After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the issue of interim relief, it appears necessary to give sufficient time to the parties to share their
views including the views of the auditor on any issue arising in respect of the audit report dated 6.1.2022. It is too recent a report to be adjudicated so
early without giving opportunity to the parties and the auditor to exchange views. Both the parties shall be at liberty to raise their concerns and
observations and communicate to each other. It is expected that auditor's views shall also be made known to the respondent on the relevant issues.
The dispute between the parties appears to have snow balled on account of petitioner's communication that he now intends to expand his area of
activities and wants to set up his system also at Jalandhar whereas his original system is at Bhatinda. There may be some teething troubles and
issues while expanding or shifting the system but a party cannot be totally denied its right to extend or expand its business without violating the law and
the agreement.
Right to reasonable demands of the respondent must be respected by the petitoner by communicating all the necessary details of his system when he
expands / shifts his business to Jalandhar. The right of the respondent to hold its own audit under clause 15.2 of the relevant Regulations is always
available, if need arises.
Without adversly reflecting on the rights of the parties, the petitioner is held entitled to shift / expand its business but only after giving prior information
of all relevant materials to the respondent. The issue arising out of audit report shall not be treated as a subject matter to the present petition unless
found absolutely necessary. Parties will be at liberty to exercise their rights and raise demands on the basis of audit report independently without
being effected by the present petition.
Till the next date, the respondent shall not give effect to the impugned notice of disconnection.
The Respondent has already filed a preliminary reply and also an application under section 20 of TRAI Act alleging violation of interim order of this
Tribunal expecting the petitioner to run its operation strictly in terms of the agreement between the parties. Petitioner may file reply to the said MA
within four weeks. Rejoinder, if required, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.
The present reply of the respondent has been described only as a preliminary reply. Respondent is given liberty to file further reply, if required, within
four weeks. A comprehensive rejoinder may be filed within three weeks of further reply.
Post the matter under the same head on 24.3.2022.Â
