Authority observed that as per the 31st Amendment of the TTO, any given tariff plan should be available to the subscribers for a period of at least six months from the date of enrolment. The service provider during the currency of six months would also not be permitted to raise any tariff. According to the respondent, the appellant has not properly interpreted the 31st Amendment of the TTO. The increase in tariff after a period of six months or more than six months as intimated by the appellant is not the crux of the tariff order, rather the main contention of this order, is to protect a class of subscribers, for a period of six months after opting any particular tariff plan. The respondent’s view is that, in a dynamic situation, several subscribers might have joined the plan just before the proposed charges, and might not have completed six months in the existing tariff plan. For such subscribers also, the existing tariff must be ensured for six months. The subscribers, who are falling within the period of six months and who have adopted a certain tariff plan, must traverse through that plan uninterrupted for a period of six months, before any change is effected which is to the detriment of their interest. The main purpose of asking for information as per the impugned direction, was to find out, as to how many such subscribers, who have opted for 180 seconds pulse in the last six months, have to perforce adopt a 45 seconds pulse as per the changed circumstances by a sudden change effected by the appellant without any notice or prior intimation.
