1. By this application Sterling Cellular Ltd. (now Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd.) seeks review of the order of the Tribunal dated 20^th December, 2002. By that order two petitions one by Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Petition No. 8 of 2002 ) and second by Sterling Cellular Ltd. (Petition No. 11 of 2002) were disposed of.
2. Bharti Cellular Ltd. has also supported this application seeking review of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.12.2002.
3. A very limited review sought and that is with respect of the last paragraph of the order which reads as under: "We accordingly set aside the decision contained in the letter/communication dated 2^nd April, 2002 read with the clarification order dated 28^th February 2000 passed by the Union of India and direct the union of India, the licensor to re-examine the contentions of all the four Cellular Operators in the light of what has been stated hereinabove within a period 3 months from the date of communication of this order. All the parties must be herd before any decision is taken".
4. It has bene submitted that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Union of India after having held all main issues in favour of the petitioner. It has been contended that it is only Tribunal which has been authorised to decide the dispute (i) between the licensor and licensee, (ii) between the to ore more service provider and (iii) between the service provider and a group of consumers and that therefore Union of India will not now be competent to decide the dispute which is basically between licensee and licensor.
It is difficult to accept these proposition.
5. Two paras immediately before the last para sought to be reviewed read as under: "All these facts raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the Respondent No. 1 was a clear in its perception about the service area of Delhi Metro Circle Cellular Operators as it is averring now.
As already stated earlier, the averment of the Respondent No. 1 in this respect is somewhat ambivalent. This ambivalence could partly be due to the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was trying to tailor the concepts and terminologies of an Act of 1885 to developments which have come almost a century later. However, this Tribunal would not like to hazard any guess in this respect.
Having regard to the anomalous position noted hereinabove, the Government should reconsider its decision contained in the letter/communication dated 2^nd April 2002 read with clarification order dated 28th February 2000 passed by the Union of India. The Government should once again go into the questions raised in this petition before us and decide the case afresh within period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order. A suggestion that came up in course of hearing of the case should also be considered by the Government, whether all the four operators i.e.
Bharti Cellular Limited, Sterling Cellular Limited, Birla AT&T and Escotel Mobile Communications Ltd., should not be allowed to operate in Gurgaon SDCA which is clearly within Haryana. This may resolve the anomaly and encourage fair competition between all the four contestors." 6. It would be seen that the dispute arose before the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Act 2000 which came into force w.e.f. 24.1.2000. At that time it was the Government of India, the licensor which was the only authority to decide the question. The Amending Act will not be retrospective in operation.
7. The dispute which was pending, was before the Amending Act came into force and of which the Central Government as a licensor was seized of at that time and therefore, in our opinion, the matter has to go back to the Central Government for reconsideration.
8. We, therefore, do not find that there is any error in our order dated 20.12.2002 which is to be reviewed. This application is dismissed.