' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.---This judgment is directed to dispose of writ petition No. 2961 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of provision of Telecommunication Services. The petitioner was granta license to provide Long Distance International Service, in 2004. Under rule 9 of the Access Promotion Rules, 2004 the Telecommunication Authority is required to review the rates of contributions of APCL and APC for USF, after every six months. According to the petitioner, these rates were revised in the year 2009 and since then the rates were not revised; as a result, the petitioner has been paying the above said contributions, on the basis of rates revised in the year 2009. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to revise the rates of contributions, according to the Access Promotion Rules, 2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on one hand, the petitioner has to compete with the other licensees and on the other hand, he has to face the 'grey market'. The petitioner has to make contributions on account of APCL and APC for USF; the rates of said contributions are to be revised, in accordance with the market rates, after every six months. Presently, these rates have not been revised since 2009 and as a result the petitioner has to make the contributions on a very high rate.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that approved settlement rates and Access Promotion Contributions have been revised on 23-2-2011, therefore, the petitioner has been left with no cause of action and the writ is liable to be dismissed.
5. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the rates have been revised in 2011, yet since 2009 the rates were not revised and the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the period, when the rates were not revised .
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. Admitted position in the present case, is that approved settlement rates as required under rule 9 of Access Promotion Rules, 2004 have been revised in 2011, which was main grievance of the petitioner, in the instant writ petition. As such the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. As far as the second prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arguments, is concerned, the same was not mentioned in the writ petition and furthermore, the question of compensation relates to recording of evidence and calculations of rates, which is beyond the ambit of writ jurisdiction.
8. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted and the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.