the   location   of   POI.
These  charges  shall be same  as  prescribed  by  TRAI   for   leased  lines
from time to time or on R&G & conditions as the case may be.
4

For any other infrastructure like space BSNL’s building, provision of
power   supply,   air   conditioning,   mounting   of   antenna   on   towers   or
building   tops   if   feasible,   the   charges   and   other   terms   &   conditions
for   the   same   shall   be   as   prescribed   by   BSNL   from   time   to   time
separately.”
7. The   appellant,   in   the   first   instance,   by   circular   dated   19 th
February,   2001   fixed   the   rental   charges   for   providing   facilities   i.e.
accommodation, power supply, tower space, cable ducts, etc. to the
private licensed service providers and it was specifically  mentioned
that the appellant reserve the right to renew the charges as well as
the   electricity   charges   as   and   when   being   revised   by   the   State
Electricity   Boards.       In   furtherance   thereof,   Interconnect
Agreements   were   executed   between   the   appellant   and   the
respondents/service   providers   herein   earlier   on   31 st
  March,   2004
and   it   was   made   explicit   that   the   appellant   has   no   obligation   to
provide infrastructure facilities and it is for the respondents/service
providers   to   arrange   the   same   at   their   own   and   in   case
infrastructure facilities are taken from  the appellant, it shall be on
the rates prescribed by the appellant from time to time.   
8. In furtherance thereof, the appellant revised the infrastructure
charges for Active Links leased to the operators by its circular dated
30 th
  May, 2006 w.e.f. 1 st
  April, 2006 and all such charges are to be
5

leviable   upfront   every   year   and   the   circular   indicates   the
justification   of   revising   the   infrastructure   charges   based   on
classification of cities introduced by the Central Government for the
purposes of determining the House Rent Allowance.   The extract of
the   Circular   dated   30 th
  May,   2006,   although   not   under   challenge,
but may be relevant for proper appreciation of the grievance raised
by the appellant is reproduced as under:
“Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
(A Government of India Enterprise)
613­B, Statesman House, B­148,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001
(Commercial Branch)
No. 103­1/2006­Comml.             Dated:   30 th
  May,
2006
Subject:   Infrastructure   charges   for   Active   Links   of   Licensed
Telecom Service Providers
In   view   of   various   reference   received   in   this   office   on   the
subject,   the   competent   authority   has   reviewed   the   infrastructure
sharing   charges   prescribed   vide   Circular   No.116­14/96­PHC   (pt)
dated 19 th
 February, 2001 and decided to revise the charges as given
below:­
2.  Definition of links connected to BSNL network:
a.   Active   Links :   These   are   the   links   of   Licensed   Telecom   Service
Providers   for   which   transmission   equipment   of   service   provider   is
installed   in   BSNL’s   exchange   premises   and   their   network   is
connected   through   it.   The   rental   charges   of   infrastructure   in   this
case have been streamlined and are given below in Para 3.
b.   Passive   Links :   These   are   the   links   of   Licensed   Telecom   Service
Providers   for   which   their   transmission   equipment   is   installed   close
to   BSNL   exchange   premises   and   only   transmission   cable
6

(with/without modem) is brought in the BSNL’s telephone exchange
premises.   Charges   for   this   have   already   been   prescribed   vide
Circular No.103­4/2004­Comml dated 29 th
 April, 2005.
3. Rental   changes   for   infrastructure   sharing   have   been   divided
into following components:
a. Charges for sharing of building space.
b. Electricity and miscellaneous charges.
c. Charges for Tower sharing.
d. Charges for duct sharing.
a. Charges for sharing of building space:
(i) To simplify rent assessment, it has been decided to classify the
areas/cities   based   on   the   classification   followed   by   Government   of
India for House Rent Allowance i.e. A1, A, B1, B2 and C class cities.
For the sake of simplicity, it has further been decided to have only in
four categories i.e. A (for A1 and A), B (for B), C (C) and Unclassified
cities.
(ii)   Accordingly,   the   rates   for   one   transmission   bay   (including   space
for   one   box   of   OF   termination   and   DDF   as   required)   in   these
categories   of  cities  may   be  charged   as  under.   The  space  is   normally
given   in   technical   area   of   exchange   building,   which   is   having   high
specifications   for   installation   of   telecom   equipments.     The   Licensed
Telecom   Service   Providers   are   given   space   for   installation   of   their
various   equipments   by   officer­in­charge   of   building   on   approval   of
equipment installation plan by Head of SSA:
Categories of City Charges
A Rs.36000 per bay per annum
B Rs.28000 per bay per annum
C Rs.20000 per bay per annum
Unclassified Rs.13000 per bay per annum
b).   Miscellaneous   Infrastructure   service   charges:   These   charges
include the sharing of following services:
1). DCT power at – 48V up to 10A/ transmission bay;
2). AC power for lights, fans, testing instruments etc;
3).   Air   Conditioning   charges   (sharing   of   existing   air
conditioning system);
4). Generator Backup;
5).   Earthing   charges   (Tapping   from   exchange   earth   bar   is
allowed)
7

6) Fire equipment (Sharing in case of requirement).
As   the   rates   of   electricity   and   capital   expenditure   of   BSNL   in
developing these facilities is varying as per the size of city, the rates
for   one   transmission   bay   in   these   categories   of   cities   will   be   as
under:
Categories of City Charges
A Rs.2,00,000 per bay per annum
B Rs.1,80,000 per bay per annum
C Rs.1,50,000 per bay per annum
Unclassifie
d Rs.1,20,000 per bay per annum
C.  Tower Charges:  Charges per antenna will be as under:
Sl
. Tower Height All Cities
1. Up to 30 meters Rs.1,20,000   per
annum
2. 31­60 meters RS.   2,50,000   per
annum
3. More   than   60
meters Rs.4,00,000   per
annum
The   above   charges   will   be   multiplied   by   no.   of   antennas   in
case   multiple   antennas   are   installed   by   Licensed   Telecom   Service
Providers.
d.   Duct   Charges:   Permission   may   be   granted   to   Licensed   Telecom
Service   Providers   to  lay   one  50  mm   pipe   inside  the  BSNL  exchange
premises   to   lay   their   OF   cable.   It   will   be   the   responsibility   of
Licensed   Telecom   Service   Providers   to   restore   telecom   exchange
building   and   its   premises   in   original   shape   after   their   construction
work is over which should be done within one month. A refundable
security   of   Rs.50,000   may   be   obtained   from   Licensed   Telecom
Service Providers before the permission is given.
BSNL   will   not   lease   its   own   DUCTs   as   far   as   possible.   Duct
rental   for   already   leased   ducts   of   BSNL   may   be   continued   to   be
charged as at present, i.e.:
=[Cost of Duct x No. of Cable x 36%] /[Total no. of pipes in duct]
8

4. Applicability of above charges­
a) These revised rates will be applicable w.e.f. 1 st
  April, 2006 with a
provision   of   10%   annual   increase   every   year   i.e.,   01.04.2007
onwards.   Billing   cycle   shall   be   from   01.04   to   31.03   of   every   year.
Hence,   billing   cycle   for   all   existing   links   may   be   shifted   to   the   new
arrangement;
b) All these charges will be leviable in advance every year;
c) In case of change of classification of cities, high classification will
be applicable at the time of yearly renewal only. The charges will be
applicable financial year wise;
d) No cash refunds shall be made and any excess payments received
by   BSNL,   due   to   difference   in   charges   based   on   old   and   new
formula, shall be adjusted in future bills of party concerned.
(R P Bhalla)
Assistant Director General (Commercial)”
9. It   may   further   be   noticed   that   the   revised   rates   applicable
w.e.f. 1 st
  April, 2006 with a provision of 10% annual increase every
year i.e. 1 st
  April, 2007 onwards and the billing cycle shall be from
1 st
  April   to   31 st
  March   and   the   charges   will   be   leviable   upfront   in
advance every year with a further stipulation that in case of change
of classification/categorization of cities, higher classification will be
applicable   at   the   time   of   yearly   renewal   only   and   charges   will   be
applicable on each financial year.   
10. The   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Finance,   by   its   circular
dated 29 th
  August, 2008, revised the classification of cities effective
9

from   1 st
  September,   2008   and   the   cities   have   been   revised   as
follows:
“2. Based   on   the   recommendations   of   the   Sixth   Central   Pay
Commission,   the   earlier   classification   of   cities   has   been   revised
viz., A­1 to “X”; A, B­1 & B­2 to “Y” and C & Unclassified to “Z”. In
determining   the   revised   classification,   the   population   of   Urban
Agglomerate   area   of   the   city   has   been   taken   into   consideration.
Accordingly, the rates of House Rent Allowance shall be as under:
Classification of  Rates   of   House   Rent
Allowance
Cities/Towns as   a   percentage   of   (Basic   Pay
+
NPA where applicable)
X 30%
Y 20%
Z 10%
11. The   Government   of   India   re­classified   the   cities   w.e.f.   1 st
September,   2008   but   so   far   as   the   appellant   is   concerned,   the
circular   revising   the   infrastructure   charges   for   telecom   service
providers in terms of circular of the Government of India dated 29 th
August, 2008 came to be introduced by a circular dated 12 th
  June,
2012, but charges stood revised retrospectively w.e.f. 1 st
 April, 2009
with  a  provision  of  10%  annual   increase  every   year   w.e.f.  1 st
  April,
2010 onwards  and  rest  of  the   conditions  remained  the  same.    The
10

impugned   extract   of   part   of   the   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   is
reproduced hereinbelow:­
“Rates & Costing Cell, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,        A Govt. of India Enterprises
Corporate Office,
Janpath,
New Delhi – 110001
No.2­2/2009­R&C[CFA]  Dated: 12.06.2012
Circular R&C – CFA No.11/11­12
Subject :  Infrastructure   Charges   for   Active   Links   of   Licensed
Telecom Service Providers
In   view   of   re­classification   of   cities   and   revision   of   rates   of   house
rent   vide   Govt.   of   India   Department   of   Expenditure   letter
No.2(8)/2008­E­II(B)   dated   29.08.2008,   the   existing   rental   charges
for   Infrastructure   Sharing   by   the   other   licensed   service   providers
fixed   vide   BSNL   HQ   No.103­1/2006­Comml.   Dated   30.05.2006   has
been   reviewed   by   Competent   Authority   and   it   has   been   decided   to
revise the charges w.e.f. 01.04.2009, as details given below:
1. Charges for building space.
(Rates   for     one     transmission     bay       including         space       for
one   box   OF transmission and DDF as required)  
S.No
. Classification of 
Cities/Towns Charges w.e.f. 01.04.2009
1. X Rs.61,606 per annum per bay
2. Y Rs.47,916 per annum per bay
3. Z Rs.26,620 per annum per bay
2. Misc.   Infrastructure   Service   Charges   :       These         charges
include the sharing of following services.
1. DC power at – 48V up to 10A/transmission bay;
2. AC power for lights, fans, testing instruments etc.;
3. Air   conditioning   charges   (sharing   of   existing   air
conditioning system);
4. Generator Backup;
5.    Earthling charges (Tapping from exchange earth bar is     
   allowed);
11

6. Fire equipment (sharing in case of requirement).  
S.No
. Classification of 
Cities/Towns Charges w.e.f. 01.04.2009
1. X Rs.2,95,778 per annum per bay
2. Y Rs.2,66,200 per annum per bay
3. Z Rs.1,99,650 per annum per bay
3. The   other   two   infrastructure   Sharing   rentals   viz   Tower
Sharing   Charges   and   Duct   Charges ,   which   are   not   dependent   on
re­classification   of   classification   of   city   and   house   rent   rates,   shall
remain   unchanged   and   be   charged   as   per   this   office   letter   No.103­
1/2006­Comml. Dated 30.05.2006.  
4. Other terms and conditions applicable to above charges are:
i) These       revised       rates       will   be   applicable   w.e.f.   01.04.2009
with   provision   of   10%   annual   increase   every   year   i.e.
01.04.2010   onwards.     Billing   cycle   shall   be   from   01.04.2004
to   31.03.2013   of   every   year.     Hence,   billing   cycle   for   all
existing links may be shifted to the new arrangement;
ii) All these charges will be leviable in advance every year;
iii) In   case   of   change   of   classification   of   cities,   higher
classification 
                                      will  be  applicable   at   the   time   of   yearly  renewal   only.   The
charges 
                   will be applicable financial year wise;
iv) TAXs,   duties   as   per   Govt.   orders   from   time   to   time   will   be
levied 
          extra.
v) This   Circular   is   issued   based   on   the   approval   of   Competent
Authority   in   NOW­CFA   file   No.6­9/2010­POI   (Infra)(Pt.).     For
any   Clarification/correspondence,   in   this   regard,   matter   may
be   taken   up   with   NOW­CFA   Section,   BSNL   Corporate   Office,
Janpath,   New   Delhi   –   110001   [Tel   No.011­23711795   Fax
No.011­23734135].
Sd/­
(AGM(T&C­CFA)”
12. It may be relevant to note at this stage that the circular dated
12 th
  June,   2012   revised   the   infrastructure   facilities   retrospectively
w.e.f. 1 st
 April, 2009, however, the fact is that all the telecom service
12

providers have made their payments for the previous years in terms
of   the   circular   dated   30 th
  May,   2006   according   to   the   terms   of
Interconnect   Agreements   where   the   charges   are   leviable   upfront
every year and after introducing the circular dated 12 th
  June, 2012
w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2009,   additional   bills   were   raised   by   the   appellant
for the previous years for which the upfront payment was made by
each   of   the   telecom   service   provider   and   that   became   the   subject
matter of challenge at the instance of the telecom service providers
(respondents herein) by approaching the Tribunal.
13. The learned Tribunal, after taking note of the submissions and
the  pleadings on  record, arrived to  a  conclusion  that the  appellant
is well within its rights to revise the rates according to classification
of   cities   and   it   was   for   the   respondents   to   continue   to   use   the
resources   of   the   appellant   at   the   revised   rates   or   take   the   same
from   other   resources   if   available   and   it   was   open   to   the   service
provider to avail the infrastructure facilities such as building space,
etc. either  from the appellant or from  any other service provider, if
any.   
13

14. The   limited   question   which   the   Tribunal   considered   was
regarding   the   rates   prescribed   by   the   appellant   under   the   circular
dated   12 th
  June,   2012   could   have   been   made   applicable
retrospectively   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2009   and   taking   into   consideration
the   backdrop   of   the   matter,   while   upholding   the   right   of   the
appellant (BSNL) to revise the rates of the infrastructure facilities in
question   held   that   the   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   of   the
appellant   shall   be   applicable   prospectively   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2013,
which is the next financial year instead of 1 st
  April, 2009 and upto
31 st
  March,   2013,   the   infrastructure   facilities   provided   by   the
appellant   to   the   telecom   service   providers   shall   be   charged   at   the
rates   and   as   per   classification   of   cities   prescribed   in   the   circular
dated   30 th
  May,   2006   and   the   consequential   effect   is   either   for
refund   or   for   realization   of   charges,   if   any,   the   same   may   be
accounted for by the appellant in terms of the judgment impugned
dated   20 th
  August,   2014.     Relevant   extract   of   the   judgment   dated
20 th
 August, 2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“In   view   of   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   while   upholding   the
right of the respondent­BSNL to revise the rates of the infrastructure
facilities   in   question,   we   direct   that   the   revised   rates   as   per   the
circular   dated   12.06.2012   of   the   Respondent   shall   be   applicable
14

with   effect   from   01.04.2013   which   is   the   next   financial   year.   Up   to
31.03.2013,  the  infrastructure  facilities  provided  by  the  respondent
to   the   petitioners   shall   be   charged   at   the   rates   and   as   per
classification   of   cities   as   prescribed   in   the   circular   dated
30.05.2006. The excess rates, wherever realised from the petitioners,
shall   be   refunded   back   to   the   petitioners   along   with   interest   at   the
rate   as   is   prescribed   in   the   interconnect   agreements   for   delayed
payments from   the  date  of realization of these amounts  and  till the
time   of   filing   of   the   petitions   along   with   pendente   lite   and   future
interest   @9%   till   the   payment   is   made.   The   refunds   shall   be   made
within a period of four weeks. If any amount is found payable by the
petitioners in terms of this order, the same shall also be paid along
with interest, as payable in case of refunds, and shall be paid within
four weeks.”
15. The   appellant,   at   this   stage,   filed   an   application   before   the
Tribunal seeking clarification of the judgment and order dated 20 th
August, 2014 on the premise that the rate of infrastructure charge
for active links of licensed telecom service providers indicated in the
circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   has   become   effective   from   1 st
  April,
2013   instead   of   1 st
  April,   2009.       In   the   given   circumstances,   the
10%   notional   increase   per   annum   between   1 st
  April,   2009   to   31 st
March, 2013 is leviable and can be charged from 1 st
 April, 2013 but
that   application   was   dismissed   by   the   Tribunal   by   its   later   order
dated  14 th
  October,  2014   with   a  clarification   that   the   revised  rates
as per  the circular dated 12 th
  June, 2012 shall be applicable w.e.f.
1 st
  April,   2013   and   the   rates   which   were   applied   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,
15

2009   are   to   be   applied   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2013   without   any   notional
increase   and   consequently   disposed   of   the   application   filed   by   the
appellant. Relevant extract of the order dated 14 th
  October, 2014 is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“We, however, do not find any such direction in the judgment.
On   the   contrary,   if   the   rates   mentioned   in   this   circular   are   to   be
taken   w.e.f.   01.04.2009   and   then   notionally   increased   by   certain
percentage   every   year   to   arrive   at   a   rate   to   be   applicable   from
01.04.2013,   it   will   be   contrary   to   the   letter   and   spirit   of   the
judgment.   The   direction   in   the   judgment   is   clear   that   revised   rates
as   per   the   circular   dated   12.06.2012   shall   be   applicable   w.e.f.
01.04.2013   and,   therefore,   the   rate   which   was   applied   as   per   the
circular w.e.f. 01­04­2009 is to be applied w.e.f. 01.04.2013 without
any   notional   increase.   We,   however,   make   it   clear   that   this   will   be
without   prejudice  to  the  right   of   the  respondent­BSNL  to  revise   the
rates   prospectively,   and   in   accordance   with   the   agreement   between
the parties.”
16. That   both   the   orders   passed   by   the   Tribunal   dated   20 th
August, 2014 and 14 th
  October, 2014 became the subject matter of
challenge in the instant batch of appeals before us.
17. It   may   be   further   noticed   that   in   furtherance   of   the   circular
dated   12 th
  June,   2012,   circular   dated   13 th
  May,   2015   has   been
notified   revising   the   infrastructure   charges   for   active   links   of
licensed   telecom   service   providers   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2015   leviable   in
advance   for   the   year   2015­16   onwards   and   the   justification
tendered   by   the   appellant   was   that   it   is   based   on   commercial
16

viability   and   enhanced   maintenance   cost   and   the   appeals   filed   by
the   service   providers   assailing   the   circular   dated   13 th
  May,   2015
came   to   be   dismissed   by   the   Tribunal   by   judgment   dated   18 th
October, 2019 and the appeal preferred against the judgment of the
Tribunal came to be dismissed by  this Court by  an order date 17 th
February, 2020 in Civil Appeal No.1438 of 2020.
18. Counsel   for   the   appellant   in   the   first   instance   has   tried   to
persuade   this   Court   that   the   rate   of   infrastructure   charges   stood
revised   on   the   basis   of   the   circular   issued   by   the   Government   of
India,   Ministry   of   Finance,   revising   the   classification   of   cities   vide
its circular dated 29 th
  August, 2008 and that became effective from
1 st
  September,   2008   and   it   was   the   reason   for   which   the   circular
dated   12 th
  June,   2012   became   effective   in   revising   the
infrastructure  charges   for   telecom   service   providers  w.e.f.   1 st
  April,
2009.  The appellant revised the rates based on the classification of
cities   and   such   revision   was   permissible   in   relation   to   commercial
agreements duly supported with the evidence on record.  
19. Counsel   for   the   appellant   further   contended   that   once   the
competence   of   the   appellant   in   laying   down   the   charges   has   been
17

upheld   by   the   Tribunal,   retrospective   application   to   the   circular
dated 12 th
  June, 2012 should not have been interfered with by the
Tribunal,   but   in   the   next   breath,   has   submitted   that   if   the
retrospective   applicability   of   the   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012
effective   from   1 st
  April,   2009   is   not   sustainable,   at   least   the
appellant   is   within   its   rights   to   make   the   charges   leviable   after
notional fixation by increase of 10% every year w.e.f. 1 st
 April, 2009
and,   to   this   extent,   the   finding   of   the   Tribunal   is   not   legally
sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 
20. Counsel further submits that so far as the notional fixation of
charges to be effective from 1 st
 April, 2013 is concerned, in terms of
circular  dated 12 th
  June, 2012, there is a provision  of 10% annual
increase every year w.e.f. 1 st
  April, 2010 onwards and, in the given
circumstances,   even   if   the   infrastructure   charges   as   levied   by   the
appellant   to   be  charged   from   service  providers   at   the  revised   rates
applicable   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2009   are   not   chargeable   because   of   the
impugned   judgment   of   the   Tribunal   still   the   service   providers   are
under   an   obligation   to   pay   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2013   the   notional
increase   of   charges   based   on   10%   annual  increase   and   this   was   a
18

manifest   error   which   the   Tribunal   has   committed   in   passing   the
judgment   impugned   and   the   same   needs   to   be   interfered   with   by
this Court.
21. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that
the right of the appellant to revise the rate of infrastructure facilities
indeed after the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal has not
been questioned by the respondents in the later proceedings, but if
the circular dated 12 th
  June, 2012 could not be given retrospective
effect   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2009,   at   least   no   notional   increase   of   10%
every   year   could   have   been   permissible   to   be   charged   from   the
service   providers   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2013   and   if   that   is   being   made
permissible, what could not have been directly chargeable from the
service   providers   can   be   indirectly   charged   at   the   rates   which   the
appellant is entitled to claim as the infrastructure charges w.e.f. 1 st
April, 2013 and that was the reason the Tribunal intervened in the
matter and clarified in its latter order that there shall be no notional
increase of 10% every year as being indicated in the circular dated
12 th
  June, 2012 and the appellant is under an obligation to charge
the   rates   as   applicable   on   1 st
  April,   2009   to   be   applied   w.e.f.   1 st
19

April, 2013  without  any  notional increase.   The  circular  dated 12 th
June, 2012 applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1 st
  April, 2013 was to be
purposively   interpreted   and   the   plea   of   notional   increase   by   10%
every year in revising the rates, to be charged from 1 st
 April, 2013 is
not legally sustainable.
22.       Counsel   for   the   respondents,   while   supporting   the   finding
recorded   by   the   Tribunal   under   the   impugned   judgment,   further
submits that if what is being prayed for by the appellant is accepted
by this Court, each service provider will have to bear the additional
financial burden for the period for which they have not charged any
additional   charge   from   their   customers   and   since   the   respondents
have not charged from their customers for  the previous years from
1 st
  April,   2009   onwards,   it   will   carry   a   financial   burden   on   the
service providers for which they are not at fault. 
23. As   a   matter   of   fact,   the   present   dispute   survives   regarding
payment   of   infrastructure   charges   for   the   limited   period   of   two
years i.e. from 1 st
 April, 2013 to 31 st
 March, 2015.
24. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record. 
20

25. That   the   authority   of   the   appellant   in   revising   the
infrastructure charges for active links leased to telecom operators is
not a subject matter of challenge and none of the respondents have
questioned   the   authority   of   the   appellant   in   revising   the
infrastructure charges for active links leased to telecom operators.  
26. The   limited   question   which   has   been   raised   for   our
consideration is as to whether the rates prescribed by the appellant
under   the   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   could   be   applied
retrospectively   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2009   or   be   effective   from   1 st
  April,
2013,   as   observed   by   the   Tribunal   and   whether   the   appellant   is
entitled   to   claim   10%   notional   increase   every   year   from   1 st
  April,
2009 to be applicable from 1 st
 April, 2013.   
27. So   far   as   the   impugned   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   is
concerned, it stipulates that it shall be made effective from 1 st
 April,
2009   and   the   rates   would   revise   from   1 st
  April,   2009   with   10%
annual   increase   w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   2010,   particularly,   in   the
circumstances   when   all   the   infrastructure   and   other   charges   are
being paid upfront every year.   
21

28. It   is   not   disputed   that   each   of   the   service   provider   has   paid
upfront   for   the   previous   years   from   1 st
  April,   2009   in   terms   of   the
earlier   circular   dated   30 th
  May,   2006   until   the   circular   dated   12 th
June, 2012 was introduced.  
29. It   is   a   settled   principle   of   law   that   it   is   the   Union   Parliament
and   State   Legislatures   that   have   plenary   powers   of   legislation
within   the   fields   assigned   to   them,   and   subject   to   certain
constitutional   and   judicially   recognized   restrictions,   they   can
legislate   prospectively   as   well   as   retrospectively.     Competence   to
make   a   law   for   a   past   period   on   a   subject   depends   upon   present
competence   to   legislate   on   that   subject.     By   a   retrospective
legislation, the Legislature may make a law which is operative for a
limited   period   prior   to   the   date   of   its   coming   into   force   and   is   not
operative either on that date or in future.
30. The   power   to   make   retrospective   legislations   enables   the
Legislature   to   obliterate   an   amending   Act   completely   and   restore
the law as it existed before the amending Act, but at the same time,
administrative/executive orders or circulars, as the case may be, in
the   absence   of   any   legislative   competence   cannot   be   made
22

applicable   with   retrospective   effect.       Only   law   could   be   made
retrospectively if it was expressly provided by the Legislature in the
Statute.   Keeping   in mind the afore­stated principles of law  on  the
subject,   we   are   of   the   view   that   applicability   of   the   circular   dated
12 th
 June, 2012 to be effective retrospectively from 1 st
 April 2009, in
revising the infrastructure charges, is not legally sustainable and to
this   extent,   we   are   in   agreement   with   the   view   expressed   by   the
Tribunal under the impugned judgment.  
31. So far as the submission made by the appellant with regard to
the notional increase of charges by a certain percentage every year
as   being   referred   to   in   the   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   is
concerned,   we   have   not   been   able   to   persuade   ourselves   with   the
finding recorded by the Tribunal.     The reason is that the appellant
might not be justified in making the circular dated 12 th
  June, 2012
effective   from   1 st
  April,   2009,   but   once   the   competence   of   the
appellant   in   fixing   the   rates   of   infrastructure   charges   in   question
stands   affirmed   and   is   not   a   subject   matter   of   challenge,   the
appellant is well within its rights to make their charges leviable on
notional   fixation   by   increase   of   charges   by   a   certain   percentage
23

every   year   in  terms  of  circular  dated  12 th
  June,  2012  from  each  of
the   service   provider   as   being   notionally   applicable   from   1 st
  April,
2013. In other words, the service provider is not under an obligation
to   pay   any   additional   infrastructure   charges   which   was   prescribed
by   the   appellant   under   its   circular   dated   12 th
  June,   2012   for   the
previous years, effective from 1 st
  April, 2009, but at the same point
of time, it was open for the appellant to notionally fix the charges to
be   computed   and   became   payable   from   1 st
  April,   2013,   based   on
10% annual increase every year or by any other mechanism which
may have a reasonable justification.  That such notionally increased
charges can indeed be leviable on the service providers and to this
extent, the order passed by the Tribunal, in our considered view, is
not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 
32. Consequently, the appeals stand partly allowed.   The order of
the   Tribunal   dated   20 th
  August,   2014   followed   by   the   order   dated
14 th
  October,   2014   are   hereby   modified   and   the   appellant   is   at
liberty to revise the notional rates based on 10% increase every year
in terms of circular dated 12 th
 June, 2012 as applicable on 1 st
 April,
2013   and   to   raise   its   additional   demand/bills   based   on   notional
24

increase   of   infrastructure   charges   effective   as   on   1 st
  April,   2013   to
the   service   providers/respondents   herein   and   if   the   service
providers/   respondents   fail   to   pay,   consequences   in   terms   of   the
agreements executed between the parties shall follow. 
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022.
25