New Delhi, March 17 :     The separation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (Trai) roles of being a regulator and an arbiter of disputes through the Trai (Amendment) Act 2000 is unlikely to reduce the scope for litigation - the key objective behind the effort to revamp the regulator and to accelerate the development of the telecom sector. The amendments made in the Trai Act empower the appellate dispute tribunal to settle disputes between the licensor and licensees on the one hand, and between operators on the other. The tribunal's order can be challenged only in the Supreme Court. However, legal experts say its judgment can be challenged in the high court. They cite a recent Supreme Court judgment which says all orders passed by appellate tribunals-except in sensitive cases relating to TADA - can be contested in the high court. 'The Supreme Court has already made it clear that the High Court has powers of superintendence over orders passed by any tribunal,' a legal expert said. Sources in the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and Association of Basic Telecom Operators (ABTO) said the purpose of having a dispute settlement body will be defeated if the cases are taken back to the high court. 'To have a dispute settlement body was one of our demands. But, if the cases are to be referred back to the high court, as has been suggested by many legal experts, the situation will remain the same. The government's intention was to avoid litigation, reduce the time spent on legal battles and concentrate on the development of telecommunications. The recent order will have to be examined by our legal experts,' sources in Cellular Operators' Association of India (COAI) and Association of Basic Telecom Operators (ABTO) said. Congress leader Kapil Sibal had picked the lacunae during a Rajya Sabha discussion on the Trai (amendment) Bill and told communications minister Ram Vilas Paswan that the Supreme Court verdict would make the changes proposed by the government redundant. ' While the government's intention is to reduce the time for settling disputes, the amendment will not be able to achieve its objective as result of the Supreme Court order. Therefore, only minimum changes are necessary in the Trai Act,' Sibal had said. The Trai (amendment) Bill followed an Ordinance promulgated early this year for reconstituting the telecom regulator into a dispute settlement and appellate tribunal. The Ordinance allowed the government to separate the regulator's recommendatory and advisory functions by rework Section 11 (I) of the Trai Act. The amendment transfers all disputes pending before the watchdog to the new appellate tribunal.