Despite a demand numberice issued for payment of licence fee for the third year, the same was number done and in fact, on 20.4.2004, the Respondent herein made a submission before the High Court that it did number intend to make any broadcast w.e.f.
The Appellant, thereafter, invoked the Bank Guarantee and encashed the same on 28.5.2003.
The High Court also extended the operation of the interim order on 3.9.2003, subject to the companydition that the Respondent herein deposits a sum of Rs.1 crore.
The Appellant, by an order dated 20.5.2003, revoked the licence stating In companytinuation of our earlier letter dated 2.5.2003, I am directed to inform you that you have failed to pay the 2nd years licence fees within the prescribed period, your licence stands revoked and therefore you should stop broadcasting immediately.
The Respondent herein was one of the successful bidders along with four others.
29th April, 2004.
An interim order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 2.7.2003 directing the Appellant herein to permit the Respondent to broadcast until further orders and that from the amount recovered through invocation of the Bank Guarantee, the Appellant would be permitted to appropriate the sum towards licence fee for the period of broadcasting as per the interim orders.
The said direction, indisputably, was issued in the light of the submissions made by the Appellant herein that out of the total sum of Rs.11,21,50,000/ towards the second years licence fee, a sum of Rs.9.75 crore stood paid by invoking the bank Guarantee of the said amount and another sum of Rs.1 crore had been paid pursuant to the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the High Court and as such the balance sum of Rs.46 lacs had become due towards the licence fee for the second year which expired on 29.4.2004.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
Yet again, by an order dated 15.3.2004, the Respondent herein was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.23 lacs by 26.3.2004 and furthermore furnish a Bank Guarantee for another sum of Rs.23 lacs in favour of the Appellant herein to the satisfaction of the Joint Registrar of the High Court.
The Respondent, questioning the validity of the said order of revocation of licence, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was marked as WP C No.4195 of 2003.
However, it stands admitted that the Respondent did number pay the amount of licence fee by 16.5.2003, but, at the same time, the Appellant also did number companymunicate to the Respondent as to whether its request to extend the time for deposit of the said amount was accepted or number.
A Notice inviting tender was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information Broadcasting in the month of October, 1999 from the companypanies registered in India for grant of licence to operate FM broadcasting service at Mumbai.
B. SINHA, J Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2005 in Petition No.49 C of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the Respondent herein was allowed.
