of the Act and now the adjudicatory functions have been conferred upon the TDSAT. We were dismayed with the argument on behalf of the TRAI in the case of MTNL vs TRAI (Appeal No.3/2005) when we wanted to know that if any dispute arises under the Regulations framed by TRAI, could it be that it would be adjudicated by TRAI and jurisdiction of TDSAT to determine that dispute would be barred. His answer was in the affirmative. That would mean that Regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation overtake the provisions of the principal Act. Regulations even if they are a valid piece of subordinate legislation cannot provide that if any dispute arises with regard to interpretation of any of the provisions of the Regulations, the decision of the TRAI shall be final and binding. Such submissions on behalf of TRAI have to be outrightly rejected. Again in the face of the principle enunciated by the Delhi High Court that the same authority/body cannot have both legislative as well as adjudicatory functions and that the Act itself had to be amended establishing TDSAT to hear and dispose of appeal against any direction, decision or order of the TRAI under the Act, for TRAI to say. that it has still the power to adjudicate upon a dispute has no meaning. In this context observation of the Delhi High Court that “further, sub-clauses (1)„ (m). and (p) specifically provide for framing of regulations whilst other do not” becomes relevant. The Court was considering non-recommendatory functions of TRAI as given in Section 11 (1) (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (p) and (q). The Court said:
