The DoT had severed all interconnection rights to three cellular companies two weeks ago, as these companies had not paid their licence fees to the government. The three companies included Koshika Telecom, Aircell Digilink and J T Mobile. The disconnection affected Koshika's networks in Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh (west), J T Mobile in Punjab and Aircell Digilink in Rajasthan, Haryana and UP (east).

As a result of snapping of interconnection links by the DoT, subscribers on these networks cannot receive or make calls from a cellphone to a normal landline phone of the DoT. This affected cellphone users who were left stranded withhandsets which could make calls only from one cellphone to another on the same network. For example, even a cellphone user on a Koshika network could not make any calls to Aircell networks in the same circle.

A Koshika subscriber, Sanjay Kaushik, today filed a complaint with the TRAI stating their dilemma where they had paid money to Koshika for their connection but were unable to use it. The TRAI today, not only admitted the petition but also directed the DoT to respond within a fortnight.

While DoT had ordered disconnection for these companies on the grounds that despite several warnings these companies failed to pay even 20 per cent of their outstanding licence fees. While Koshika's outstandings stand at Rs 406 crore, Aircell Digilink owes the government Rs 271 crore and J T Mobile another Rs 637 crore.

On January 25, the DoT had asked all private telecom companies to pay at least 20 per cent of their dues and securitise the rest. While most companies met with the first option, these three companiesfailed to fall in line. After this the DoT issued them show-cause notices in April to explain why their licences should not be terminated.

When they failed to respond even to this, the Department forced its hand to cut off interconnection to these companies for failure to honour their licence commitments.

While the TRAI may so far find itself unable to infringe upon ``licensing issues'' as the matter is sub judice, protection of consumer rights falls within their purview and it is in this capacity that today's notice has been issued to the DoT.