Raja Spectrum Fraud – Part 2 ( How it unfolded)

via V SUNDARAM published on May 25, 2010

DMK nominated Union Minister for Communications A. Raja has been in the eye of a storm over the alleged 2G Spectrum Allocation Scam ever since the budget session of Parliament started on April 15, 2010 and the issue violently and vociferously raised by the opposition parties from that date has forced repeated adjournments of both the Rajya Sabha as well as the Lok Sabha.

As the world becomes increasingly wireless, allocation of the available spectrum bandwidth to each type of technological end-use becomes increasingly contentious. Each user community (usually manufacturers of different categories of wireless equipment) wants more bandwidth in order to be able to sell and service more units. For any given slot of bandwidth, there is a limited amount of data that can be shared in that bandwidth, and so the vendors want more bandwidth so they can handle more devices in a given area. Further contention arises if neighbouring countries do not have agreements, because then differences from country to country can cause interferences relating to or arising from clash of signals along border areas.

In different parts of the world, different organizations allot parts of the overall electromagnetic spectrum to different users / uses. In the United States, that organization which regulates and controls the spectrum bandwidth is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This organization is fully empowered to allocate telecom spectrum bandwidth inside U.S.A and to take all decisions relating to all commercial contracts in this field. We have similar organizations in most countries. In India, thanks to the Sonia Congress Government we have a corrupt system in which a Regulatory Authority like TRAI has been degraded to the level of an advisory and recommendatory body in respect of all vital matters regarding allotment of cyber space and other connected commercial matters.

What do you think would happen to a civil society if the beat constable, the school head master or the District Magistrate had no regulatory powers but had to remain content with recommending a course of action or merely tendering advice? Highway bandits would rule the roost or bandits (Phoolan Devis from abroad!!!) operating from vantage points of unrestrained political power in New Delhi would have the last say on every national issue. What would happen to such a civil society is exactly what is happening to the telecom sector in India. A Ministerial highway bandit is calling the shots while the designated Chief Executive, the Prime Minister is looking on with a pathetically helpless smile.

What is amusing and intriguing is that this forwarding and receiving type of post office institution functioning inside the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), has been given the grandiloquently fraudulent nomenclature of TRAI or Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. In actual practice TRAI regulates nothing. More like a house cat that drinks milk but catches no mouse! TRAI is under the stranglehold of the DOT. All power relating to settlement of large scale commercial contracts and other vital matters is centralised and concentrated in the DoT, which in the Sonia Congress Government context only means that all power is vested solely in the person of Union Minister for Communications answerable in practice only to the Chairman of the UPA Coordination Committee and not to the elected Parliament.

In 1975, during the illegal Emergency, Indira Gandhi transferred all the sovereign power from the people of India to the elected Parliament. That is how she was able to play with the Indian Constitution, bringing in radical amendments like the one relating to “Secularism’ and “Socialism” and in the process shamelessly declared to the world that she had nothing but contempt, both for the Indian people and for the Indian Constitution. In my view, Indira Gandhi viewed it as her hereditary Divine Right to treat the Indian Constitution as a disposable political condom with multiple uses for the sole purpose of advancing her personal, family and party interests at the cost of the larger interests of the Nation.

In today’s India, all the sovereign power vested in the elected Parliament has been transferred to the Household of the firangi memsahib, invested with the power of Chairman of the UPA Coordination Committee and who in actual practice treats the Pope in Rome both as her religious and political overlord. WHERE IS MY INDEPENDENT NATION?

The Spectrum allotment controversy began when the DMK Union Minister Raja (corrupt even by the ‘normally expected’ decently scientific corrupt DMK standards) fixed the allocation of second generation (2G) services of spectrum for mobile and other wireless services; Raja was alleged to have favoured two unknowns in the telecom field, Swan telecom and Unitech, by fixing the auction in such a way that no one else other than these 2 favoured companies could hope to properly participate. The two companies — which had backgrounds in real estate, a field without obvious connections to telecom — obtained the 2G licences at throwaway prices, which they subsequently sold at hefty premiums; the government lost an estimated Rs 1,00,000 crore, say experts. No doubt, politically influential persons in the Sonia Congress and the DMK may have personally earned Rs 5,000 to 10,000 crore.

The patent fact is that Raja has never tried to directly address the charges. He has always attempted to deflect the issue by pointing to the “transparent” manner in which the ongoing auction for 3G Spectrum is being conducted.

The origins of the famous Spectrum Raja Fraud can be traced back to June 2007. The different stages of the shady and corrupt game played by the singularly unscrupulous and yet magnificently successful ‘most honest’ DMK Minister A Raja (from Sonia’s and Karunanidhi’s point of view!) have been summarized below.

As a prologue to this clinching summary of the gigantic Spectrum Fraud, I would like to use the words of Shakespeare to do poetic justice to both the Union Minister A. Raja and his mentor and saviour Dr Kalaignar Mu karunanidhi

“Raja is a Dalit and therefore like the British King, can do nothing wrong” declares Dr Kalaignar. And Dr Kalaignar is of course an ‘honourable’ man!!

JUNE-OCT 2007: A RAJA BECAME TELECOM MINISTER IN MAY 2007. IN THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 2007. IGNORING THE PRINCIPLED OBJECTIONS OF TELECOM SECRETARY D.S MATHUR AND MEMBER (FINANCE) MANJU MADHAVAN, MINISTER A. RAJA DECIDED TO GRANT NEW LICENCES AND 2G SPECTRUM. RAJA DELIBERATELY FIXED THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR RECEIVING APPLICATION AS OCT 1, 2007. The Notification regarding this date was issued on 24-September-2007.

I am presenting below a copy of the note signed by both Member (Finance) Manju Madhavan and Telecom Secretary D.S. Mathur which was sent to Minister A.Raja in the last week of October 2007 and which was summarily rejected by Union Minister A. Raja:


Telecom Member (Finance) Ms MANJU MADHAVAN

Telecom Secretary D.S Mathur

(These two distinguished public servants who defended the larger public interest against the operations of a political depredator were let down by our doormat surrogate and absolutely shameless Prime Minister!!
)

In September 2007, the then Secretary of Department of Telecommunications, D.S Mathur, said about 30 MHz spectrum can be released to accommodate three players in the first phase. 3G services will give users a better multimedia experience, with faster data transfer rates. At present, cellular operators offer only 2G services.

On 3G spectrum, he said besides the initial one-time charge, it has been decided that the successful bidder will pay additional spectrum charge of 0.5 per cent of the total adjusted gross revenue as recurring annual fee. This additional revenue share is proposed to be doubled to on one per cent of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) after 3 years from the date of spectrum assignment.

My comment:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) one of the main makers of modern American law said in one of his famous judgments that comments can be free provided facts are treated as sacred and sacrosanct. What has been stated in the above paragraph is a sacred and sacrosanct fact. Taking note of this fact I can only say that Raja was behaving like a dictator in the manner of a Stalin or Hitler. He had no business to overrule Union Telecom Secretary D.S Mathur and Member (Finance) Manju Madhavan who functioned as true custodians of public interest instead of as shameless promoters of Sonia Congress or DMK Party interests. In short, these honest public servants, D.S Mathur and Manju Madhavan, were bravely defending the sacred and noble cause of Public Interest. On the other hand, the ‘Honourable’ DMK Minister Raja was advancing and promoting the shady cause of his private and party interests.

NOV 1, 2007: THE SPECTRUM MATTER WAS SENT TO LAW MINISTRY FOR CLEARANCE. THE THEN LAW MINISTER BHARDWAJ OPPOSED RAJA’S MOVE AND WROTE THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO EMPOWERED GROUP OF MINISTERS (EGOM). HE ALSO WARNED THE PRIME MINISTER OF RAJA’S FRAUDULENT PLAN TO ALLOT SPECTRUM WITHOUT AUCTION. RAJA WANTED TO GIVE LICENCES/SPECTRUM ON THE FIRST-COME-FIRST-SERVED BASIS AT PRICES FIXED SIX YEARS EARLIER DURING THE NDA REGIME IN 2001.

I am presenting below the copy of the concerned note recorded by Union Law Secretary T.K Viswanathan on 1/11/2007. We can also see the clear and responsible orders with total focus on nothing but public interest recorded by the then Union Law Minister, Shri H.R Bharadwaj in the note below:

My comment: The then Law Minister Bharadwaj was absolutely right in opposing the shady moves of A. Raja. Bharadwaj was absolutely right in insisting upon a fully transparent allotment on the basis of open public auction. He conducted himself with probity, ministerial discipline and due decorum by inviting the attention of the Prime Minister to the fraudulent plan of Raja to allot Spectrum Bandwidth without any public auction just on the arbitrary basis of his privately drawn up venal principled of grant of Licenses on the First-Come-First-Serve basis at prices fixed 6 years earlier in 2001. The Prime Minister deliberately did not choose to hear Law Minister Bharadwaj because he was in the stranglehold of Sonia Gandhi who in her turn was in the stranglehold of DMK Chieftain Karunanidhi. Thus this surrogate Prime Minister failed to discharge his Constitutional Duties in an appropriate manner — correct and fearless manner — and in this process allowed the voice of corruption of Spectrum Fraud Raja to prevail over the responsible and sane voice of the helpless Law Minister Bharadwaj.

NOV 2, 2007: RIDICULING BHARDWAJ, RAJA WROTE TO THE PM THAT LAW MINISTER’S ADVICE WAS “LEGALLY OUT OF CONTEXT”. LETTER DELIVERED AT PM’S RESIDENCE AT 8.30 PM ON NOVEMBER 2, 2007.

                                                          LETTER NO.1


My comment: What were the outstandingly special credentials of Raja to sit in judgment upon the principled stand taken by Law Minister Bharadwaj having regard to the larger and deathless cause of impersonal public interest? What is wrong in having an Empowered Group of Ministers (EGOM) to deal with this controversial subject? What were the spectacularly outstanding points of overriding merit which our Surrogate Prime Minister Dr ManMohan Singh was able to see in his venal DMK Communications Minister Raja vis-à-vis his decent Congress Law Minister Bharadwaj? Why did Dr ManMohan Singh vote for the private interest of Raja, blatantly rejecting the cause of maintenance of public interest rightly advocated by his Law Minister Bharadwaj? Besides, there is enough documentary evidence to show that Raja repeatedly ignored the advice of TRAI. In 2007, TRAI had recommended, ‘In today’s dynamism and unprecedented growth of the telecom sector, the entry fee determined then (2001) is also not the realistic price for obtaining a license. Perhaps it needs to be reassessed through a market mechanism.’ TRAI Chairman had categorically stated that “TRAI HAS NEVER RECOMMENDED FIRST COME FIRST SERVE FOR AWARD OF NEW LICENSES.” My friend DR T. HANUMAN CHOUDHURY, one of the veterans in the field of telecommunications in India told me that this unscrupulous principle or system of FIRST COME FIRST SERVE FOR AWARD OF NEW LICENSES has not been followed in any other country in the world!!! In this context, another point has to be mentioned which will strengthen the point made by TRAI Chairman and Dr T. Hanuman Choudhury. In 1993, when Doordarshan resorted to ‘First-Come-First-Serve’ policy for allotting time slots to private producers, Delhi High Court had held, ‘The basis of first-come-first-serve for allotment of time slots on satellite channels is arbitrary. It is unreasonable, unjust and unfair.’ In following the First-Come-First-Serve Principle of allotment, Raja has conducted himself like a dictator, claiming a ‘Rational’ ‘Dravidian Right’ (as distinct from ‘Superstitious’ ‘Divine Right’!) to loot the public exchequer in an autocratic and arbitrary manner.

NOV 2, 2007: PRIME MINISTER ASKED FOR A FREEZE ON ALL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION ACTIVITY AND DIRECTED MINISTER RAJA TO GET HIS CONSENT BEFORE TAKING ANY DECISION. RAJA WAS ALSO DIRECTED BY THE PRIME MINISTER TO HOLD A TRANSPARENT AND COMPETITIVE AUCTION. PM’S LETTER WAS DELIVERED AT 9.30 PM ON NOVEMBER 2, 2007, AT RAJA’S RESIDENCE.

LETTER NO: 2

NOV 2, 2007: RAJA WROTE BACK TO PM, CLAIMING HE WAS COMMITTED TO ‘DEVELOPMENT OF TELECOM SECTOR’ BUT REMAINED CONSPICUOUSLY SILENT ON PUBLIC AUCTION!!! THIS INSOLENT AND TRICKY LETTER WAS DELIVERED AT PM’S RESIDENCE LATE MIDNIGHT ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010.

LETTER NO: 3

(…. AND THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THIS LETTER WERE AS FOLLOWS.)

My comment: If Minister Raja is committed to ‘Development of Telecom Sector’, does he mean by implication that the Prime Minister is not committed to the same end? Does he mean that he is independent of the Prime Minister’s authority? How can he choose to blatantly and publicly disobey the written orders of the Prime Minister who is the Kingpin of the Cabinet Arch? WOULD RAJA HAVE THE TEMERITY TO BEHAVE LIKE THIS TOWARDS A PRIME MINISTER LIKE MRS INDIRA GANDHI? After all, did she not throw Karunanidhi and his corrupt team of Ministers out of their public offices in one stroke when she dismissed the DMK Government on January 30, 19
6 on charges of corruption and appointed Justice Sarkaria Commission to inquire into the corruption charges brought against them by MGR and others at that time? I have personally participated in the public hearings of the Justice Sarkaria Commission in 1976  and given my sworn affidavits in my capacity as a public servant to that Commission.

NOV 22, 2007: THE THEN FINANCE SECRETARY D SUBBA RAO, NOW GOVERNOR RBI, OBJECTED TO THE PRICING POLICY OF RAJA AND DIRECTED COMPETITIVE AUCTION. This sane and correct advice was summarily rejected without assigning any public reasons by Minister Raja with the full knowledge and tacit approval of our corrupt Prime Minister.

My Comment:
Mr D Subba Rao, the then Finance Secretary (now Governor of Reserve Bank of India) wrote a letter on 22-November-2007 to Mr D.S Mathur, the then Secretary, Department of Telecommunications. The background to this letter was that in the presentation on the spectrum policy to the Cabinet Secretary on 20-November-2007, Mr Mathur had mentioned that 3 CDMA operators were given cross-over license for GSM operations, that the fee for this license was determined at Rs 1600 Crore and that one licensee had already paid the fee. This is what Mr Subba Rao said in his letter: “The purpose of this letter is to confirm if proper procedure has been followed with regard to financial diligence. In particular, it is not clear how the rate of Rs 1,600 crore, determined as far back as in 2001, has been applied for a licence given in 2007 without any indexation, let alone current valuation. Moreover, in view of the financial implications, the Ministry of Finance should have been consulted in the matter before you had finalised the decision. I request you to kindly review the matter and revert to us as early as possible with responses to the above issues. Meanwhile, all further action to implement the above licences may please be stayed”.

Mr Subba Rao also sought details of permission granted and the dates on which such permissions were granted to CDMA operators. With the full knowledge and tacit approval of our corrupt Prime Minister, the DMK Union Minister Raja rejected the advise of the then DoT Secretary Mr Mathur given in October 2007 and the Finance Secretary Mr Subba Rao on 22-November-2007. Thus this corrupt Prime Minister gave this clear signal, by implication, to the top Secretaries to the Government of India: “I couldn’t care less for your learned and considered advice. For me, the survival of my position as the Prime Minister of the firangi Congress Party is more important than the larger, absolutely vague and simply unquantifiable public interest.”

(http://thehindubusinessline.com/2007/12/14/stories/2007121452800100.htm)

I have already referred to the letter from the Prime Minister addressed to the Union Minister Raja sent on 2-November-2007 (Letter 2 above). The Prime Minister had given this clear direction to the Union Minister Raja:

“THE PRIME MINISTER ASKED FOR A FREEZE ON ALL SPECTRUM ALLOCATION ACTIVITY AND DIRECTED MINISTER RAJA TO GET HIS CONSENT BEFORE TAKING ANY DECISION. RAJA WAS ALSO DIRECTED BY THE PRIME MINISTER TO HOLD A TRANSPARENT AND COMPETITIVE AUCTION.”

On 4-DECEMBER-2007: Based on the above direction of the Prime Minister given on 2-November-2007, THE TELECOM SECRETARY D.S MATHUR INFORMED ALL SENIOR DOT OFFICIALS OF PM’S DIRECTION, BUT RAJA ISSUED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ILLEGAL AND TOTALLY CORRUPT INTERNAL NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE OFFICIALS SHOULD OBEY ONLY HIS ORDERS. THE NOTE SNUBBED MEMBER (FINANCE) MANJU MADHAVAN FOR “CREATING HINDRANCES” IN SPECTRUM ALLOTMENT. THE LICENCES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED TO THE COMPANIES AFTER D.S MATHUR RETIRED AND MANJU MADHAVAN SOUGHT VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. Gresham’s Law states that bad coins will drive good coins out of circulation. In the UPA II Government a supremely and stubbornly corrupt Minister like Dalit Raja was able to drive out honest public servants like Manju Madhavan from their public offices! Thus the Gresham’s Law has become potently operational and true in this corrupt UPA II Government under the disgusting stewardship of a corruption fostering and corruption promoting surrogate Prime Minister.

Though Union Minister Raja received the Letter No:2 above from the Prime Minister on the night of 2-November-2007 itself, yet he observed a prolonged silence of 66 days and only on 26-December-2007 did the Union Minister Raja write to the Prime Minister that he had decided to go ahead with his proposal of First-Come-First-Serve basis. This is what he meant when he used the terms “pre-emptive and pro-active decisions” in the last paragraph of his letter given below.

LETTER NO: 4


My Comment:
Any unlettered fool can see that the DMK Union Minister was treating the Prime Minister of India with supreme contempt. He also seems to have taken the helpless tomfoolery of the Prime Minister of India for granted. Otherwise, he would not have dared to inform the Prime Minister that he was having recourse to certain types of “pre-emptive and pro-active decision” based on the enlightening and clinching advice of the External Affairs Minister and the Solicitor General of India. I have the following questions to be put to this impertinent, indisciplined and by no means innocent or ignorant Minister:

A. What is the connection between the Ministry of External Affairs and the telecom spectrum allotments? Is this connection derived from known dastardly anti-social and anti-national Dravidian Politics of Tamilnadu?

B. Does the Central Secretariat procedure make it legally obligatory for the Union Minister Raja to consult the External Affairs Minister on every public issue connected with the telecom sector?

C. What has the Solicitor General got to do with Telecom spectrum allotments? If the issue involves detailed and deep examination of complex legal issues and problems, then the person to be consulted is the Attorney General of India who ranks higher than the Solicitor General of India? Unlike the Attorney General, Solicitor General does not tender legal advice to the Government of India. His workload is confined to appear in courts on behalf of the Union of India. Did the Union Minister Raja find the existing Solicitor General to be more servile, pliable and flexible than the Attorney General of India?

D. By taking the advice of the External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and ignoring the lawful directive of the Prime Minister Dr ManMohan Singh did the DMK Union Minister Raja imply that he considers Pranab Mukherjee, a more important and a heavier political weight in the Congress pecking order (as defined by No: 10 Janpath) than Dr ManMohan Singh?

E. Akbar the Mughal Emperor came out with his original private religion called deen-e-ilahi. This religion failed in his lifetime. Vincent Smith the great English historian in his famous book ‘The Oxford History of India’ commented: “The deen-e-ilahi was the outcome of ridiculous vanity, a monstrous outgrowth of unrestrained autocracy”. In my view, the strictly private doctrine of DMK Union Minister Raja First-Come-First-Serve basis is the outcome of his ridiculous vanity and a monstrous outgrowth of unrestrained autocracy conferred on him by our machinating, maneuvering and manipulating firangi madam from Italy. Dravidian leaders would like to hail her as an unmatched KANNAGI FROM ITALY

On 31-DECEMBER-2007: TELECOM SECRETARY DS MATHUR RETIRED AND MANJU MADHAVAN HAD NO OTHER CIVILIZED AND DECENT OPTION THAN TO TAKE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE. RAJA THEN BROUGHT IN SIDDHARTH BEHURA AS NEW SECRETARY, WHO HAD WORKED WITH HIM AS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY IN THE ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY.

On 3-JANUARY-2008: THE PRIME MINISTER DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RESPOND TO RAJA’S LETTER OF 26-DECEMBER-2007. HE ONLY SENT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER TO MINISTER RAJA IN A ROUTINE MANNER ON 3-JANUARY-2008 VIDE LETTER NO: 5 BELOW

LETTER NO: 5

WE CAN SEE FROM THE ABOVE LETTER OF THE PRIME MINISTER THAT HE BEHAVED LIKE A POLITICALLY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY NEUTERED (BY HIS FIRANGI BOSS) NON-ENTITY BY SENDING THE ABOVE NON-COMMITTAL REPLY. By sending the above reply the Prime Minister confirmed in writing (by implication) that his Minister A. Raja can completely ignore the Prime Minister’s written instructions communicated in the last paragraph of the earlier letter from the Prime Minister sent to Minister A. Raja on 2-November-2007 (Please see the last paragraph of Letter No: 2 above)

JAN 10, 2008: DOT ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE AT 2.45 PM, STATING THAT THE CUT-OFF DATE WAS CHANGED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2007, TO SEPTEMBER 25, 2007. IT ASKED THE TELECOM OPERATORS TO REMIT FEE THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT BETWEEN 3.30 PM AND 4.30 PM. IT IS STILL A MYSTERY AS TO HOW THE COMPANIES ARRANGED DDS EACH WORTH ABOUT RS 1,500 CRORES AND SUBMITTED THE SAME WITHIN AN HOUR. PERHAPS THE RBI AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT COULD CONDUCT ANOTHER SECRET INQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF THIS UNPRECEDENTED GIGANTIC FLOOD FLOW OF FUNDS.

Jan 14, 2008: TRAI chairman Nripendra Misra wrote to Behura and objected to the policy, change in cut-off date and manipulation of recommendations. Misra said his recommendations were “cherry-picked” by Raja.

The Department of Telecommunications has been used by Minister A. Raja as his sole private estate. His corrupt, mindless and arbitrary functioning has left some of the Telecom Companies in such a desperate state that they had no other option than to go to a court of law to get ordinary justice derived from the principles of equity, fair play and natural justice.

Starting from the middle of 2008, the has Department of Telecommunications has been involved in a continuous legal battle with one of the big telecom players. I am giving below a brief summary of the sequence of events relating to this legal battle:

1st announcement of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) made on 24-September-2007 that 1-October-2007 (Old cut-off date) shall be the cut off date for spectrum bandwidth allotment for 2G.

1-November-2007, The Law Minister made a File Noting that it is necessary that the whole issue is first considered by an Empowered Group of Ministers.

On 10- January-2008, 2-45 PM, a Press Release on DoT website states that the cut off date is being revised with retrospective effect to 25-September-2007 (New cut-off date).

The above Press Release declares that between 3:30 PM to 4:30 PM of that very day those desirous of spectrum allotment should furnish DD for Rs 1,500 Crores as Earnest Money Deposit.

On 1-July-2009, Delhi High Court Justice G.S Sistani declares in the case of S-Tel v. DoT that the cut-off date revision done by Minister Raja retrospectively is illegal and that the DoT “cannot be allowed to arbitrarily change the cut-off date, and that too without any justifiable reasons.” This in effect meant that the original cut off date of 1-October-2007 stood legalized instead of the revised date of 25-September-2007 fixed on 10-January-2008. Several of these affected companies had alleged that the DoT had changed the original cut-off date from 1-October-2007 to 25-September-2007 to ensure that only Minister Raja’s favourite companies such as Swan, Unitech, Loop, Datacom and Shyam Telelink were in a position to get licences.

In an article ‘Raja courts censure, but why is PM unmoved?’ dated 14-March-2010 J Gopikrishnan of THE PIONEER newspaper stated as follows:

“There were two cases in the Delhi High Court challenging the spectrum allocation, and they were hanging like a sword of Damocles on the Communications Minister Raja. One was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Arvind Gupta challenging Raja’s dubious first-come-first-served policy in allotting spectrum/licences to telecom operators. The second case was filed by telecom operator S Tel against Minister Raja’s order to reverse the cut-off date of application from 1-October-2007 to 25-September-2007, through a mere press note released on 10-January-2008.”

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) ordered a probe against Minister Raja and his pliable officers on 15-November-2008 and sent a detailed Report to the Government of India reiterating the demand for prosecution of Minister Raja. On the basis of the CVC Report the CBI began its investigation in 21-October-2009. Minister Raja went into a panic mode after that. As luck would have it, Arvind Gupta withdrew his case at the last stage when the Delhi High Court was constrained to observe, “Spectrum was sold like cinema tickets”. During this period, S Tel also won its case in the Delhi High Court before a single Bench headed by Justice G.S Sistani.

The Prime Minister failed to accede to the Dr Subramanian Swamy’s letters dated 29.11.2008, 31.10.2009, 8.3.2010,and 13.3.2010 all demanding that the Prime Minister grant the previous sanction necessary to prosecute Minister Raja under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

My Comment: Birds of the same thieving feather flock together. I agree with Dr Subramanian Swamy when he says that if the Prime Minister further delays his orders granting permission for the prosecution of Minister Raja, then he becomes an accessory to the crime committed by Minister Raja.

The manner of our ever sleeping and never awake Prime Minister (who spends a sleepless night only when Islamic Terrorists from India get arrested in a foreign country!) brings to my mind the following acid observations of Sir.Winston Churchill (1874-1965): “The position of the Prime Minister is unique: If he trips, he must be sustained: If he makes mistakes they must be covered; If hw sleeps, he must not be wantonly disturbed; If he is NO GOOD he must be pole-axed”.

On 22-October-2009, Thursday, the CBI searched offices of the Department of Telecom at Sanchar Bhavan in connection with alleged irregularities in allocation of 2G spectrum to some of the new players.

On November 2009 the DoT went on appeal against the Order of Justice G.S Sistani given in favour of S Tel to a larger Bench of the Delhi High court. Rejecting DoT’s Appeal, on 24-November-2009 the then Delhi High Court Chief Justice A.P Shah heading a Division Bench also upheld the Single Judge verdict favouring S Tel. In both the Benches of the Delhi High Court that had heard the case, the DoT in a blatant act of premeditated misrepresentation had filed a false affidavit claiming that Minister Raja had received the Prime Minister’s concurrence in allotting spectrum, including the change in cut-off date from 1-October-2007 to 25-September-2007.

Having given a brazenly false affidavit, the DoT while presenting the case before the Delhi High Court Bench in November 2009 invited the attention of the Court only to the letter dated 2-November-2007 from Union Minister Raja addressed to the Prime Minister (Letter No: 1 presented above), completely concealing the fact that the Prime Minister in his letter dated 2-November-2007 to Union Minister Raja had not accepted the proposal of Union Minister Raja to go ahead on the basis of First-Come-First-Serve (Letter No: 2 presented above). This becomes clear from Paragraph 5 of the Final Orders of the Delhi High Court passed on 24-November-2009. I am quoting  this Paragraph 5 below :

5. “On 2-November-2007, the Minister for Communication and Information Technology wrote to the Prime Minister seeking to revise the deadline of 1-October-2007 fixed by the Government as per the press note dated 2-September-2007. This was thereafter announced by the impugned press release dated l0-January-2008. The Respondent challenged the said press release by filing the afor
mentioned writ petition in

Welcome to Haindava Keralam! Register for Free or Login as a privileged HK member to enjoy auto-approval of your comments and to receive periodic updates.

Your comments, please.

Responses

  1. Rakesh T Reply

    May 26, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Who can break the record
    Loot of Rs 50,000 crores worth. That is the best corruption case seen so far. Let see who breaks the record? 5

  2. concerned citizen Reply

    October 4, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Manju Madhavan a fraud
    Manju Madhavan is a big fraud. She knows no law and has depended her entire life on her subordinates and her chartered accountant husband to help her survive in the incomet ax department. She has spent nearly 25 years of her 30 odd year career ‘teaching’ in the departmental training college and trying to stick around in one place of posting. she has spent far too much time vegetating & lacks basic understanding of rules and law. not surprising she was snubbed by the telecom secretary. she has simple initialled like a rubber stamp as she is so used to doing. She should have prepared a full analysis of what is going on instead of taking VRS – if she really was an ‘honest & concerned’ public servant. when the going gets tough, the tough get going – this woman went running out of there – just shows her history of avoiding hard work and accountability. no wonder the country is ging down the drain with this kind of management. please dont heap praises on the wrong kind of people, they should stand & fight having got the benefits from the nation for so long. 5

Latest Articles from Bharath Focus

Did You Know?