INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885

Facts: N.P Singh had questioned the power of the Central Government to grant licences to different non-government companies to establish and maintain Telecommunications System in the country and the validity of the procedure adopted by the Central Government. Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders, tenders were submitted for different Circles, but before licences could be granted by the Central Government, writ petitions were filed in different High Courts as well as before this Court. Where the learned counsel appearing in different writ petitions have attacked this policy of capping. In the Tender Documents as quoted above it had been clearly stated that "Telecom Authority is free to restrict the number of the Service Areas for which one company can be licensed to provide the service". The counsel for writ petitioners did not allege any bias against the Tender Evaluation Committee suggesting that it has favoured the said petitioner so far as the grant of licence in the three Circles mentioned above are concerned. It can be said that the petitioners in different writ petitions have primarily questioned the right and propriety of the Central Government to grant licences to non-government companies.

Held: It was held that, the Authority may from time to time by order notify the rates at which telecommunication services within India and outside India shall be provided. The Central Government and the Telecom Regulatory Authority have to function as active trustees for the public good.

Facts: N.P Singh had questioned the power of the Central Government to grant licences to different non-government companies to establish and maintain Telecommunications System in the country and the validity of the procedure adopted by the Central Government. Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders, tenders were submitted for different Circles, but before licences could be granted by the Central Government, writ petitions were filed in different High Courts as well as before this Court. Where the learned counsel appearing in different writ petitions have attacked this policy of capping. In the Tender Documents as quoted above it had been clearly stated that "Telecom Authority is free to restrict the number of the Service Areas for which one company can be licensed to provide the service". The counsel for writ petitioners did not allege any bias against the Tender Evaluation Committee suggesting that it has favoured the said petitioner so far as the grant of licence in the three Circles mentioned above are concerned. It can be said that the petitioners in different writ petitions have primarily questioned the right and propriety of the Central Government to grant licences to non-government companies.

Held: It was held that, the Authority may from time to time by order notify the rates at which telecommunication services within India and outside India shall be provided. The Central Government and the Telecom Regulatory Authority have to function as active trustees for the public good.

Facts: MTNL challenged the 1999 Regulations before the Delhi High Court which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. It was held that the Regulations framed under Section 36 of the Act could not be given overriding effect. TDSAT allowed the appeal and held that TRAI did not have the jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the service providers. On other hand Bharti Televentures Ltd. made representation to BSNL to extend the benefit of the Tribunal's order after that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for BSNL argued that sub-section (1) of Section 36 should not be construed as conferring unbridled power upon TRAI to make regulations, else other provisions like Sections 12(4) and 13, which empower TRAI to issue directions on certain matters would become redundant. Hence the appeal present.

Held: It was observed that in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the TRAI Act, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by TRAI under Section 36 of the TRAI Act and it is clear that the aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of the Regulations framed under Section 36 of the TRAI Act by filing appropriate petition before the High Court.

Facts: MTNL challenged the 1999 Regulations before the Delhi High Court which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. It was held that the Regulations framed under Section 36 of the Act could not be given overriding effect. TDSAT allowed the appeal and held that TRAI did not have the jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the service providers. On other hand Bharti Televentures Ltd. made representation to BSNL to extend the benefit of the Tribunal's order after that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for BSNL argued that sub-section (1) of Section 36 should not be construed as conferring unbridled power upon TRAI to make regulations, else other provisions like Sections 12(4) and 13, which empower TRAI to issue directions on certain matters would become redundant. Hence the appeal present.

Held: It was observed that in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the TRAI Act, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by TRAI under Section 36 of the TRAI Act and it is clear that the aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of the Regulations framed under Section 36 of the TRAI Act by filing appropriate petition before the High Court.

Facts: The Respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction with a grievance that the other Respondent had appointed contractors who were excavating its land for construction of the electricity transmission towers without any prior approval. The said electricity transmission towers were being constructed on the application made by the Appellant. The trial court and the first appellate court restraining the Appellant and the second Respondent by way of temporary injunction from making holes for erecting poles on any part of the suit lands without following due process of law.

Held: It was inclined to set aside the impugned order as also the injunction order subject to the Appellant making an ad hoc payment. In addition to the payments already made to the Respondent, the MSEDC and their contractors would be entitled to continue and complete the work of erection of the electricity transmission towers on the land of the other Respondent. The payment made would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under the Telegraph Act for quantifying the compensation payable to the Respondent.

Facts: The Respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction with a grievance that the other Respondent had appointed contractors who were excavating its land for construction of the electricity transmission towers without any prior approval. The said electricity transmission towers were being constructed on the application made by the Appellant. The trial court and the first appellate court restraining the Appellant and the second Respondent by way of temporary injunction from making holes for erecting poles on any part of the suit lands without following due process of law.

Held: It was inclined to set aside the impugned order as also the injunction order subject to the Appellant making an ad hoc payment. In addition to the payments already made to the Respondent, the MSEDC and their contractors would be entitled to continue and complete the work of erection of the electricity transmission towers on the land of the other Respondent. The payment made would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under the Telegraph Act for quantifying the compensation payable to the Respondent.

Facts: A secret information was received by the local police that one private detective, was obtaining call detail records of different people. The police caused the arrest of said detective and sought call details Company. FIR was registered against said person. The chat record collected by the police during the investigation, between husband of Respondent and one arrested person, disclosed that husband of Respondent had asked for call details record of the wife of one person, indicative of involvement in the commission of offence. On that basis, police arrested husband of Respondent and jurisdictional Magistrate gave the police custody after recording his satisfaction for such police remand. The Respondent, rushed to the High Court and filed a writ petition for a direction to the Appellants to produce her husband before the Court and to justify his detention in accordance with procedure established by law. The High Court allowed writ petition filed by Respondent.

Held: It is directed that, after holding that the petitioner's husband was unlawfully detained, his release from the custody forthwith and the superior police officials, particularly the functionary in the Department of Home, Government of India to launch disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner and her husband may initiate or file civil suit and criminal prosecution against this police officer for taking the law in his hands.

Facts: The petitioner had been availing of the telephone services of M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd., he submitted that the interception of phone conversations of him is happening. Therefore, the petitioner sought to protect his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was on the basis of his information from various sources, he had learnt that the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, being pressurised by the Indian National Congress, had been intercepting the petitioner’s conversation on phone, monitoring them and recording them.

Held: It held that the instant writ petition was an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts, thus no case of tapping of telephone had been made out against the statutory authorities in view of the criminal case which was going on and especially in view of the petitioner’s stand that he was satisfied with the investigation in that case.

Facts: The petitioner had been availing of the telephone services of M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd., he submitted that the interception of phone conversations of him is happening. Therefore, the petitioner sought to protect his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was on the basis of his information from various sources, he had learnt that the Government of India and the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi, being pressurised by the Indian National Congress, had been intercepting the petitioner's conversation on phone, monitoring them and recording them.

Held: It held that the instant writ petition was an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts, thus no case of tapping of telephone had been made out against the statutory authorities in view of the criminal case which was going on and especially in view of the petitioner's stand that he was satisfied with the investigation in that case.