The appellant also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that one of the reasons given by respondent No. 1 in the impugned direction and impugned show cause notice is security. During the argument the appellant has taken the position that all the security obligations and stipulations mentioned in the license under section 23 have been met by it fully. Even sub-section 23.16 of the license which mandates that the appellant shall maintain all records including called and calling numbers, date, duration and time etc. with regard to the communications exchanged on the network for a period of one year or as directed for scrutiny by the licensor/security agency is also being fully met. However, the respondent vehemently contested this issue stating that this requirement was not being met by the appellant. The respondent contends that this data is to be maintained on the switch of the basic service operator which can facilitate monitoring/interception by the security agencies. In the instant case, however, it is being maintained at IN platform of the appellant, which is contrary to the provisions of the license. The learned Counsel for respondent No.l quoted case of Reliance Infocomm Limited Vs. Union of India in Petition No.3 of 2005, where also the records were kept at IN platform of the service provider which in the eyes of law was found to be untenable. In this case we had held that the service provider must maintain the records of the calls including the CLI of the calling subscriber at the switch which should be available to the authorities if need be. Clause 24.3 of the license stipulates the licensee to provide all tracing facility of such calls or communication etc. to the authorized officers of the Government including Police, Customs, Excise, Intelligence Department officers etc. when such information is required and Clause 26 of the license provides the authority to this licensor or its authorized representative right to inspect the sites used for extending the service. Detailed reading of the clauses of license on security reveal that the appellant is not really violating these conditions/ stipulations. It is maintaining the records which can be produced for the agencies/ authorities for necessary tracing/action. We do not find anywhere that it has to be specifically on the Switch of Access Provider. But, the fact is that this service, ie. Calling cards is unauthorized under the ILD/NLD license and if that be so the question of having data of an unauthorized service has no meaning. Though we are not much impressed with the contention of the respondent about violation
