read with Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885) Section - 7 read with Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Act No. XVII of 1933) Section - 10(2) read with National Telecommunication Policy, 1998 read with Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. IX of 1872); Section-23: Whether the 'exclusivity' clause in the licence agreement was void as it gave the petitioner monopoly in the trade which is unenforceable being illegal and against public policy.
The Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001 was given effect from 8.7.2001 and hence forth it is the duty and obligation of the Commission to enter into any licence agreement but in spite of that prior to constitution of the Commission the parties (MOPT and the World Tel. Bangladesh Limited) have singed the agreement in hot haste on 12.7.2001 containing terms including the 'exclusivity' clause at a time when the Act was already in force, which the learned Consul for the respondent termed to be the result of coercive mode of procurement in singing of the licence agreement. - the Commission could amend any license agreement executed by the Government either under Telegraph Act, 1885 or Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 by invoking the provisions of section 89 and 90 of the B.T. Act if it considers that any condition or content in the license agreement is inconsistent with any provisions of the Act in order to ensure healthy competitive environment, prohibition of anti-competitive and discriminatory practices in the telecom sector and to meet the huge unmet demand for telephone to the tune of 07 millions in the DME area and in the overall public interest. -as the term regarding 'exclusivity' was contrary to the aforesaid provisions of law and the spirits and object of the 'National Telecommunication Policy', the condition in the Agreement is opposed to public policy and therefore void. World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 20 BLT (AD) 108.

Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001
Section 46 r/w
বাংলাদেশ টেলিভিশনের জন্য টেরিস্ট্রিয়াল টেলিভিশন সম্প্রচার সুবিধা সংরক্ষন অধ্যাদেশ, ২০০৬ and
বাংলাদেশ টেলিভিশনের জন্য টেরিস্ট্রিয়াল টেলিভিশন সম্প্রচার সুবিধা সংরক্ষন আইন, ২০০৯
Stop broadcasting activities of Jamuna Television– There is no illegality in the order dated 19.11.2009 to stop test transmission of the appellant-company's Television Channel cancelling the allocated satellite frequency and using of earth station, SNA and DSNA machineries and equipments and seizing the machineries and equipments under the seizure list dated 19.11.2009. However, in view of the observations and findings made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed-in-part in doing complete justice, the respondents are hereby directed to release the machineries and equipments seized from the appellant-company’s TV stations as per seizure list dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure-A2) and to dispose of the appellants’ application dated 08.10.2009 in accordance with law within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. At this stage the appellants are not entitled to broadcast or transmit any telecommunication without having obtained requisite licences and NOC in accordance with law from the concerned Ministries and authorities. …Jamuna Television Ltd. =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 183] ....View Full Judgment

The imposition of MCF while calculating the spectrum assignment fee is completely a separate issue done in pursuance to the section 55(3) of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001-having no relevance with regard to the Cellular Mobile Phone Operator license of the petitioner company. The concept of MCF was introduced in the guidelines, 2011 by the BTRC by virtue of its power under section 55(3) of the Act, 2001. The issue of MCF is entirely related to the issue of spectrum/ frequency as dealt in section 55 of the BT Act, 2001. As such, it has no nexus in respect of the cellular mobile phone operators. ...Orascom Telecom Bangladesh Ltd Vs. BTRC & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 115
The issue of applicability of VAT and/or liability of the petitioner company to pay the VAT has no relation whatsoever with regard to the payment of license renewal fee and spectrum assignment fee. The petitioner company is bound to pay the net amount of the license renewal fee fixed by BTRC, without any kind of deduction. ...Orascom Telecom Bangladesh Ltd Vs. BTRC & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 115 ....View Full Judgment

Authority of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) in granting license: What we have seen in the instant case that from the very beginning though the respondent No. 3 (Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC)) tried its best to do the needful for obtaining clearance from the three agencies, two of which had already given their clearance but the added respondent No. 4, Ministry of Home Affairs did not accord any clearance though there was repeated request by the respondent No. 3. There is no denying that respondent No. 3 had all along the good intention in this regard....On a plain reading of the laws we have found that respondent No. 3 was absolutely in a position to take a decision in the matter in question. …Spice Television Private Ltd Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 1
Criteria to satisfy a claim of the legitimate expectation: Moreover, this particular case is also guided by the principle of reasonableness so far legitimate expectation is concerned. We unequivocally and respectfully agree with the decision of Dhaka City Corporation vs. Firoza Begum 65 DLR AD 145 where our Appellate Division set up 12 criteria to satisfy a claim of the legitimate expectation. In the case in hand, as we have found that out of those criteria, (iv) and (v) shall apply. Criteria No. (iv) says : “ An expectation to be legitimate must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority that is said to be bound to fulfill the expectation and a Minister cannot found an expectation that an independent officer will act in a particular way or an election promise made by a shadow Minister does not bind the responsible Minister after the change of the government.” Criteria No. (v) says : “ A person basing his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation has to satisfy that he relied on the representation of the authority and the denial of that expectation would work to his detriment. The court can interfere only if the decision taken by the authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of the principles of natural justice and not taken in public interest.” Therefore, considering the overall aspect it is our considered view that before the agog of wait ends in whimper on the part of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 should immediately act in accordance with law in the manner as mentioned above by taking appropriate steps. …Spice Television Private Ltd Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Value Added Tax Act, 1991
Sections 15(4), 6(4KaKa) r/w
Value Added Tax Rules, 1991
Rule 18(Uma) r/w
The Telegraph Act, 1885
Section 4 r/w
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Act
Section 55(3) r/w
Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines for Renewal of Cellular Mobile Phone Operator License (Guidelines, 2011)
The BTRC is given responsibility to collect VAT from the Cellular Mobile Phone Operators and deposited it to the Government exchequer. As such, there is no scope to withhold the VAT collected at source by the Grameenphone.
Government, local authorities, the organization of local authority or organization those who are working for the Government are exempted from payment of VAT. The NBR, postal department, Bangladesh Bank, City Corporation and land revenue authority although engaged in realization of VAT through deduction at source bearing no registration under VAT Act, 1991 and thus the BTRC being Government organization is also exempted from payment of VAT under Clause-7 (Ab¨vb¨ †mev)(N) of the second schedule of the VAT Act, 1991 and compulsory VAT registration is not necessary for BTRC.
“the BTRC’s contained non-registered status for VAT purposes appears anomalous in the facts and circumstances. This Court being of the view that such situation needs immediate attention to avoid any further confusion in the implementation of the Deduction at Source Scheme in particular. It is also noted that the BTRC itself on occasion has contributed to such confusion arising by making ill-advised assertions as to its status within the VAT regime. This Court finds in this respect that circumstances now dictate a compulsory registration of the BTRC by application of Section 15(4) of the Act. Both the NBR and the BTRC are hereby put on notice to ensure such registration by application of Section 15(4) without undue delay. Given the findings in this judgment it is directed that such registration shall be deemed to be effective from the date the BTRC notified the petitioner of award of license and payment of License Renewal Fee and Spectrum Assignment Fees without any deduction i.e. from 17.10.2011.”
-are hereby expunged. .....Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 563] ....View Full Judgment

It is our finding further that section 65 in its entirety is the corridor within the statutory scheme through which the sanctity of the section 63 penal sanction must be gauged. Consequentially, any failure to trigger section 65 or any of its components necessarily leads to a statutory infraction resulting in a more fundamental constitutional infraction. ...Grameenphone Limited Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

If the section 65 provisions are to be obliterated or to be considered a dead letter of the law one is necessarily at a loss to find other statutory mechanisms that may be called upon for due implementation of section 63. Furthermore, it is our unqualified view that the power to charge an administrative fine to a maximum of Tk. 300 Crore must always have an in-built mechanism of fair play. Otherwise one is visited with a scenario of administrative anarchy resulting from an exercise of unfettered discretion. ...Grameenphone Limited Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment