However, as an interim relief to the petitioners, the Cellular Operators Association of India, including the nine separate cellular operators who were co-petitioners, the Tribunal has ruled that the new licensees for basic services shall abide by the judgement of the case as and when it is decided by the Tribunal. The next hearing for the case is scheduled for February 21, 2001.

The petitioners had, however, pleaded that status quo be maintained and that no new licences be issued till the case was decided as it would introduce third party interests.

Written submissions by both sides - the government along with the basic operators and the cellular operators - will have to be made by February 9 and 14, 2001 respectively.

The Association of Basic Telecom Operators (ABTO) has also been made a co-defendant along with the government of India. While Dr AM Singhvi was defending the private basic operators, Mr Harish Salve was the counsel on behalf of the Government of India.

The cellular operators led by their counsel Mr Gopal Subramaniam argued that the DoT's very reference to TRAI was "mistaken and misdirected" even as the government through its counsel Mr Harish Salve made the submission that the dispute was not under the Tribunal's jurisdiction at all. The reason being given by Mr Salve was that the "mandate of the Tribunal included only disputes between the licensor and licensee. In this particular case, the defence argued, the government was not the licensor, but the policy-maker.

Hence, the government stance was that the Tribunal is not conferred with the jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the decision of the central government."The petitioners also presented their side adding that the introduction of limited mobility will jeopardise their investments to the tune of Rs 11,163 crore and will disrupt the level playing field that was being enjoyed by cellular operators till now.

According to the cellular operators' their cumulative losses till now are around Rs 7,000 crore and the new service as conceived would harm their commercial interests.

The defence on its side added that the cellular operators in their migration package to the revenue-sharing regime from the license fee regime had signed a non-exclusive agreement wherein they had agreed to "unlimited competition" and hence, their arguments were unfounded.