Speedon Network Ltd vs Union Of India

Counsel appearing for the respondent has taken this Tribunal to the fact that the petitioner was given ISP License on 14.8.2014.

The petitioner used the aforesaid license for few months therefore, petitioner had given the notice of surrender of the ISP license on 23.1.2015.

It is alleged by the respondent that even after surrendering of the ISP license by the petitioner, they were using the license or at least they were continuing some of the activities which were only permissible with the help of ISP license and they have been mentioned on page no 755 on the reply given by the respondent.

It has been further alleged by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was providing service even after application of surrender of ISP license.

The point of Presence (POP) of the petitioner company at Yelahanka was still having bandwidths dropped from Airtel, M/S TATA and M/S Citycom Networks. It has been  further alleged by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was also using the active elements like Alcatel Switch and Optical Lying Terminal (OLT) in the network for their operations.

It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the respondent that aforesaid activities were continued by this petitioner even after surrendering of ISP License. The continuity of the aforesaid activities can be done only under ISP license and therefore, it is alleged by the respondent that petitioner was using ISP license even after notice to surrender the same.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that petitioner had applied for UL VNO (NLD) license which was given to the petitioner bearing license no.10-36/2017-CS III on 26.3.2018.

Counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioner had requested the respondent vide communication dated 20.6.2018 (Annexure R-2) to the memo of reply that surrendering of license may be given effect to from the date on which UL VNO (NLD) license issued by the respondent i.e. the surrendering of the license should be given effect from 26.3.2018.

In view of the aforesaid facts which are alleged by the respondent, the petitioner is liable to make the payment of license fee under ISP license till 26.3.2018 along with the delayed payment interest, penalty and fine etc. in accordance with law.

It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that meanwhile petitioner had also registered themselves as infrastructure provider-1. This infrastructure provider-1 registration never permits the petitioner to continue with the aforesaid activities after surrendering of ISP license.

The facts alleged by the respondent have been categorically denied by the petitioner as stated on page no. 772 which is rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file additional affidavit along with few annexures. Time to file additional affidavit is granted to the respondent till next date of hearing.

Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has treated date of surrender as 20.6.2018 because of the communication by the petitioner to the respondent which is at Annexure R-2 to the memo of the reply filed by the respondent.

Thus, petitioner is liable to make the payment of license fee under ISP till 20.6.2018 along with delay of payment interest etc. under the law.

The matter is, therefore, adjourned to 25.10.2024.