M/s Syniverse Technologies (India) Private Limited vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.

This Telecom Petition, under Section 14 (a) (ii) read with Section 14 A (1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (As amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as “TRAI Act”), has been filed by M/s Syniverse Technologies (India) Private Limited, through its authorised signatory, Petitioner, against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL), New Delhi, Respondent, with a prayer to declare that the Respondent’s Letter, dated 23.09.2019 bearing number NOW CM –I/MNP/RegIn/ 2019/ 34, is unlawful and non-est, and Respondent is required to pay the Per Port Transaction Charges of Rs. 19/- per porting request, in accordance with the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge Regulations, 2009 and the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009, including for the period between 31.01.2018 and 08.03.2019, with a further prayer to direct the Respondent to immediately clear all outstanding invoices and pay an amount of Rs. 7,39,19,404.46/- (Rupees Seven Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four and Paisa Forty Six Only), towards all outstanding invoices issued by the Petitioner, till date alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

In brief, the Petition contends that, the Petitioner, M/s Syniverse Technologies (India) Private Limited has been constrained to prefer the instant Petition as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, has refused to pay the Per Port Transaction Charge (PPTC) of Rs. 19/- per porting request, for the period between 31.01.2018 and 08.03.2019, as is required by the Telecommunications Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge Regulations, 2009 (PPTC Regulations) and in accordance with Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009 (MNP Regulations). The Petitioner provides porting services to enable telecom consumers to port their telephone connections from one Telecom Service Provider (TSP) to another. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has licensed two Companies to provide porting services, and the Petitioner has been licensed to provide porting services over 11 license areas (while the other licensee provides porting services over the remaining 11 license areas).

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), by way of the Telecommunications Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge Regulations, 2009 (PPTC Regulations), has fixed a per port transaction charge of Rs. 19/- per porting request, for providing such services, that is payable by the TSPs to the Petitioner. The Respondent had not disputed its obligation to pay the said PPTC of Rs. 19/-, except for the period between 31.01.2018 and 08.03.2019, for which the Respondent’s dispute is based on the misapprehension that for that period, the Respondent is required to pay the PPTC, as per the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment Regulation), which reduced the PPTC from Rs. 19/- per porting request to Rs. 4/- per successful porting request. Whereas, Respondent failed to appreciate that since the Amendment Regulation was set aside by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as unconstitutional and ultra vires to the TRAI Act, resulting the Respondent to continue to pay a PPTC of Rs. 19/- per porting request including for the period between 31.01.2018 to 08.03.2019, i.e., the interregnum period, between the date of promulgation of the Amendment Regulation and the date of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment. There is no dispute between the parties concerning the invoices of the Petitioner, for a period prior to 31.01.2018 and after 08.03.2019. But, Respondent had failed to clear certain invoices raised for such usage period too, despite repeated reminders by the Petitioner. Even, it failed to clear certain dues, raised by Petitioner @ Rs. 4/- per successful porting request, in the above interregnum period too. Hence, in all Rs. 7,39,19,404.46/- (Rupees Seven Crore Thirty Nine Lakh Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four and Forty Six Paisa Only), rounded at 7,39,19,404/- (Rupees Seven Crore Thirty Nine Lakh Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four Only), towards the Petitioner’s outstanding invoices, including interest owing to belated payment had accrued, for which this Petition is there.

Petitioner, being a Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the Mobile Number Portability Service Provider (MNPSP), having license agreement, dated 17.04.2009, renewed vide Agreement, dated 19.03.2019 (MNP License Agreement) for 11 of the 22 Telecom Licensed Service Areas (Service Areas) of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Hence, it is a licensee and a ‘service provider’ in terms of Section 14 of the TRAI Act. This License Agreement is Annexure P-1 to Petition.

Respondent i.e., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is Telecom Service Provider (TSP), engaged in the business of providing Telecom Services pursuant to license issued to it, under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Both of the Petitioner and Respondent are ‘service provider’ in terms of Section 14 of the TRAI Act. Petitioner provides porting services, which allow a subscriber to retain his mobile number, when he moves from one TSP to another, or from one Cellular mobile Technology to another of the same TSP. Mobile Number Portability, is defined in Regulation 2(i) of the MNP Regulations.

Under MNP Regulations, the Petitioner is entitled to recover the PPTC for processing porting requests from the TSP to whose network a subscriber seeks to port (Recipient Operator), within a period of 15 days, which is given in Rule 15 of the Regulation, under head ‘rights and obligations’ of recipient operator, wherein the recipient operator shall pay to the MNPSP, per porting transaction charge, @ as specified by the Authority, from time to time, within 15 days of the receipt of bill from the MNPSP, or within such other time limit, as may be mutually agreed upon. This PPTC is fixed by TRAI by way of PPTC Regulations. Regulation 3 of PPTC Regulations provided that the PPTC is Rs. 19/- per porting request. On January 31, 2018, TRAI issued the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment Regulation), per porting reduced the PPTC payable to MNPSP w.e.f. 31.1.2018 from Rs. 19/- to Rs. 4/- per successful porting transaction. This amendment regulation was got quashed and set aside by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, by way judgment, dated 8.3.2019 in WP(C) 1507 of 2018, filed by the petitioner, as being violative of Article 14, of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to TRAI Act. Subsequently, review petition against this March Judgment, were also dismissed by Hon’ble High Court. With the setting aside of amendment regulation, the respondent was required to pay PPTC of Rs. 19/- per porting request for the period between 31.1.2018 i.e. date of promulgation of amendment regulation and 8.3.2019 i.e. date of the March judgment, setting aside of the regulation i.e. interregnum period. Therefore, the petitioner raised its invoices @ Rs. 19/- per porting request in accordance with the PPTC Regulations and MNP Regulations. Petitioner also raised invoices for the balance amount of Rs. 15/- per successful porting request and Rs.19/- for unsuccessful request that was payable for the interregnum period. For this interregnum period, under protest, invoices @ Rs. 4/- per successful porting were raised and sent to respondent via email. These invoices are Annexure P-6 and P-7 colly to petition. A compact disc, containing the invoices issued by the petitioner, that are outstanding and payable by the respondent is Annexure P-8 to petition. Despite repeated reminders and follow up, the respondent did not pay and cleared the invoices. Rather, vide its letter dated 23.9.2019, respondent instructed all its circles to pay PPTC @ Rs. 19/- per porting request only w.e.f. 8.3.2019, i.e., date of judgment, and as per above instructions, the invoices for interregnum period were got rejected by respondent. Hence, cause of action, within the period of limitation, between two ‘service providers’, within jurisdiction of this Tribunal had arisen. Hence, this petition with above prayers, got filed.

The Reply, on behalf of respondent – BSNL, is with this contention that petition is with this thrust that BSNL is liable to make payment of Rs. 19/-per porting request to the petitioner, under the 2009 Regulations. But it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner was charging certain service providers @ Rs. 11/- per porting transaction charge. As petitioner is monopoly holder with regard to number portability in 11 licensing areas, and respondent was with no other option, but to take the services of petitioner, in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to act in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis, but this claim is apparently on discriminatory basis. Petitioner may not be permitted to charge different per port transaction charge to different service providers in a discriminatory manner. For orderly and proper growth of the telecom sector, this Tribunal has, in different judgments, held that maintaining level playing field, is must and thus, any discriminatory practice, such as charging per port transaction charge to different service provider for providing the same service, would be frowned by this Tribunal. This respondent could be aware of this difference between Rs. 19/- per charge from respondent and Rs. 11/- per charge from other service providers, after going the present petition, wherein in Annexure P-7, the petitioner, during the submission, before Hon’ble Delhi High Court had admitted that it was charging some of the operators @ Rs. 11/- per port transaction charge. Thus, for the interregnum period from 31.1.2018 to 8.3.2019, the per port transaction charges payable, by BSNL to petitioner, is Rs. 4/- per successful porting, as was directed in amendment regulation 2018, which was in operation from 31.1.2018 to 8.3.2019 i.e. date of its quashing by a Writ Court. The respondent had charged Rs. 4/- from per customer, as per above tariff rate, given by amendment regulation. Thus, respondent cannot now be asked to pay Rs. 19/- retrospectively. Admittedly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not granted stay in Writ Petition No. 1507 of 2018, against the above amendment regulation. Rather, order dated 16.02.2018 specifically records that in case the Writ Petition, if succeeds, appropriate orders will be passed. Thus, clearly indicating that there was no stay, granted by Hon’ble High Court, and it remained enforced during the period 31.1.2018 to 8.3.2019. There is no order of Writ Court, regarding the recovery of porting charges @ Rs. 19/- retrospectively, for the interregnum period. In quashing judgement 8.3.2019, respondent BSNL was not party to that Writ Petition. It was with no opportunity to place its version before imposition of this liability. It is respondent, who is entitled to recover from petitioner the amount already paid in excess @ Rs. 8/- per porting as compared to Rs. 11/-being charged from other service provider and Rs. 19/- from the respondent, between the period 2009 to 31.1.2018, and after 8.3.2019 to 10.11.2019, for which, it will file a counter claim.

A Rejoinder, to above reply, dated 28.1.2020 has been filed by petitioner, having reiteration of contention of petition. The alleged non level playing field and discrimination is without a fact. The alleged admission of PPT charges of Rs. 11/- to other TSP, being said to be there in Annexure P-7, filed before Hon’ble Delhi High Court in above Writ Petition, is contrary to the record. It is specifically denied that the petitioner had charged a PPTC of Rs. 11/- from any of the Telecom Service Provider, or admitting to charging the same anywhere, including in the proceeding before Hon’ble Delhi High Court, or in the documents at Annexure P-7 of the captioned petition. Rather, it was a sample given in above annexure P-7, specifying the outstanding invoices issued to the BSNL by the petitioner, and do not demonstrate, as alleged by the respondent, that the petitioner was charging a lower PPTC to any of the other TSPs. The petitioner was charging PPTC, as per the directions of the TRAI regulation. There was no occasion for respondent to raise a counter claim on this ground. On interregnum period, i.e. 31.1.2018 to 8.3.2019, the PPTC @ Rs. 19/- per porting per request was admissible and payable, after the quash of said amendment regulation. The amendment regulation was quashed and set aside by Hon’ble High Court Delhi, by way of March Judgment, passed in Writ Petition, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to TRAI Act. It relates back to the date of its issuance, i.e. 31.1.2018. Consequently, the pre existing PPTC of Rs. 19/- per porting request, specified under the PPTC Regulation, remained operative even after 31.1.2018 and BSNL is bound to make payment at above rate.

This Tribunal, vide order dated, 18.9.2025, had directed and subsequently, added Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) as respondent no. 2 in the array of parties, wherein learned counsel for TRAI had appeared, but opted not to file any reply or counter in the matter. But, had mentioned of no protest for and on behalf of TRAI, with regard to matter in question in present Telecom Petition.

Though a proceeding before this Tribunal, is a proceeding of civil nature, wherein the parties are to file their pleadings, issues are to be framed, the evidences as per rule of burden of proof as well as onus to prove is to be led by the parties, then argument is to heard, resulting the judgment followed by forming of decree in the matter. But in this proceeding, this course was not opted by Court no. 1, from where this file was received, at the advanced stage of final hearing and none of the parties to proceeding, pressed for having those recourse. Rather, the arguments were advanced, and it were filed in written submission too with a narrow prayer of adjudication with regard to as to what will the effect of judgment of Writ Court with regard to porting charges liability, to be paid by BSNL for interregnum period and the entire contest was for this only.

It is noteworthy to mention that even after appearance of respondent – BSNL and grant of opportunity to file reply of the petition, merely a short reply, for and on behalf of respondent – BSNL to the interim relief, sought by the petitioner, had been filed on January 28, 2020 and rejoinder over it had been filed. The Tribunal in its hearing in the matter, vide order, dated 9.12.2021 had heard over MA No. 429 of 2021, in TP 92 of 2019 with MA 430 of 2021, wherein the Tribunal has narrowed the matter in issue, specifically the effect of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as well as liability of BSNL towards the porting charges. The matter was posted before Court of Registrar for passing necessary orders and directions to make the petition ready for hearing and Registrar, vide order, dated 20.12.2021 had specifically mentioned that “It was jointly submitted by the parties that the pleadings are complete in the matter. The statements of the Learned Counsel are taken on record. Let the matter be listed before the Hon'ble Bench under the head "For Hearing" in due course” and matter was listed for final hearing in Court No. 1, where it was heard at length at many times, then vide order, dated 31.7.2025, directed to list before this Court No. 2 for hearing and in compliance of same, this hearing was got completed. Hence, the opportunity to file the reply, thenafter to get the issues framed, then to lead evidences, thenafter to list for hearing arguments, were got closed on the request of learned counsels for both side, made before Court of Registrar, written as above. Hence, this petition was got heard, and is being decided under facts and circumstances.

The contention of learned counsel for BSNL is that the short question, which arises in the present matter, is effect of judgment dated 8.3.2019, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, quashing the PPTC first amendment regulation 2018, as being manifestly arbitrary and as a result vide judgment, dated 8.3.2019, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had struck down the regulation in question, essentially on the ground that the formula applied in arriving at the leviable PPTC was incorrect, as it involved the division of total cost incurred by the MNPSP, by the total no. of porting request (as opposed to the number of successful porting requests). This was recorded by Hon’ble High Court, as the most glaring ground of interference, as the absurdity of applying a figure derived by dividing the total cost of the MNPSP by the number of porting request to the successful request alone. In other words, the primary ground for holding 2018 amendment to be manifestly arbitrary is the incorrect divisor(denominator), used in which the TRAI too, failed to make distinction between porting request, which were successful, and those which were not. No fault was found with the policy of TRAI recorded in the amendment regulations, which listed the reason for coming out with the amendment, thereby reducing the PPTC from Rs. 19/-to Rs. 4/- per successful porting. It was also not under dispute that with effect from 11.11.2019, the new PPTC amendment regulation 2019, prescribed an amount of Rs. 6.46 per porting request, and the same was not in any manner being challenged. On the contrary, the same has been accepted. This fact alone shows that the legislative intent and rational behind reducing the PPTC from Rs. 19/- was never attacked, either by the petitioner, herein or the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment, dated 8.3.2019. The legal precedent of nine judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Property Owners Association and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3122, holds on the one hand that where the act of deletion and insertion are indivisible in an amendment, the original provision, if the same is lawful and constitutional, would automatically revive upon the striking down of the said amendment. However, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the original unamended provision was unconstitutional, or where reviving the said original provision would result in adverse consequences, in such a case, the original provision could not revive, as per relevant portion of paras 62 and 68 of the aforesaid judgment. The analogy, of above precedent applies in the present case in hand, wherein original rate under the amendment regulation of the year 2019, was affixed PPTC @ Rs. 19/- and it was got amended by above amended regulation of 2018 to be of Rs. 4/- per successful porting charge and this amendment rule of 2018, reducing the PPTC to Rs.4/- was got struck down vide above Writ Court judgment. Hence, for the interregnum period from 31.01.2018 till 8.3.2019, the charges made by BNSL from prevailing subscribers at the relevant time, was Rs. 4/- per successful porting. Hence, this may not be disturbed because of reason that the judgment dated 8.3.2019, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court does not in any manner strike down or disapprove the rational for coming out with a new regulation reducing the PPTC rates. There was no dispute with the broad policy decision. However, the actual calculation based on the faulty denominator was struck down. Hence, under above circumstances, it cannot be inferred that impliedly or otherwise, the rate of Rs. 19/- will be for per porting for interregnum period. This is further fortified by the undisputed acceptance of Rs. 6.46 per porting charge in subsequent regulation, which was much lower than the original rate of Rs. 19/- per successful porting. In light of the same, this suo motto revival of Rs. 19/-per porting may not be permitted for the interregnum period. Argument in the reply to this was with specific contention that the PPTC rate was fixed @ Rs. 19/- per porting request by regulation 3 of the Regulation mobile number portability per port transaction charge and dipping charge Regulation 2009, issued by TRAI, and vide amendment regulation issued by TRAI in 2018, the such rate was reduced to Rs. 4/- per successful porting with effect from 31.1.2018. This amendment regulation was got challenged by present petitioner before Writ Court of Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Delhi, wherein, TRAI was respondent and it was regulator, concerning each of the Telecom Service Provider (TSP). This Writ Petition was got heard and finally decided, whereby amending regulation 2018, was got struck down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and it was declared as illegal, unsustainable, ex facie unreasonable against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as well as ultra vires of the TRAI Act and this judgment had become final. Two of the review petitions, one by another TSP, Jio and other by Regulator TRAI was got filed, heard and decided as of no substance, and got dismissed. In those two review petitions, filed against the final judgment, one by TRAI and the other by another Telecom Service Provider, namely, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (Jio) was got dismissed, vide judgments, dated 15.4.2019 and 03.05.2019 respectively, and the entire ground being taken by BSNL in this petition in hand was taken by Jio before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and this all was denied by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The judgment, dated 8.3.2019, became final with no challenge by BSNL, and this review petition judgments were also not challenged before any forum. After its finality, TRAI had acted upon the judgment, and after taking the due process, an another amendment of the year 2019, effective from 11.11.2019, was got promulgated and the PPTC rate was refixed @ Rs. 6.46 per porting request with prospective effect from 11.11.2019. The BSNL was to make the payment @ Rs. 19/- per porting request for the interregnum period to the petitioner, but it failed to make the payment, and when this was pressed, in this Tribunal, then the reply in January 2020, it was mentioned that the amendment regulation was in effect for interregnum period. A letter dated 23.9.2019, as well as 10.2.2021 was got written by BSNL, wherein a letter dated 23.09.2019, BSNL had stated that final judgment is required to be implemented from the date judgment, and in letter dated 10.2.2021, it owed to make payment only for the successful porting, but the Tribunal vide its order, dated 9.12.2021, had specifically decided the liability of BSNL for making payment for the interregnum period. Hence, the order dated 9.12.2021 had also become final. Hence, the very contention of BSNL is of no avail.

From the very perusal of the judgment of Nine Judge Bench in Property Owners Association and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3122, it is apparent that Hon’ble Nine Judge Bench has specifically propounded that where the act of deletion and insertion are indivisible in an amendment, the original provision, if the same is lawful and constitutional, would automatically revive upon the striking down of the said amendment. Hence, in the present case PPTC of Rs. 19/- per porting request, as was given in 2009 regulation was not deleted by TRAI regulation of 2018. Rather, the TRAI regulation 2018, is an amendment regulation. It has amended the rate Rs. 19/- to Rs. 4/- per successful porting request. Hence, there was no repeal of Rs. 19/- per porting request. Rather, it was a subsequent amended notification of the year 2018, wherein rate was substituted with a qualifying word ‘successful porting’. And this was challenged before Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was got struck down with specific finding of being unconstitutional i.e. against the provision of Article 14, ultra vires to TRAI and arbitrary. Hence, the moment this amendment was struck down, the previous provision will automatically alive, because the same was not unconstitutional or illegal. Hence, this very dispute being made by BNSL for interregnum period is of no avail. This is being further fortified by the conduct of BSNL itself, who has opted to give Rs. 19/- per porting request after the date of judgment, till the promulgation of subsequent policy of 2019, which came in effect from 11.11.2019. Hence, this contention of respondent - BSNL is of no force. This Tribunal vide its order, dated 9.12.2021, being reproduced as below :

Hence, it has decided in all its words that after the amendment of 31.1.2018 got struck down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein regulator TRAI was a party, this judgment will definitely bind all service providers governed by the regulations, including BSNL and BSNL was not permitted to have a defence of successful or unsuccessful porting request for interregnum period. There was a direction to make the payment for each porting request. Hence, for the interregnum period, the effect of amending regulation of the year 2018 was of no avail. Rather, regulation of 2009 was in operation, and PPTC was payable @ Rs. 19/- per porting request and after this interregnum period, till the effect of subsequent regulation dated 30.09.2019, being effective from 11.11.2019, @ Rs. 6.46 per porting request. The above rate of Rs. 19/- per porting request is to be paid. Hence, to conclude, the rate for interregnum period i.e. 31.1.2018 to 8.3.2019, will be of Rs. 19/- per porting request, as per TRAI’s PPTC Regulation 2009. For the period beyond it till the effect of subsequent regulation of 2019, the BSNL itself has admitted to have paid Rs. 19/- per porting request and order of this Tribunal on this point, dated 9.12.2021 is specific and final.

This Tribunal, in many previously decided judgments, has awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. simple interest over outstanding dues. Considering present financial and fiscal scenario, the award of same interest will be reasonable, just and fair.

Hence, the main petition was filed with the prayer for declaring respondent’s letter dated 23.09.2019 bearing no. NOW CM-I/MNP/Regln/2019/34 as unlawful and non-est. This has already been made vide order of this Tribunal, dated 9.12.2021 and this Tribunal in its civil jurisdiction, is of no Writ Court jurisdiction to declare any Regulation ultra vires or void ab initio. Rather, is to decide the effect of order of Writ Court over a civil suit pending before it and this has been specifically mentioned by this Court in its order, dated 18.09.2025 in Para 3 “This

The second relief is with regard to declaration that Respondent is required to pay the per port transaction of Rs. 19/- per porting request, in accordance with the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge Regulation 2009 and the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulation, 2009, including the period between 31.1.2018 and 08.03.2019, this relief is being granted and the rate for interregnum period to be of above rate is being held to be payable to Petitioner.

The third relief is for making a direction to Respondent to immediately clear all outstanding invoices and pay an amount of Rs. 7,39,19,404.46/-(Rupees Seven Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four and paise Forty Six only) towards all outstanding invoices, issued by the Petitioner, till date alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. For this relief, the admitted position is that the interim relief of Rs. 2,97,99,620.02/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Twenty and paise Two only) was also prayed in interim prayer, and this was countered, decided with a categorical admission of payment in the tune of Rs. 2,75,90,565.56/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Five and paise Fifty Six only) to the Petitioner towards the principal amount outstanding, with a specific contention of an amount of Rs. 4,63,28,838.64/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixty Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight and paise Sixty Four only) remaining balance, payable by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner, towards the principal amount outstanding. But this fact of the payment and remaining of the balance of payment had not been specified in the pleading. It has not been brought on record in the Petition, nor the evidence with regard to these invoices, raised and delivered, and not paid, has been given before Court of Registrar. Whereas, this burden was on the Petitioner, that how much have been paid and how much stood balance to be paid, as against which invoices? Though Respondent-BSNL, had not filed its reply disputing this factum. The affidavit with regard to interim relief, its counter and rejoinder has been filed. But what about the claim with regard to interregnum period, and the difference with regard to Rs. 19/- per porting request, as per 2009 Regulation and provisioned Rs. 4/- per successful porting request, vide amendment Regulation, 2018, which was subsequently got dismissed vide judgment, dated 08.03.2019, was specified or proved. Hence, as per the mentioning made by Learned Counsels for both side, and matter got fixed for final hearing before Court No. 1, as has been written supra, and the file received by this Court No. 2, wherein, the hearing was got advanced by both side, it is apparent that this amount and payment against this amount, and balance with this amount, is a question of subsequent calculation, in final decree, to be made by Office, after the calculation furnished before it, by Learned Counsel for both side. The preliminary decree with regard to question raised for the interregnum period and the rate applicable for it, has been decided as above. Hence, this Telecom Petition is being allowed, as discussed above.

Telecom Petition is being decreed. BSNL i.e., Respondent No. 1, is to make the payment of PPTC @ Rs. 19/- as per PPTC Regulations, 2009, per porting request, for the interregnum period 31.01.2018 till 08.03.2019, alongwith interest to the Petitioner. The invoices, the payment made, and the adjustment, resulting the balance, to be paid on the date of filing of this Petition, will be with an interest of pre instituting period @ 9% p.a simple interest over it, and this will be added as a principal, payable to Petitioner, and this principal amount shall be payable, with a simple interest of Rs. 9% per annum, from the date of Petition, to the date of actual payment @9% p.a over it. A preliminary decree be got prepared by Office, as above, and after filing of the Statement of Account by both side, with regard to claim, raised and invoices delivered to Respondent by Petitioner, along with its Statement of Account, and the payment made by Respondent BSNL, towards above claim. The final decree will be got drawn, accordingly.

Preliminary decree/order be got prepared by office, accordingly.