Quashing the 2018 amendment restored the ₹19 charge for every porting request during the interregnum.

The petitioner, a licensed mobile number portability (MNP) service provider, sought recovery of outstanding per-port transaction charges (PPTC) from BSNL.

It claimed ₹11,73,75,884, inclusive of interest, for invoices raised up to 30 September 2021, and further interest and regulatory-compliance relief.

The dispute principally concerned the rate payable during the period affected by the 2018 amendment to the PPTC Regulations.

The Delhi High Court had quashed that amendment on 8 March 2019; BSNL nevertheless disputed liability at ₹19 per port for the relevant period and contested the amount claimed.

Neither party led evidence, although the pleadings and supporting affidavits were on record.

TRAI, subsequently joined as a respondent, did not contest the petition.

The Tribunal considered Sections 14 and 14A(1) of the TRAI Act, 1997, the Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability Regulations, 2009, and the PPTC Regulations, 2009, as amended in 2018 and 2019.

It treated the Delhi High Court’s 8 March 2019 judgment, which quashed the 2018 amendment, as binding and applied the 2009 PPTC rate of ₹19 per porting request for the interregnum period.

Applying civil standards of proof, the Tribunal stated that the petitioner bore the initial burden of proving its claim, that the burden of proof does not shift although the evidential onus may, and that civil claims are determined on a preponderance of probabilities; it referred to Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, Premlata v. Arhant Kumar Jain, State of J&K v. Hindustan Forest Co., M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, and Raghvamma v. A. Chenchamma.

It also noted that documentary electronic records had not been proved in accordance with the applicable evidentiary requirements, including Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

For interest, it applied the Tribunal’s stated practice of awarding simple interest at 9% per annum on outstanding dues.

The Tribunal held that the 2018 amendment had been quashed by the Delhi High Court and that the 2009 Regulations therefore governed the interregnum period; BSNL could not rely on the distinction between successful and unsuccessful porting requests to avoid the ₹19 charge.

It acknowledged that neither party had proved its account statements and related records, and therefore did not accept the petitioner’s entire quantified claim merely on the pleadings.

Instead, it directed calculation of the interregnum-period balance by applying the unpaid difference of ₹15 per request after crediting the ₹4 already paid, and relied on BSNL’s admissions regarding other outstanding amounts.

It rejected the claimed SBI PLR + 200 basis-point rate for want of proof and awarded simple interest at 9% per annum.

The Tribunal also directed payment of the specified admitted amounts, with 9% simple interest as set out in the judgment.

The parties were permitted to reconcile the amounts and payments at the rates determined; the respondent was directed to pay the amount so determined within two months, after which a final decree would be drawn.