BSNL must pay Rs 19 per porting request for 13 months a quashed TRAI amendment cut it to Rs 4, TDSAT rules

Once the Delhi High Court struck down the 2018 per port transaction charge amendment, the 2009 rate of Rs 19 governed the interregnum from 31 January 2018 to 8 March 2019, TDSAT held, passing a preliminary decree against BSNL with 9 per cent simple interest and two months to pay.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal has passed a preliminary decree against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in favour of MNP Interconnection Telecom Solutions India Private Limited, the mobile number portability provider for South and East India, holding that the per port transaction charge for the period from 31 January 2018 to 8 March 2019 is ₹19 per porting request under TRAI's 2009 regulations, not the ₹4 per successful port fixed by a 2018 amendment that the Delhi High Court later quashed. In a judgment of 16 October 2026, Justice Ram Krishna Gautam, Member, directed BSNL to pay the ₹15 per request shortfall for that interregnum, together with sums it admitted owing for later periods, all with 9 per cent simple interest, within two months. The claim as filed was ₹11,73,75,884 including interest; the Tribunal's office will now compute the decretal amount.

One licence, three rates

MNP Interconnection holds a licence under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to provide number portability services in Zone 2, covering South and East India. The licence agreement, executed on 17 April 2009 with effect from 20 March 2009, ran for ten years and was extended for another ten. Under the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009, the provider processes porting requests from a donor operator to a recipient operator; under the Per Port Transaction Charge and Dipping Charge Regulations, 2009, in force from 31 December 2009, it was entitled to ₹19 for each porting request processed.

On 31 January 2018 TRAI's first amendment (Regulation 3 of 2018) cut the charge to ₹4 and made it payable only for successful portation. MNP Interconnection and another provider challenged the amendment in Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 1507 and 1508 of 2018, and on 8 March 2019 the Delhi High Court quashed it as ultra vires the TRAI Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. A second amendment then fixed the charge at ₹6.46 per request from 11 November 2019. That left three periods: the interregnum from 31 January 2018 to 8 March 2019, the gap from 8 March to 10 November 2019 when the 2009 rate revived, and the period from 11 November 2019 at ₹6.46.

Demand notices, part payments and a letter to the circles

After the High Court judgment MNP Interconnection reconciled its accounts for the interregnum and raised invoices for the ₹15 balance on each request. Its demand notice of 24 May 2019 put the interregnum dues at ₹2,84,70,950, against which BSNL paid ₹1,18,07,796. A consolidated demand of 11 June 2020, followed by details on 13 June 2020, put the outstanding across all BSNL circles at ₹11,91,85,520 and asked BSNL to specify which invoices a payment of ₹1,40,17,509.17 related to. The circles paid ₹3,38,72,600 in response, again without identifying the invoices, a problem because different rates applied to different periods. Reminders in September 2020 warned that BSNL would lose GST input credit for FY 2019-20 if it did not pay by 30 September 2020, and on 5 November 2020 the petitioner wrote to TRAI about ₹9.92 crore unpaid as on 30 September 2020.

On 10 February 2021 BSNL issued a letter to all its business circles. It read the High Court judgment as requiring ₹19 only for successful ports between 8 March and 10 November 2019, nothing for unsuccessful requests in that window, and directed recovery of any excess paid. MNP Interconnection protested by emails of 20, 22 and 23 March 2021, demanding payment with interest at SBI PLR plus 200 basis points, but BSNL reiterated the instruction, and after a demand notice in October 2021 for ₹9,38,05,184 the petitioner received BSNL's own invoices seeking recovery for unsuccessful transactions. The petition was filed on 20 January 2022, seeking ₹11,73,75,884 inclusive of interest to 31 December 2021 for invoices raised up to 30 September 2021, further interest at SBI PLR plus 200 basis points from 1 January 2022, and a direction that BSNL comply with Regulation 15(1) of the MNP Regulations.

BSNL: no stay, not a party, and only ₹18 lakh left

BSNL, represented by Senior Advocate Madhuri Diwan, said it had paid ₹19 per request from 31 December 2009 until the amendment took effect on 31 January 2018 and ₹4 per successful port thereafter, and had billed its own customers on that basis. The High Court had granted no stay; its order of 16 February 2018 had only said appropriate orders would follow if the writ succeeded, so the amendment remained in force during the interregnum. BSNL was not a party to the writ and could not be saddled with a retrospective civil liability. It pointed out that in Syniverse Technologies' connected petition (TP No. 92 of 2019) the Tribunal had on 9 December 2021 directed it not to withhold money on the successful-unsuccessful distinction for the period after 8 March 2019, and that it had then instructed its circles to pay both MNP providers ₹19 for all requests between 8 March and 10 November 2019. On its figures it had paid ₹5,43,89,065 in total, leaving ₹18,05,241 outstanding as on 30 September 2021, and GST recovered from the petitioner had been refunded. The composite claim was time-barred, it added, because the petition did not say which period or amount it related to, and an email from its counsel on 5 April 2022 asking for that breakdown had gone unanswered.

The breakdown came in rejoinder. MNP Interconnection claimed ₹7,01,43,817 for the interregnum at ₹15 per request (Annexure P-27), ₹1,24,81,183 for 8 March to 10 November 2019 at ₹19 (Annexure P-28), and ₹1,11,80,184 for 11 November 2019 to 30 September 2021 at ₹6.46 (Annexure P-29). It denied that GST had been paid and rejected the ₹18,05,241 figure. BSNL filed a sur-rejoinder repeating its reply, which the Tribunal noted had been taken on record by Court No. 1 although the rules make no provision for one.

No evidence from either side

The case went to judgment on pleadings alone. On 7 March 2023 counsel for both parties told the Tribunal they did not wish to lead evidence or file affidavits of examination-in-chief, and the evidence stage was closed with the matter listed for hearing alongside TP No. 92 of 2019, which raised the same question. After hearings over many dates the matter was placed before Bench No. II on 1 August 2025. Because the dispute turned on the effect of the High Court's writ judgment, to which TRAI had been a party, the Tribunal ordered TRAI arrayed as the second respondent, rejected the petitioner's application against that order, and heard TRAI's counsel, who filed no reply and said the regulator had no contest in the matter.

Justice Gautam set out the civil law of proof that governs a TDSAT petition: the preponderance of probabilities, the rule in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh that the onus lies on the party who asserts a fact, the Privy Council's holding in Lakshman v. Venkateswarloo that the burden on the pleadings never shifts while the onus does, and the Supreme Court's warning in State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co. that a plaintiff cannot take advantage of the defendant's weakness. Against that canon, he held that “pleadings can never be a proof”. The statements of account and emails on file were neither originals nor proved as secondary evidence, and carried no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. What remained were the pleadings and the admissions in them, and “admission is best piece of evidence” unless retracted or contrary to law.

A quashed regulation leaves the old rate standing

On the central question the Tribunal followed its decision in the connected Syniverse petition and did not repeat the reasoning. The High Court struck down the 2018 amendment in proceedings where TRAI was a party, so the judgment binds every service provider governed by the regulations, BSNL included, and BSNL could not run a defence of successful versus unsuccessful porting for the interregnum. Review petitions by Jio and by TRAI, raising the same defence BSNL now raised, had been heard and rejected by the High Court. Once quashed, the amendment ceased to exist and the 2009 regulation revived for 31 January 2018 to 8 March 2019, making ₹19 payable per request. TDSAT, exercising civil jurisdiction, had no power under Article 226 to add to, subtract from or interpret the writ judgment; its task was to apply its effect, as it had said in its order of 18 September 2025. BSNL did not plead that it had paid ₹19 for the interregnum, only ₹4 per successful request, so the ₹15 balance the petitioner claimed was a matter for calculation by the office.

On interest, the petition's figure of ₹11,73,75,884 was made up of ₹9,38,05,184 in principal and ₹2,35,70,699 in interest at SBI PLR plus 200 basis points. There was no evidence to prove that rate. Following its practice in earlier petitions and the current financial climate, the Tribunal fixed pre-institution, pendente lite and future interest at 9 per cent per annum simple.

Order

The petition was decreed as a preliminary decree. For the interregnum from 31 January 2018 to 8 March 2019 the chargeable PPTC is ₹19 per porting request processed by the petitioner, and BSNL must pay the remaining ₹15 per request with 9 per cent simple interest up to the filing date of 20 January 2022, the interest merging with the principal. The admitted ₹18,05,241 for the period after the interregnum carries 9 per cent interest from the date of demand notice to filing, and the further admitted sums of ₹3,688 for 8 March to 10 November 2019 and ₹80,634 for the subsequent period carry 9 per cent from their due dates to filing; all of these together form the principal outstanding on the date of the petition. Pendente lite and future interest runs at 9 per cent simple from the petition until realisation. The office will prepare the preliminary decree, BSNL must pay within two months of the judgment, and both sides may reconcile claims and payments at the decreed rates before the final decree is drawn.