ORDER
CM. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The brief facts of the case as incorporated in an application filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Section 10(B) read with Section 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are stated in paragraphs (i) to (vi) of the application which will be referred to as below :
“(i) The telephone subscribers are kept ignorant of the fact that the telephone bills include capital contributions for which the consent of the subscribers was not taken.
(ii) The telephone rentals and other charges are raised almost periodically without consulting anybody.
(iii) The MTNL has started charging local calls on time basis (1 call for 5 minutes each) just like long distance calls on the plea that long duration calls are congesting the network.
(iv) MTNL keeps security deposits, OYT deposits, STD deposits etc. Without paying any interest to the subscribers from the time a connection is given until the same is surrendered by the subscriber.
(v) The telephone directory which is required to be published at 12 monthly intervals is delayed as a matter of course and such unreasonable delays add to the additional expenses for the subscribers since they have to pay for wrong calls or for getting telephone directory assistance.
(vi) When the telephone go out of order they are not restored within a reasonable period.”
2. In reply to the aforesaid allegations, the respondent has stated as under :
“1. That the notice of enquiry is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the allegation made in complaint of the complainant are not at all related and redressal of same is not within the power of the respondent.
It is submitted that respondent has derived its power from Telegraph Authority under licence No. 1-1-1/85-MTC-PHB dated 27th March, 1986 to establish, maintenance and work telecommunication services within territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and areas covered by Municipal Corporation of Bombay, New Bombay, Thane. The terms and conditions of such licence is covered under Schedules A and B attached to the licence.”
Paragraph 4 of the Schedule B of the licence specifically states as under :
‘Rates, charges, deposits and fees for establishment, maintenance, working repair, transfer or shifting of any telegraph shall be published in Gazette and has prescribed by Telegraph Authority. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. shall not have the power to establish or apply any rate, charge, deposit or fee without the written consent of the Telegraph Authority.’
Further the paragraph 7 of the Schedule B of the licence states that :
‘Arbitration of any dispute between the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and the subscriber shall be dealt with in accordance with Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act as the disputes between the Telegraph Authority and subscriber.’
In view of the above terms and conditions of the licence granted to the answering respondent the present complaint is not maintainable against the respondent as neither the respondent is responsible for enhancement of any rates, charges and deposits etc. nor the complainant has revoked the arbitration clause which is meant for the dispute between the Telegraph Authority and subscriber.
2. The respondent is only operating agency for implementation of Government of India’s policies, it has just to implement the rates as are notified by the Government of India from time to time. As the respondent is acting on behalf of Government of India and carried out its instructions as such is not an independent agency and also not indulged in any restrictive trade practices as alleged by the complainant.
The telephone tariff is a subordinate legislation and a legislative process. Paragraph 7 of the Indian Telegraph is empowers the Central Government to make rules, inter alia, for rates. These rules are laid before each House of Parliament. The rules take effect when they are passed by the Parliament, the rates are sanctioned by the Parliament as such same are matter for legislative judgment not for legislative determination which is also settled by several Courts of land as such the respondent is not at all liable for the subject of legislative determination and is indulged in any manner of any restrictive trade practices.”
3. It is also stated by the respondent that the rental charges are collected from the subscriber from the date of issue of OB and not from the date when the instrument is installed. Periodic tariff revisions are necessitated to meet the escalation of input costs as well to raise additional source for upgradation and development of telecom services. There has never been an arbitrary increase in the price of the telephone services. As regards interest on deposits by Telegraph Authority, the rates applicable to the fixed deposit for one year by State Bank of India is paid to the depositor from the date of deposit up to the date of installation of telephone connection.
4. We have gone through the submissions made on both sides while allegations relating to non-publication of telephone directory and the delay in providing services are general the contentions of the respondent have not been controverted by the learned Counsel for the DG (I&R).
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed before us the relevant Telephone Rules relating to refund. As stated in Swamy’s Treatise on Telephone Rules the following may be referred to as below :
“Chapter 8
Refund and Rebate
Refund of OYT Deposit for closed
connections
If a telephone connection sanctioned under OYT Scheme is surrendered within the period of 20 years from the date of installation, a refund of initial deposit made by the subscriber will be allowed to him after deducting therefrom a sum total to 1/20th of the initial deposit, for every year or part of the year for which the telephone connection has been in use of the subscriber. If, however, the telephone is surrendered within five years of installation, the amount of refund shall not exceed three-fourths of the initial deposit made by the subscriber.”
6. As regards allegations in para-2 of the application, adjustment of 96% of the deposit by way of rebate and 4% towards book keeping charges is as per rules provided in Section III-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules. In absence of any serious arguments in support of the allegations advanced, the same cannot be said to constitute unfair/restrictive trade practices as alleged.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that no case has been made out against the respondent and we do not find any ground to continue the present proceedings. The same stand disposed of. The Notice of Enquiry is discharged.