AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Sahay, learned counsel who has appeared for respondent on advance notice.
By the impugned demand notice dated 10.11.2021 petitioner has been asked to deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs in favour of DoT for violation of terms and conditions of internet service licence agreement which took place in 2009, before the petitioner steped into the shoes of its predecessors company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two major grounds to challenge the imposition of penalty. First, the determination and demand of penalty is after a long delay of more than a decade and, therefore, barred by limitation etc. and second, the imposition of demand is in violation of principles of natural justice.
A close scrutiny of the facts appearing from the records as well as the demand notice discloses that there has been delay on the part of DoT because it was not ready with the necessary answer as to what should be the quantum of penalty etc. and whether to proceed in the matter after the predecessor of the petitioner gave a reply on 11.5.2009 conforming the violations. The said response is indicated in paragraph - 4 of the impugned notice. However, delay in the procedure does not attract provisions of limitation Act and such laches or delay in determination of the penalty after giving show-cause notice cannot be a sole ground for interfering with the order of penalty.
So far as the principle of natural justice is concerned, after receiving a recommendation from a committee that the matter involves violation of terms of the licence agreement and, therefore, proceeding for imposition of penalty should be initiated, sufficient opportunity has been given by issuing show-cause notice more than once. Even the petitioner, as a successor had an opportunity to give a reply. Hence, there is no good reason to hold that there has been violation of principles of natural justice to the extent required in such matters.
In the facts of the case, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the impugned demand notice. The petition, along with the M.As. is, therefore, dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
In case the petitioner has any financial difficulty at this juncture, it will be at liberty to approach the respondent for seeking extension of time for deposit of penalty by reasonable period such as three months. If such request is made or was made, the same should be considered sympathetically considering the present situation of pandemic.