Topping the list of issues which require the AG's opinion include what should be done to resolve the problem of private operators who have failed to submit the undertakings that they would accept the New Telecom Policy (NTP 99) subject to its clearance by the next council of ministers and the Lok Sabha. This was an undertaking which was agreed upon by operators in the Delhi High Court in response to a public interest litigation filed there by the Delhi Science Forum. So far, only Essar has submitted its undertaking to the government for its basic services circle of Punjab. Moreover, these companies had also agreed to withdraw all the cases against the government filed in various courts, which they have notdone so far. These were the pre-conditions on the basis of which these companies were to be allowed to move to a revenue sharing arrangement instead of the earlier licence fee regime.

The DoT is also likely to ask the AG to step in and give his opinion on what is to be done in the circles where the licences of Koshika, Aircell Digilink and J T Mobiles have been terminated, almost two months ago. Koshika's licences for Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh (west), Aircell Digilink for Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh (east) and JT mobiles for Punjab were disconnected for failing to pay their licence fees. These companies have demanded that if the government was planning to move to a new package to make the industry viable, they should have been given a chance to make their businesses viable too. Apart from this is the issue of six months extension to Bharti and Reliance for their basic services in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat respectively.

The Bharti and Reliance case relates to the fact that these companies werethe first ones to sign the letters of intent (LoI) for their basic circles in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat in February last year, when the government was not even ready with the licence agreement. Later when the licence agreements were readied and signed by other companies in September last year, the date was made the same for these two companies also. This now, these companies contend, cannot be viewed as an extension in effective date given under the NTP 99 which was mainly given to companies on account of delays in clearances from various government departments.