No need to cancel dual tech licences issued in 2007: DoT

In an affidavit to SC, DoT says the permit to use the dual technology required no interference

In major relief to the dual technology telecom players such as Reliance communications (RCom), Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) today informed the Supreme court that licences granted those players in 2007 should not be cancelled.

DoT has filed an affidavit in the apex court stating that the decision to permit the use of dual technology by these companies required no interference as the GSM licences the companies held were different from those cancelled by the verdict in the 2G case.

DoT’s affidavit came after the Supreme Court sought a reply on COAI. Cellular Operators Association of India’s (COAI), the industry body representing the GSM operators, had earlier, asked the apex court to withdraw the dual technology licences granted to RCom, TTSL, HFCL in 2007 and redistribute the same through auctions as laid down in its  February 2012 judgment.

According to the industry body, these licences were mala fide, in context of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the 2G spectrum case which terminated 122 mobile permits.

Further, COAI’s petition stated that the government's decision to grant dual-technology licences was illegal, since this fell between September 2007 and March 2008, the same time other mobile permits were given which were annulled by the Supreme Court.

DoT has said that the “...the present application is totally misconceived and based on a misreading of the judgment dated 02.02.2012. The decision of the answering respondent dated 17.10.2007 granting permission for use of dual technology, which has been impugned in the present appeal, did not fall for consideration in the judgement dated 02.02.2012.”

It further added that the present application by the COAI “deserves to be dismissed.”

COAI had earlier approached the Delhi High Court as well as telecom tribunal TDSAT; TDSAT in its judgment had said that the policy decision permitting the use of dual technology requires no interference.