- News>
- ICE Economy
COAI indulging in luxury litigation to serve narrow ends: ABTO
New Delhi, Dec 07: Accusing cellular operators of indulging in continued `luxury litigation` to serve their narrow ends, basic operators have informed Supreme Court that introduction of unified regime through amendment to NTP-99 has rendered COAI`s challenge to WLL services infructious.
New Delhi, Dec 07: Accusing cellular operators of indulging in continued "luxury litigation" to serve their narrow ends, basic operators have informed Supreme Court that introduction of unified regime through amendment to NTP-99 has rendered COAI's challenge to WLL services infructious.
"In the light of grant of new licence under the new regime, approved by Union Cabinet and recognised as a validly licensed service and in the light of amendment to the New Telecom Policy - 1999 itself, the challenge in this appeal to legality of limited mobility service no longer survives," basic operators have said in their affidavit responding to the petition of COAI.
Association of Basic Telecom Operators (ABTO) said that the real motive of cellular operators has been to engage competitors constantly in litigation and cast shadow on investments made by the basic companies, their lenders and financial institutions with a view to protect and consolidate market share.
"The litigation, is therefore, nothing but luxury litigation, a mere means to serve their narrow ends," it said.
Charging cellular operators with supressing material facts from the apex court, ABTO said that cellular companies had deliberately failed to disclose that pursuant to directions contained in the TDSAT order of August 8, 2003 which had permitted WLL services but recommended sops for cellular firms, telecom department and regulator had taken adequate steps to ensure level playing field.
Bureau Report
Association of Basic Telecom Operators (ABTO) said that the real motive of cellular operators has been to engage competitors constantly in litigation and cast shadow on investments made by the basic companies, their lenders and financial institutions with a view to protect and consolidate market share.
"The litigation, is therefore, nothing but luxury litigation, a mere means to serve their narrow ends," it said.
Charging cellular operators with supressing material facts from the apex court, ABTO said that cellular companies had deliberately failed to disclose that pursuant to directions contained in the TDSAT order of August 8, 2003 which had permitted WLL services but recommended sops for cellular firms, telecom department and regulator had taken adequate steps to ensure level playing field.
Bureau Report