"We do not think it is appropriate to interfere with the order of the high court or in the proceedings there as the matter is still at a preliminary stage," a division bench comprising justice BN Kirpal and justice S Rajendra Babu said while dismissing TRAI's petition.

Delhi High Court on October 28 had stayed the proposed CPP regime saying that the TRAI order "is a hostile discrimination" against DoT and MTNL. The bench before hearing counsel for TRAI, Ashok Desai observed, "It is very strange on the part of TRAI to come before the Supreme Court at this stage."

However, Desai pointed out that the TRAI order was consumer-friendly and was going to benefit a large number of cellular phone owners due to incoming calls being free of cost. Desai added that it was wrong on the part of the high court to stay the order of a regulatory authority as the apex court had time and again held that courts should not interfere in matters pertaining to fixation of tariff.

"The fixation of tariff in commercial matters and matter of public interest were quite different," the bench observed and said as the high court had fixed November 16 for further hearing on the matter, TRAI should point out these anomalies there.

Appearing for MTNL, senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan contended that corporation stood to lose a huge chunk of its revenue as it would receive only Rs 0.90 as against the present Rs 1.10 per call made from fixed telephones (PSTN) to cellular phones.

The CPP regime announced by TRAI on September 17, was gazetted on September 21 and come into effect from November 1. The Trai had announced the introduction of the calling party pays (CPP) regime from November 1, a decision challenged in the High court by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL) and others.

Under the CPP, a cellular phone owner on receiving a call from a landline would not incur any charge. However, the landline caller would pay Rs 2.50 for the first minute, followed by a charge of Rs 1.20 per minute (in metros).