<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (2) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157059</link>
    <description>Spectrum, as a scarce natural resource held in trust by the State, must be allocated through a fair, transparent, non-discriminatory process consistent with equality, public trust, and public interest; auction was recognised as the preferred method for such distribution. The TRAI/DoT 2G licensing framework, including use of 2001 entry-fee levels for later licences, was held invalid because it disregarded spectrum scarcity and the Cabinet&#039;s requirement of consultation on pricing with the Ministry of Finance. The first-come-first-served method, the altered cut-off date, and the grant of licences and spectrum to eligible and ineligible applicants were found arbitrary and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157059</link>
      <description>Spectrum, as a scarce natural resource held in trust by the State, must be allocated through a fair, transparent, non-discriminatory process consistent with equality, public trust, and public interest; auction was recognised as the preferred method for such distribution. The TRAI/DoT 2G licensing framework, including use of 2001 entry-fee levels for later licences, was held invalid because it disregarded spectrum scarcity and the Cabinet&#039;s requirement of consultation on pricing with the Ministry of Finance. The first-come-first-served method, the altered cut-off date, and the grant of licences and spectrum to eligible and ineligible applicants were found arbitrary and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>