Submission of Mr.Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel that exemption has been granted only to BSNL is not fully correct. The exemption granted to the respondent is required to be construed keeping in view the letter of the TRAI dated 15.12.2003. The basic telecom operators being similarly situated, ‘level playing field’ amongst themselves must be considered to be imperative in character. It must be considered on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. TRAI Act and the regulations framed by TRAI not only provide for ‘level playing field’, competition amongst the private players is also encouraged. The respondent, however, having almost a monopoly as a basic telecom service provider throughout the country, a licensee providing for the basic services in a town would have no other alternative but to depend upon the respondent and, thus, succumb to all its dictates. Similarly, the respondent was also required to avail the facilities available with the petitioner. Payments were to be made by each other on the bills raised by them. It is inconceivable in law that by not taking recourse to the CDR regime the respondent would receive certain benefits in as much as the pulse rate would be reckoned on a ‘minute’ basis and not on an actual time basis, namely, on second basis. A party to a contract, it is well settled, cannot take benefit of its own wrong. [See Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors. - 2007(3) SCC 184].
