The three member TRAI bench while directing the government to spell out asto what was left of TRAI's jurisdiction after the recent HC judgment and asked DoT to make its position clear in an affidavit. It also deferredhearing of the 19 cases by private cellular service providers till September 3.

Justices SS Sodhi, BK Zutshi and NS Ramachandran on Tuesday stated that the government should clarify whether the judgment covers all matters relatingto the license agreement, interconnection and pricing issues.

Private operators have contested Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL's)planned foray into cellular services. The cases of ICNET, Netherlands India Communication Enterprise, Merscat Communications, Koshika Telecom, RelianceTelecom, Modicom Network, Bharti Cellular, Microwave Communications, Modi Korea Telecom, Usha Martin Telecom, Easy Cell Communications India, MatrixPaging India, ABC Communications India, Telesystem India, Hutchinson Max Telecom, Nice and CG Faxmail were taken up.

Counsels of private operators stated that TRAI was within its power to interpret the license conditions and the question of whether it had thepower of jurisdiction was to be followed from the court order and not from what follows from it. Appearing for Modicom, senior advocate Sudhir Chandrasaid according to the High Court judgment, TRAI's powers to settle disputes between service providers were preserved. The authority still holds powersto adjudicate matters, he asserted.

DoT counsel Rakesh Tikku said that TRAI no longer could adjudicate disputes relating to the above issues pending before it following the high court order on the appeals filed by the Union of India. He said the High Court while interpreting section 14 of the TRAI Act, 1997, has given no scope for TRAI to decide or make recommendations on such cases.

In February, TRAI had passed an order that it was mandatory for DoT to seekits recommendations under the TRAI Act, before finalising the Internet policy and deciding the entry of MTNL into the cellular business.

However, the HC made it clear that TRAI has no powers to adjudicate over matters relating to the grant of licenses by the government. ''disputesregarding granting or amending the license by the licensor (DoT) is not a dispute covered under the provisions of section 14(2) of the TRAI Act,'' theorder stated.

"These disputes are beyond the purview of section 14(2). These are not disputes which can be adjudicated by the authority", it further stated thatthe TRAI "fell in error" by concluding that power of the government to grant or amend the license was subject to its recommendations or that theserecommendations were mandatory.