CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS O I Vs. NIVEDITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions are being disposed of by this common order inasmuch as they arise out of the order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in complaint case No. CC-09/2006. A complaint had been filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 in these petitions) with regard to unsolicited commercial communications being received by her on her mobile phone. Taking note of the plight of the complainant, the State Commission observed that a similar problem is being faced by a large number of people who own mobile phones and that the unsolicited commercial communications, which include short message service (SMS) communications as well as calls are a growing menace. The petitioner in WP(C) 583/2007 is an association of cellular operators. It has taken the stand on behalf of all the cellular operators, which include Bharti Airtel along with other member cellular operators.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the directions orders passed by the State Commission as indicated in paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 42, which read as under:

(3.) Apart from this, the petitioner in CM(M) 174/2007, being the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, is aggrieved by the remarks made in paragraph 31 of the impugned order with regard to its functioning. The said authority (TRAI) was not even a party before the State Commission and thus is aggrieved by the fact that these remarks have been made against it without giving it a hearing. There is a prayer made for expunction of such remarks.