Natural justice in licence revocation: notice and hearing were required before cancellation for non-payment, and consequential relief was upheld.

A statutory broadcasting licence revocation for non-payment was held invalid because the licence conditions required 30 days' written notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before cancellation. The encashment power relating to the bank guarantee did not dispense with that separate notice requirement, and a mere reminder letter was insufficient to communicate the consequences of default. Because the revocation clause was penal in nature, strict compliance was necessary and non-compliance rendered the revocation a nullity. The Tribunal was also held to have acted within its jurisdiction in granting consequential relief under the statutory licence regime, including treatment under the revised policy, after finding the revocation unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revocation of the broadcasting licence for non-payment of licence fee was valid without a prior notice and opportunity of hearing. (ii) Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the licensee to be treated in accordance with the revised policy regime and related reliefs.

Issue (i): Whether the revocation of the broadcasting licence for non-payment of licence fee was valid without a prior notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The licence agreement and its conditions had to be read together. Clause 9 required 30 days' written notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before revocation for breach of conditions or default in payment. Clause 1.2 and Clause 16.2 dealt separately with revocation and encashment of bank guarantee, and the power to encash the guarantee without notice did not dispense with notice for revocation itself. The revocation letter was only a reminder and did not constitute a notice conveying the consequences of non-payment. As the revocation provision was penal in nature and had to be strictly construed, non-compliance with the notice requirement rendered the revocation invalid.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence was invalid and a nullity, in favour of the Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the licensee to be treated in accordance with the revised policy regime and related reliefs.

Analysis: The dispute arose in the context of a statutory licence governed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The Tribunal acted within its powers in granting consequential relief after holding that the licence had not been validly revoked. The direction to extend the benefit of the new revenue-sharing policy was consistent with the treatment accorded to similarly situated licensees and did not offend Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 or the bar under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which was held inapplicable to the statutory arrangement in question.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction, in favour of the Respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the Tribunal's order granting relief to the Respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory licence revocation that is penal in character must comply with the contractual notice requirement and the principles of natural justice, while consequential relief may be granted by the Tribunal within its statutory jurisdiction.

---