Telecom interconnection disputes belong to sectoral regulation, and competition authorities cannot assume prima facie jurisdiction on unsettled issues.

Writ petitions challenging a competition regulator's order and consequential notices were held maintainable before the Bombay High Court, with territorial jurisdiction found because part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra and the order had civil consequences. The Court further held that telecom interconnection disputes involving licence terms, interconnection agreements, quality of service obligations, test phase requirements, and subscriber demand belonged within the telecom regulatory framework. Because the Commission had acted on unsettled sectoral questions and could not displace the sectoral authority's role at the prima facie stage, it was found to have acted without jurisdiction under the competition law, and the investigation direction and DG notices were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable before the Bombay High Court and whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the Commission's order and the consequential notices. (ii) Whether the Competition Commission could, on the facts, form a prima facie view under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 and direct investigation into the telecom interconnection dispute, or whether the matter fell within the exclusive domain of the telecom regulatory framework.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable before the Bombay High Court and whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the Commission's order and the consequential notices.

Analysis: The cause of action was held to have arisen in part within Maharashtra, including Mumbai, because the service providers had business operations, subscriber base, and communications relevant to the dispute within the State. The Court further held that the impugned order was not a mere non-speaking administrative direction but a reasoned order carrying civil and commercial consequences, and therefore amenable to judicial review under Article 226. The availability of writ jurisdiction was also affirmed because no appeal lay against the order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held maintainable and the Bombay High Court was held to have territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the Competition Commission could, on the facts, form a prima facie view under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 and direct investigation into the telecom interconnection dispute, or whether the matter fell within the exclusive domain of the telecom regulatory framework.

Analysis: The Court held that the dispute concerned the interpretation and enforcement of telecom licences, interconnection agreements, quality of service obligations, test phase requirements, and the meaning of subscriber and reasonable demand, all of which were governed by the telecom regulatory regime and the authorities under that regime. It found that the Commission had proceeded on disputed and unsettled contractual and regulatory questions, had relied on material that could not substitute for a final determination by the sectoral authority, and had overlooked relevant material showing provision of POIs over time. In these circumstances, the Commission was held to have acted without jurisdiction in initiating inquiry under Section 26(1), and the consequential DG notices were also unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order and all consequential DG actions were quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was held to be one that had to be resolved under the telecom regulatory framework and not by invoking the Competition Act at the stage of prima facie inquiry, with the result that the Commission's investigation direction and related notices could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the core dispute concerns the interpretation and enforcement of telecom regulatory obligations and interconnection agreements, and the governing rights and obligations have not been finally settled by the sectoral authorities, the Competition Commission cannot assume jurisdiction merely by framing the issue as an alleged anti-competitive agreement under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.

---