Section 29 with Sections 30(2)(m) and 37(3)(g)
|
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.
|
World Tel Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors |
20 BLT (AD) 108 |
Section 46
|
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
|
Jamuna Television Ltd. =VS= Government of Bangladesh |
8 LM (AD) 183 |
Section 55(3)
|
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
|
Orascom Telecom Bangladesh Ltd Vs. BTRC & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 115 |
Section 55 and 56(8)
|
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
|
Spice Television Private Ltd Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
16 SCOB [2022] HCD 1 |
Section 55(3)
|
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
|
Grameenphone Ltd. =VS= Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission |
14 LM (AD) 563 |
Section 63 and 65
|
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
|
Grameenphone Limited Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) & ors. |
14 SCOB [2020] HCD 1 |
Section 63 and 65
|
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
|
Grameenphone Limited Vs. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) & ors. |
14 SCOB [2020] HCD 1 |