Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/976420/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9764 of 2008
=========================================================
INFINIUM
(INDIA) LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPARTMENT
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PM THAKKAR SR ADV for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HARIN P RAVAL ASG with MR ANSHIN H DESAI for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR CR ABICHANDANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 07/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner, a licencee, challenging the show cause notice dated
7.4.2008 as being unreasonable, arbitrary, malafide and
violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The
impugned show cause notice issued by the competent authority is
pertaining to misuse of VSAT Network by the petitioner and the
petitioner was requested to explain within a period of 30 days from
the date of issuance of the notice as to why action should not be
taken against the petitioner to terminate the License as per
Condition No.13.2(b) and to encash PBG of Rs.50 lakh as per
Condition No.7(a)(i) of the License and it was further stated in the
notice that in case no explanation/reply is received within the
stipulated period it may be presumed that the petitioner has
committed the aforesaid alleged violation and necessary action will
be taken by the Licensor as per the terms and conditions of the
Licence Agreement.
The
petitioner has given reply dated 7.5.2008 to the show cause notice
issued by the competent authority explaining reasons that there was
no violation of licence conditions Nos.2 and 24.1 of licence dated
27.3.2006 and instructions issued by DoT vide letter dated
14.9.2006.
Mr.P.M.Thakkar,
learned Senior Advocate, submits that the show cause notice
contained two courses of actions suggested by the competent
authority to terminate licence as per Condition No.13.2(b) and also
to encash PBG of Rs.50 lakhs as per the conditions No.7(a)(i) of the
License and apprehension of the petitioner that authorities may
encash the bank guarantee during the pendency of the notice.
Mr.Harin
Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondent No.1,
submits that though show cause notice may contain two courses of
actions, but both are separate and no final order is passed by the
Authority.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be served by
directing the competent authority to pass final order after
considering the reply dated 7.5.2008 submitted by the petitioner
herein and after affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance
with law and in the meanwhile bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner as per condition No.7(a)(i) of the License shall be kept
alive at least till the decision on the show cause notice is taken
by the Authority.
In
view of the above, this Special Civil Application stands disposed
of. The above directions are given by this court considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the same may not be
cited as precedent.
Notice
discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is modified to the
aforesaid extent only.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top