At the first instance Appeal No.
Section 14A 2 and 3 of the Act which is relevant for this case are reproduced below 14A. Application for settlement of disputes and appeals to Appellate Tribunal.
On 17.7.2001 appellant reminded the Secretary General of ABTO about the said decision of the executive companyncil and requested to companyvey the action taken, if any.
In the review petition filed by ABTO before TRAI, the appellant did number separately join as a party even though TRAI had passed the determination order on the application made by the appellant.
After filing this appeal in this tribunal, the petitioner on 15.2.2002 has entered into two more agreements with BSNL in which the determination made by TRAI has been accepted and made part of the agreements.
The order passed in review was again discussed amongst the members of the ABTO but numberconsensus was forthcoming till 2.1.2001.
By way of abundant caution and since the appellant was the most affected by the order of the TRAI the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 2.1.2002 challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 15.6.2001 along with application seeking companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
1 of 2002 and Appeal No.
On 17.8.2001 ABTO filed a review application before the TRAI for review of the order dated 15.6.2001.
A companyy of the said order was received by the appellant on 5.12.2001.
It is also significant that ABTO has kept itself away from the present appeal filed by the appellant.
To the application filed by the appellant reply was filed by the respondent and on the direction issued by the tribunal the appellant filed a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay.
1816 of 2003.
On 26.7.2001 ABTO informed the appellant that some of the members of ABTO had reservation about filing the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said order.
That the appellant had failed to make out a case for companydoning the delay for 172 days in filing the appeal.
Emphasis supplied Since the Tribunal did number decide the dispute on merits and dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation we would also companyfine ourselves to the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant had shown sufficient cause to companydone the delay in filing the appeal and the Tribunal has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that sufficient cause for companydoning the delay had number been shown and companysequently dismissing the appeal barred by time.
9 of 2002 under Section 14 A read with Section 14A 2 of the Act challenging the order determination dated 15.6.2001 and order letter dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.
This review petition was filed on 17.8.2001 well after expiry of the period of limitation for preferring an appeal i.e. 14.7.2001.
The appeal was filed on 2.1.2002, i.e., within the period of 30 days from the companymunication of the order dismissing the review application and after a delay of 172 days from the passing of the order dated 15.6.2001 along with an application seeking companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Acceptance of TRAIs determination dated 15.6.2001 by other members of ABTO signing of interconnect agreements with BSNL by other members on the basis of the said determination or signing of such agreement by the appellant in respect of Haryana Circle or any other service area except the Madhya Pradesh circle, have numberrelevance to the case at hand.
It was companytended by them that since the order was passed affecting all the members basic service operators without affording an opportunity of hearing to the members except the Appellant herein , it would be appropriate to file a review application before the TRAI.
Appellant again represented to the ABTO that the said order dated 15.6.2001 was causing huge loss and financial hardship to the appellant and requested for companylective action under the aegis of ABTO at the earliest.
In so far as long distance charging area for short the LDCA are companycerned, the point of interconnection would have to be located between the trunk automatic exchanges of the long distance charging area of both BSNL and the appellant.
This link is also required to companynect the subscribers of the appellant with the subscribers of BSNL within the same service area, viz.,
1 of 2002 decided on 29.7.2002 will be taken up for companysideration and thereafter the second appeal No.
Madhya Pradesh.
The tribunal recorded the following three findings for companying to the aforesaid decision It will be clear from this letter that BTNL abandoned its earlier decision to prefer an appeal and decided to extend full support to ABTO if a review petition was filed instead of an appeal.
At the subsequent meeting held on 27.6.2001, Executive Council of ABTO observed that members had agreed for the need to file a petition challenging the order of the TRAI before the Tribunal.
TRAI passed the order on 15.6.2001 and companymunicated the same to the appellant on that very day under a companyering letter dated 15.6.2001.
With respect we do number agree with either of these reasons recorded by the Tribunal for dismissing the application filed by the appellant in companydonation of delay.
With Civil Appeal No.
Madhya Pradesh and also interconnect with the network of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, respondent No.
Thus within the short distance charging area for short the SDCA, the interconnections would have to be at the level of local and tandem exchanges.
7200 of 2002 arising from the Appeal No.
On 17.8.2001 a review application was filed which was dismissed by the TRAI on 27.11.2001.
We are stating the facts as found by the Tribunal, as there is numberdispute on them.
1816 of 2003 BHAN, J. These appeals are statutory appeals under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 for short the Act against the final judgments and orders dated 29.7.2002 and 19.12.2002 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the Tribunal dismissing the appellants applications for companydonation of delay and companysequently the statutory appeal No.
The petitioner who has preferred this appeal before us also signed an interconnect agreement with BSNL on 6.12.2001 in respect of Haryana Circle.
