Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has issued notice to Vodafone Idea promoter Kumar Mangalam Birla and the company’s office-bearer Balesh Sharma in response to a petition seeking suspension of the licence for the telecom service provider for not supplying a telephone directory and itemised bill to its subscribers.The petition was filed by Vadodara resident Vasudev Thakkar in 2023, seeking various HC directions to the Department of Telecommunication, including suspension of the licence issued to the private telecom company. Thakkar has been seeking action, alleging that the telecom service provider for his mobile phone, Vodafone Idea, didn’t follow the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India‘s mandate to provide an itemised bill to consumers and to make a directory available for them. Thakkar claimed in his petition that he requested the service provider on several occasions, but to no avail. Before the court, the petitioner submitted that he made many representations to the DoT authorities with regard to breach of licence and terms and conditions. Although many representations were made to DoT authorities with regard to breach of licence and terms and conditions of Vodafone India Ltd, the authorities did not pay any heed. Hence, he approached the HC. Thakkar made Birla and Sharma party respondents in his petition as the company’s office-bearers, along with the DoT secretary. After hearing the petitioner, who argued his case in person, Justice H M Prachchhak stated, “Issue notice, to respondent Nos. 1 (Birla) and 2 (Sharma), making it returnable on July 2, 2026.” Earlier in 2023, the HC issued notice to the DoT secretary. When there was no reply filed, the HC on March 26, 2025, directed the secretary to file an affidavit. When the officer failed to file an affidavit, the HC pulled up the officer after stating in an order passed in July 2025 that “Prima facie, this court feels that respondent No. 3 (secretary, DoT) is in contempt. Despite clear directions issued by this Court on March 26, 2025, there is no reply filed by respondent No. 3. The conduct of respondent No. 3 is serious in nature. Respondent No. 3 has as such flouted the directions of this court by ignoring the same and not filing the reply.”
