appellants it is amendatory. According to TRAI, it is clarificatory whereas according to the appellants it is amendatory. In this case, as stated above, we are concerned with the demand of ADC on the appellants for the period 14-11-2004 to 26-8-2005. According to the appellants, such a directive dated 4-3-2005 cannot operate retrospectively. This is the key issue which we need to decide. In this connection, it may be noted that the said directive was issued to all access providers. The said directive came to be issued as it was brought to the notice of TRAI that new terminals were being deployed by access providers which terminals do not have any fixed network access point physically located at the address of the subscriber. In the said Circular dated 4-3-2005, TRAI noted that fixed wireless services were required to be provided through fixed wireless terminals with the location of the network access point being fixed and with the enduser terminal being connected to it. That, it had been brought to the notice of TRAI that new terminals were being deployed by certain access providers which did not possess fixed network access point physically located in the premises of the subscriber (PSR). Therefore, by the said circular, TRAI directed the service providers to strictly ensure that the terminal used for fixed wireless services should comply with premises specification restriction i.e. to the premises of the subscriber. This stipulation in the directive, according to the appellants, constitutes a new requirement which has the effect of amending the terms and conditions of the UAS licence as well as the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003. The said directive dated 4-3-2005 stood followed by letters from DoT dated 23-3-2005 and 26-8-2005.”
