1. Existing and new licensees constitute two distinct classes under Article 14 of the Constitution. Existing licensees already possess a jural relationship and operational infrastructure, requiring only a license amendment, whereas new licensees require a discretionary grant. Consequently, differential treatment favoring existing licensees does not violate Article 14.
2. The Central Government possesses the inherent power to alter its policy decisions regarding spectrum allocation to meet increasing demand. A change in policy to shift from past practices does not render the new policy unconstitutional unless it results from an abuse of power.
3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable where the State is empowered to take decisions under executive policy or law, especially in matters of economic and public interest. No binding promise was made that could restrain the Government from implementing a new lawful policy.
4. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has no application where allocation involves executive discretion and where the new petitioners failed to fulfill statutory conditions for license issuance, thus placing them in a different category than existing licensees.
5. Principles of estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence do not bar an existing licensee from claiming priority if a valid policy change grants such entitlement, provided the delay in litigation does not defeat the equitable defense.
6. Table V in the affidavit serves merely as a list and does not constitute a binding priority list. Failure to strictly adhere to past compliance cannot debar a legally entitled existing licensee from claiming priority.
7. Outcome: The petition of the existing licensee TTSL was allowed, entitling it to priority in spectrum allocation over 'Idea' and 'Unitech'. The petitions of the new licensees were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs.
