INDIA TELECOMP LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will apply to four different writ petitions. The challenge, however,in all these petitions is to the non-inclusion of the petitioners in the final list of eight partiesfor grant of licence to operate the Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in four cities,namely, Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. These are C.W.P. No. 4030/92 (IndiaTelecomp Limited), C.W.P. No. 4031/92 (Adino Telecom Limited), C.W.P. 4302/92(Kanazia Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd), and C.W.P. 163/92 (M/s. Hutchison Max TelecomPvt. Ltd). Respondents number 11. First three respondents are the Union of India throughthe Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Director General of Telecommunications,and Chairman, DoT. Other eight respondents are those to whom licences to run theCellular Mobile Telephone Services have been agreed to be given though provisionally.It is better to set out their names as well:-

(2.) Respondents number have been given with reference to the petition of IndiaTelecomp Limited (C.W.P. No. 4030/92). Facts or allegations except otherwise stated inthe judgment have reference to this writ petition of India Telecomp Limited. Similarly,unless otherwise stated, reference to respondents would mean respondents 1,2 and 3.

(3.) The prayer in all these four petitions is to the effect that these petitioners havebeen wrongly denied the licence and that on reconsideration of the matter they be grantedthe licence.