IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL. JUDGE, CBI (04) (2G ... · licences and allocation of spectrum...

INTHECOURTOFO.P.SAINI:SPL.JUDGE,CBI(04)(2GSPECTRUMCASES),NEWDELHI

1.CCNo:01/11

2.CaseRCNo:45(A)2009,CBI,ACB,NewDelhi.

3.Title: CBIVs.(1)A.Raja(A1);(2)SiddharthaBehura(A2);(3)R.K.Chandolia(A3);(4)ShahidUsmanBalwa(A4);(5)VinodGoenka(A5);(6)M/sSwanTelecom(P)Limited(now

M/sEtisalatDBTelecom(P)Limited)(A6);

(7)SanjayChandra(A7);(8)M/sUnitechWireless(TamilNadu)

Limited(A8);(9)GautamDoshi(A9);(10)SurendraPipara(A10);(11)HariNair(A11);(12)M/sRelianceTelecomLimited(A12);(13)AsifBalwa(A13);(14)RajivAgarwal(A14);(15)KarimMorani(A15);(16)SharadKumar(A16);and(17)KanimozhiKarunanithi(A17).

4.DateofInstitution : 02.04.2011

5.DateofCommencementofFinalArguments : 15.04.2015

6.DateofConclusionofFinalArguments : 26.04.2017

7.DateofReservingOrder : 05.12.2017

8.DateofPronouncement : 21.12.2017

CBIVs.A.Rajaandothers Page1of1552

Presence/Appearance:

Sh. Anand Grover Sr. Advocate/ Special PP

with Sh. K. K. Goel &Sh. A. K. RaoSr. PPs, Ms.

SoniaMathurAdvocate,Sh.NikhilBorwankar;Ms.

ChitralekhaDas&Sh.MihirSamsonJuniorCounsel

andInspectorManojKumarforCBI.

Sh. R. S. Cheema & Ms. Rebecca John Sr.

Advocates with Sh. Sushil Bajaj, Ms. Tarannum

Cheema,Ms.HiralGuptaandSh.ManvendraSingh

AdvocatesforaccusedSanjayChandra;

Sh.AmarendarSharanSr.AdvocatewithSh.

BalajiSubramanianAdvocateforaccusedKanimozhi

Karunanithi;

Sh.AmitDesaiSr.AdvocatewithSh.Sandeep

Kapur,Sh.VirInderPalSinghSandhu,Sh.Mayank

Datta and Sh. Abhimanshu Dhyani Advocates for

accusedKarimMorani;

Sh. Sidharth Luthra Sr. Advocate with Sh.

PramodJalan,Sh.VibhorKushandSh.AkhilKumar

AdvocatesforaccusedSiddharthaBehura;

Sh. S. V. Raju Sr. Advocate with Sh. Majid

Memon&Sh.RajneeshChuniAdvocatesforaccused

VinodGoenka;

Sh. Saurab Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Ms.

ManaliSinghalandSh.GauravSrivastavAdvocates

foraccusedRelianceTelecomLimited;

Sh.HariharanSr.AdvocatewithSh.A.K.Dua


AdvocateforaccusedSurendraPipara;

Sh. Manu Sharma & Sh. Babanjeet Singh

AdvocatesforaccusedA.Raja;

Sh.VijayAggarwal,Sh.MuditJain,Sh.Ashul

Aggarwal,Sh.EhteshamHashmi&Sh.RohanGupta

Advocates for accused R. K. Chandolia, Shahid

UsmanBalwa,AsifBalwaandRajivAgarwal;

Sh. D. P. Singh, Ms. Sonam Gupta and Ms.

IshitaJainAdvocatesforaccused UnitechWireless

(TamilNadu)(P)Limited;

Sh. H. H. Ponda and Sh. Mohit Auluck

AdvocatesforaccusedGautamDoshi;

Sh. Sidharth Aggarwal Advocate for accused

HariNair;

Sh.BalajiSubramanian,Ms.RidhimaMandhar

and Sh. Siddharth Nath Advocates for accused

SharadKumar;and

Sh.VijaySondhi,Sh.VarunSharmaandMs.

DeekshaKhuranaAdvocatesforSwanTelecom(P)

Limited(nowEtisalatDBTelecom(P)Limited).

JUDGMENT:

RegistrationofFIRThe instant case was registered on 21.10.2009

againstunknownofficialsofDepartmentofTelecommunications

(DoT), Government of India, unknown private

persons/companies and others for the offences punishable


under sections 120B IPC read with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988,(hereinaftertobereferred

as the PC Act) on allegations of criminal conspiracy and

criminalmisconduct,inrespectofallotmentofLettersofIntent

(LOI),UnifiedAccessServices(UAS)Licencesandspectrumby

the Department of Telecommunication. Following allegations

wereleveledintheFIR:

(a) TheentryfeeforthenewpanIndiaUASlicencesinthe

year 2008 was kept by Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) as Rs.1658 Crore, at which

price the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS)

licenceswereawardedbyDOTafterauctionintheyear

2001.TheseUASlicences,issuedin2008wereissuedon

firstcome firstserved basis without any competitive

bidding.

(b) ApressreleasewasissuedbyDOTon24.9.2007,which

appeared in the newspapers on 25.9.2007, mentioning

that the newapplications for UAS licences will not be

acceptedbytheDoTafter1.10.2007till furtherorders.

However applications received up to 25.09.2007 only

were considered, which was also against the

recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of

India(TRAI)thatnocapshouldbeplacedonthenumber

ofAccessServiceProvidersinanyservicearea.

(c) EvenFirstComeFirstServedpolicywasimplementedby

theDOTinamannerwhichresultedintowrongfulgainto

certaincompanies.Further,thereareallegationsthatthe


suspect officials of DoT had selectively leaked the

informationtosomeoftheapplicantsregardingthedate

ofissuanceofletterofintenton10.01.2008.Intheletter

of intent, an arbitrary condition was incorporated that

whosoeverdepositsthefees(asperconditionsinLetters

ofIntent,i.e.LOIs)first,wouldbethefirsttogetlicense.

Since some of the applicants, who had this prior

information,werereadywiththeamountandtheywere

abletodepositthefeeearlierthanothers.Thus,favour

wasallegedlyshowntosomeapplicantsbywayofleaking

the information about the date of issuance of letter of

intent.

(d) Although,theFDIlimitwasincreasedfrom49to74%in

December, 2005, but there was no lockin period or

restriction imposed on sale of equity or issuance of

additionalequity.AsaresultofthisM/s.SwanTelecom

Pvt.Ltd.(A6),whichpaidtoDOTRs.1537CroreforUAS

Licences of 13circles, offloaded its 45%equity to M/s

EtisalatofUAEforRs.4200Crore.Similarly,M/s.Unitech

Wireless(Groupof08companies),whichpaidtoDOT

Rs.1658CroreforUASLicencesofall22circles,offloaded

its 60%equity to M/s Telenor of Norwayfor Rs. 6100

Crore.Thesestakesweresoldbythesaidcompanieseven

beforetherolloutofservicesbythem.Theestimatedloss

to Government by grant of licences to these two

companiesalonecomestoRs.7105Crore.Onprorata

basis,theestimatedlossforall122UASLicencesissuedin


2008wasmorethanRs.22000Crore.

ChargeSheet:Brieffactsthereof

2. On completion of investigation, CBI filed charge

sheet in the Court on 02.04.2011 against twelve accused

persons,thatis,A1toA12andasupplementarychargesheet

wasfiledon25.04.2011againstfiveadditionalaccused,thatis,

A13 to A17. Vide order dated 24.05.2011, supplementary

chargesheetwasorderedtobetaggedwiththemaincharge

sheetasitwastheresultoffurtherinvestigationinthecaseand,

assuch,nowthereispracticallyonechargesheet/casebefore

theCourt.

Backgroundofthecase

3. Consequent to liberalizationpolicyof 1991of the

GovernmentofIndiapromotingparticipationofprivatesector

intotheservicesector,NationalTelecomPolicy(NTP),1994was

announcedbytheCentralGovernmentin1994. TwoLicences

forCellularMobileTelephoneService(CMTS)eachinthefour

MetroCitiesweregrantedtoprivateoperatorsin1994itself.A

licenseisrequiredtobeobtainedbyacompanyorlegalperson

under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for the

commission of telephone services in India. Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) has classified whole territory of

India into various telecomcircles / service area (as of now

numbering22)andhasbeenissuingseparatetelecomlicences

foreachservicearea.


4. Subsequently, in 1995 Department of

Telecommunications (DOT) invited tenders for inducting 2

CMTS Operators each in all Telecom Circles of the country,

otherthanfourMetros. In1996,twolicences ineachofthe

TelecomCirclesweregrantedtoprivateoperatorsin18telecom

circles.Thelicensefeewastobepaidoveraperiodof10years,

as per the terms of licences. In addition, right of the

Government was reserved to operate the services as third

operator.TenderswerealsoinvitedinJanuary1995,foraward

ofBasicServiceLicencesforTelecomCirclesandthelicences

werefinallygrantedonlytosixcompaniesinsixtelecomcircles.

5. TheTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityof India(TRAI)

Act,1997wasenactedbyGovernmentofIndia.Aspersection

11(1)oftheAct(amendedin2000),thefunctionsofTRAIare:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian TelegraphAct,1885,thefunctionsoftheAuthorityshallbe to(a) make recommendations, either suo motu or on a

request fromthe licensor, on the followingmatters, namely:(i) needandtimingforintroductionofnewservice

provider;(ii) Terms and conditions of license to a service

provider.ProvidedfurtherthattheCentralGovernmentshallseekthe recommendations of the Authority in respect of matters specifiedinsubclauses(i)and(ii)ofclause(a)ofthissubsection inrespect of newlicense tobe issued toaservice provider and the Authority shall forward its recommendations within a period of sixty days from the


date on which that Government sought the recommendations:

6. Subsequently, a Group on Telecom (GoT) was

constitutedbytheGovernmentofIndia,whichrecommended

changesinTelecompolicy.TheUnionCabinetconsideredand

approved NewTelecomPolicy, 1999 (NTP99) effective from

1.4.1999.NTP99hasbeenthebedrockregardingissuanceof

licencesandallocationofspectrumforachievingtheobjective

ofavailabilityofaffordableandeffectivecommunicationforthe

citizens which is at the core of the vision and goal of the

telecompolicy.Thepara3.1.1.oftheNTP99mentions,inter

alia:

Availabilityofadequatefrequencyspectrumisessentialnot onlyforprovidingbandwidthtoeveryoperatorbutalsofor entryofadditionaloperatorsItisproposedtoreviewthespectrumutilizationfromtime totimekeepinginviewtheemergingscenarioofspectrum availability, optimal use of spectrum, requirements of market,competitionandotherinterestofpublic.Theentry ofmoreoperatorsinaserviceareashallbebasedonthe recommendations of the TRAI who will review this as required,andnotlaterthaneverytwoyears.CMSPoperatorswouldberequiredtopayaonetimeentry fee.Thebasisfordeterminingtheentryfeeandthebasisfor selectionofadditionaloperatorswouldberecommendedby the TRAI. Apart from the one time entry fee, CMSP operatorswouldalsoberequiredtopaylicensefeebasedon arevenueshare.Itisproposedthattheappropriatelevelof entryfeeandpercentageofrevenuesharearrangementfor differentserviceareaswouldberecommendedbyTRAIina timeboundmanner, keeping inviewtheobjectives of the


NewTelecomPolicy".7. InJuly,1999theGovernmentdecidedinfavourof

migrationofexistinglicenceestotheRevenueShareRegimeof

NTP1999.Accordingly,amigrationpackageformigrationfrom

fixedlicensefeetorevenueshareregimewasofferedtoexisting

licencees, effectivefrom1.8.99.Underthemigrationpackage

existing licencees had to forego their duopoly rights and

additionaloperatorswereinductedinamultipolyregime.All

theexistingBasicandCellularOperatorsmigratedtoRevenue

sharing regime of NTP99 w.e.f. 1.8.1999. Accordingly,

GovernmentPSUsviz.MTNLandBSNLwerealsogivenCMTS

Licencesas3rdCellular/CMTSoperators.

8. TheguidelinesforissueoflicenceforBasicServices

underNTP99wasannouncedbasedontherecommendations

ofTRAI,whereinthelicensingofBasicTelephoneservicewas

opened on continuous basis on receipt of application and

subjecttofulfillmentofeligibilityconditions.Asperpara26of

theguidelines,thelicenceesweretobeallocatedspectrumfor

wirelessaccesssystemin local areaonfirstcomefirstserved

basis.Basedontheseguidelines,25additionalBasicTelephone

Servicelicenceswereissuedin2001toReliance,Tata,HFCLetc.

9. BasedonTRAIsrecommendationsandonthebasis

ofcompetitivebiddingprocess,oneCMSPlicenseeachinfour

Metro Cities and in 13 Telecom Circles (17 Licences) were

grantedas4thCellularOperatorsintheyear2001.Bidswerefor

upfrontentryfeesonlyandannuallicensefeewastobepaidas

per specified percentage of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR).


SpectrumchargeswerealsopayableasAGRpercentage.

10. TRAI, in its recommendation dated 20.02.2003,

regarding introduction of 5th & 6th CMTS Operators

recommendedthat : TRAI is of theopinionthat inductionof

additionalmobileserviceprovidersinvariousserviceareascanbe

considered if there is adequate availability of spectrum for the

existing service providers as well as for the new players, if

permitted.

11. On 10.09.2003, a Group of Ministers (GoM) on

Telecommatters wasconstitutedbytheGovernmentof India

underthechairmanshipofthethenFinanceMinisterwiththe

approval of Honble Prime Minister vide Cabinet Secretariat

Memo dated 10th September 2003. One of the 8 Terms of

Reference of GoM was to chart the course to a Universal

Licence.

12. InthemeantimeTRAIinitiatedconsultationsonthe

issue of Unified Licensing and vide recommendations dated

27.10.2003, recommended Unified Licensing Regime. TRAI

recommendedthatforfixingtheentryfeeformigratingtoUASL

Regime,theentryfeeforfourthcellularoperatorsshallbethe

entry fee for migration to UASL Regime. Para 7.19 of the

recommendationsprovidedthat:Itisrecommendedthatthe

3rd alternative as mentioned in para7.18 above may be

acceptedforfixingtheentryfeeformigrationtoUnifiedAccess

Licensingregime for Basic andCellular services at the circle

level.Para7.18oftherecommendationsprovidedthatThe3rd


alternativeisthattheexistingentryfeeofthefourthCellular

Operator would be the entry fee in the newUnified Access

LicensingRegime.BSOswouldpaythedifferenceofthefourth

CMSPsexistingentryfeeandtheentryfeepaidbythem.Itmay

berecalledthat,eveninthepast, entrytocellularandbasic

serviceshasbeenonfixedfeebasis,e.g.,formetrosinthecase

ofcellularandforthesecondBSO.

13. In para 7.39 of the recommendations dated

27.10.2003,TRAImentionedthat:Theinductionofadditional

mobile service providers in various service areas can be

consideredifthereisadequateavailabilityofspectrum.Asthe

existingplayershavetoimprovetheefficiencyofutilizationof

spectrumandifGovernmentensuresavailabilityofadditional

spectrum then in the existing licensing regime, they may

introduce additional players through a multistage bidding

processaswasfollowedforthe4thcellularoperators.

14. TheGoMaccepted the TRAI recommendations on

Unifiedlicensingon30.10.2003andaskedtheDoTtoplacethe

matterbeforetheUnionCabinet.Subsequently,on31.10.2003

the recommendations of GoMwere considered by the Union

Cabinet. As per the Cabinet decision dated 31.10.2003, the

recommendations of Group of Ministers (GoM) on Telecom

matterschairedbythethenHonbleFinanceMinister,interalia,

onissuesasquotedbelowwasapproved:

..ThescopeofNTP99maybeenhancedtoprovidefor licensing of Unified Access Services for basic and cellular licenceservicesandunifiedLicensingcomprisingalltelecom services. Department of Telecommunications may be


authorisedtoissuenecessaryaddendumtoNTP99tothis effect.The recommendations of TRAI with regard to implementationoftheUnifiedAccessLicensingRegimefor basicandcellularservicesmaybeaccepted.DoT may be authorised to finalise the details of implementation with the approval of the Minister of Communications & IT in this regard including the calculation of the entry fee depending on the date of payment based on the principle given by TRAI in its recommendations.

15. BasedontheaboveCabinetdecision,anaddendum

to NTP99 was notified on 11.11.2003. Also on 11.11.2003,

Guidelines for Unified Access (Basic & Cellular) Services

LicencewereissuedbyDoTwhereinitwasdecidedtomove

towards a Unified Access Services Licensing regime. The

guidelines, interalia, stipulated that With the issueof these

Guidelines,allapplicationsfornewAccessServicesLicenceshall

beinthecategoryofUnifiedAccessServicesLicence.

16. AsaconsequencetoamendmentofNTP1999and

issueofUASLguidelineson11.11.2003,andclarificationdated

14.11.2003ofChairman,TRAI,certainnewUASLicenceswere

issuedin200304atentryfeediscoveredthroughauctionfor4 th

cellularoperatorin2001,whichwasalsothefeeformigration

of basic telecom operators to UASL regime in 2003. In the

circles where no price was discovered by auction of CMTS

licencesin2001,thefeeapplicabletoBasicTelephonelicences

insuchserviceareaswasconsidered.Theamountofentryfee

forall22telecomcircles/serviceareas,inthismanner,comes


atRs.1658crore.ThispracticewascontinuedbytheDOTin

theyears200506also.

17. After enhancement of FDI in telecomsector from

49%to74%,DoTon14.12.2005issuedGuidelinesforUnified

Access Services (UAS) licences. These guidelines, interalia,

stipulatedthat:

Licencesshall be issuedwithoutanyrestrictiononthenumber of entrants for provision of Unified AccessServicesinaServiceArea.

18. WithviewtocheckthehoardingofSpectrumandto

promote healthy competition in telecombusiness by telecom

companies, a provision under clause 8 was made in UASL

guidelines dated 14.12.2005. Clause 8 of the said UASL

guidelinesdated14.12.2005providesthatnosinglecompany/

legalpersoneitherdirectlyorthroughitsassociates,shallhave

substantial equity holding in more than one LICENSEE

Company in the same service area for the access services

namely,Basic,CellularandUnifiedAccessService.Substantial

equityhereinwillmeananequityof10%ormore.Apromoter

company/legalpersoncannothavestakesinmorethanone

licenseecompanyforthesameservicearea.Acertificatetothis

effectshallbeprovidedbytheapplicantsCompanySecretary

alongwithapplications.TheguidelinesissuedforUASLicences

on14.12.2005aretheextantguidelinesforgrantofnewUAS

licence.AllUASlicencesissuedin2008aregovernedbythese

detailedguidelines.

19. SinceintroductionofUASlicensingregimein2003,

51newUASlicenceswereissuedtillMarch2007basedonthe


policyofcontinuousawardonFirstComeFirstServed(FCFS)

basis. Asperthispolicytheapplicationswhichwerereceived

firstinDepartmentofTelecommunicationswereissuedLetterof

Intentfirst.Theapplicationsreceivedlaterwerenotconsidered

tilltheapplicationsreceivedearlierweredecidedandallocated

LetterofIntent(LOI).IncaseapprovalsformorethanoneLOI

in the same telecom circle was received simultaneously, the

earlier applicant was issuedLOI first and the latter onewas

issuedLOIatleastadayafter,inordertomaintainthesame

priority for signing of UAS Licence as well as allocation of

spectrum.

20. On 13.04.2007, when Sh. Dayanidhi Maran was

MOC&IT,DOTsoughtrecommendationsofTRAIontheissueof

limitingthenumberofAccessprovidersineachserviceareaand

review of the terms and conditions of the Access provider

license keeping in mind that 159 licences of Access Services

(CMTS/Basic/UASL)hadsofaralreadybeenissuedandthese

wereincreasingdemandonspectruminasubstantialmanner.

21. TRAI provided its recommendations dated

28.08.2007onaforesaidissues,interalia,mentioningbelowin

itsSummaryofRecommendations:

(i) Nocapbeplacedonthenumberofaccessserviceprovidersinanyservicearea.

Itwasrecommendedinthebackgroundofobservation

ofTRAIinpara2.36thatHavingconsideredallthe

above aspects and considering the implications of

havingto suggest a frameworkcoveringother issues


that have been referred by the Government; the

Authorityisnotinfavourofsuggestingacaponthe

numberofaccessserviceprovidersinanyservicearea.

It is not advisable toexogenously fix thenumberof

access service providers in a market which is in a

dynamicsetting.

In para 2.99 it wasalsomentionedthat There is a

need to ensure availability of adequate spectrum, to

ensureefficientutilizationofthespectrum,andmaking

the processes of spectrum allocation completely

transparent, and based on a road map and well

researchedplan.

(ii) In future all spectrumsexcludingthe spectrum in

800,900and1800bands(i.e.2Gspectrum)should

beauctionedsoastoensureefficientutilizationof

thisscarceresource.

Inthe2Gbands(800MHz/900MHz/1800MHz),the

allocationthroughauctionmaynotbepossibleasthe

serviceproviderswereallocatedspectrumatdifferent

timesoftheirlicenseandtheamountofspectrumwith

themvaries from2X4.4MHzto2X10MHzforGSM

technology and 2X2.5 MHz to 2X5 MHz in CDMA

technology.Therefore,todecidethecutoffafterwhich

thespectrumisauctionedwill bedifficultandmight

raisetheissueoflevelplayingfield.

TRAI also observed in its recommendations dated28.08.2007,inpara2.73,that:


Theallocationofspectrumisafterthepaymentofentry

feeandgrantoflicense.Theentryfeeasitexiststodayis,

infact,aresultofthepricediscoveredthroughamarket

basedmechanismapplicableforthegrantoflicensetothe

4th cellular operator. In todays dynamism and

unprecedented growth of telecom sector, the entry fee

determined then is also not the realistic price for

obtaining a license. Perhaps, it needs to be reassessed

through a market mechanism. On the other hand

spectrumusagechargeisintheformofaroyaltywhichis

linkedtotherevenueearnedbytheoperatorsandtothat

extentitcapturestheeconomicvalueofthespectrumthat

isused.Somestakeholdershaveviewedthecharges/fee

as a hybrid model of extracting economic rent for the

acquisitionandalsomeetthecriterionofefficiencyinthe

utilizationof this scarce resource. TheAuthority in the

context of 800, 900and1800MHzis consciousof the

legacy i.e. prevailing practice and the overriding

consideration of level playing field. Though the dual

chargeinpresentformdoesnotreflectthepresentvalue

ofspectrumitneededtobecontinuedfortreatingalready

specifiedbands for 2Gservices i.e. 800, 900and1800

MHz. It is in this backgroundthat theAuthority is not

recommendingthestandardoptionspricingofspectrum,

however,ithaselsewhereintherecommendationmadea

strong case for adopting auction procedure in the

allocationof all other spectrumbandsexcept 800, 900


and1800MHz.

Associationofaccusedandbeginningofconspiracy

22. ItisallegedthatinMay2007,accusedAndimuthu

Raja(A.Raja)(A1)tookoverasMinisterofCommunications&

Information Technology (MOC&IT). Accused Ravindra Kumar

Chandolia (R K Chandolia) (A3) also joined as Private

Secretary(PS) toMOC&ITat thesametime.On1st January,

2008accusedSiddharthaBehura(A2) joinedDepartmentof

Telecommunications in Ministry of Communications &

Information Technology as Secretary (Telecom). Accused

SiddharthaBehuraandR.K.Chandoliahadearlieralsoworked

with accused A. Raja, as Additional Secretary and Private

Secretary, respectively, whenaccusedA.RajawasMinisterof

Environment&Forests,andwereacquaintedwitheachotherin

suchmanner.It isalsoallegedthataccusedA.Rajawasalso

already familiar with accused Shahid Balwa (A4), Vinod

Goenka(A5)andSanjayChandra(A7)incontextofvarious

clearancesofMinistryofEnvironment&Foreststovariousreal

estateprojectsoftheircompaniesM/sDBRealtyLtd.andM/s

Unitech Ltd. respectively, operating in real estate projects,

duringthetenureofaccusedA.RajaasMinisterofEnvironment

&Forests.

I. Fixationofcutoffdate

23. It is alleged that receipt of applications for new

Unified Access Services Licences (UASL) in DOT, situated at


Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi, has been a

continuousprocess.Theapplicationshadbeenprocessedinthe

orderinwhichthesewerereceived.However,afteraccusedA.

Raja took over as MOC&IT in May 2007 and TRAI

recommendationsdated28.08.2007werereceived,therewasa

spurtinthenumberofapplicationsfornewUASLicences.

AtthistimeaccusedA.Rajaenteredintoaconspiracywith

otheraccusedpersons&companieswithapurposetoissueUAS

Licences to M/s Swan TelecomPvt. Ltd., which had already

applied,andcompaniespromotedbyM/sUnitechLtd.,which

wereyettoapplyforUASLicences,bymanipulatingthepriority

list on the basis of LOI compliances instead of existing

guidelines / practice of decidingapplications onthebasis of

dateofapplicationasperavailabilityofspectrum.

MonitoringofapplicationsbyR.K.Chandolia

24. It is alleged thatduringthisperiodaccusedR. K.

Chandolia, PStoMOC&IThadbeencontinuously monitoring

thestatusofthereceiptofapplicationsinAccessServices(AS)

Cell of Department of Telecommunications. He was

continuously updatinghimself with thestatus of applications

andnamesofapplicantcompanies.On24.9.2007,heenquired

fromtheconcernedofficerofAccessservicescellastowhether

applications of Unitech Ltd. for newUASLicences hadbeen

receivedanddirectedthatnoapplicationsshouldbeaccepted

after the receipt of applications fromM/s Unitech Limited,

whichwere expected tobe receivedonthesameday. When


informedthatthereceiptofapplicationscouldnotbearbitrarily

stopped,DDG(ASI)wasaskedtoputupanoteinthisregard.

A note dated 24.9.2007 was put up by Access Services cell

mentioningthatifreceiptofapplicationsistobediscontinued,

it neededtobe told to thepublic throughpress releaseand

proposed10.10.2007asthedatetillwhichapplicationsmaybe

received,tillfurtherorders.

FilingofapplicationsbySanjayChandra

25. It is alleged that in themeantimeaccusedSanjay

Chandra,ManagingDirector,M/sUnitechLtd.,asauthorizedby

thesaidcompanytotakecareofthetelecomaffairs,causedto

make applications by 8 groupcompanies formulated for this

purpose, viz. M/s. Aska Projects Ltd., M/s. Nahan Properties

Pvt.Ltd.,M/s.UnitechBuilders&EstatesPvt.Ltd.,M/s.Unitech

InfrastructuresPvt.Ltd.,M/s.AzarePropertiesLtd.,M/s.Adonis

ProjectsPvt.Ltd.,M/s.HudsonPropertiesLtd.,andM/s.Volga

PropertiesPvt.Ltd.Later,thesecompanieswererenamedafter

these got UAS licences from DOT, as M/s Unitech Wireless

groupcompanies.Subsequently,allthesaid8companieswere

mergedintoM/sUnitechWireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.Ltd.(A8)

Hereinafter, M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd., has

been considered as representing all the 8 Unitech group

companieslatermergedintoit.

CutoffdateandReferencetoLawMinistry

26. It isallegedthataccusedA.Raja, inpursuanceto


the conspiracy and for ensuring better prospects for his

favouredcompaniescutitshortanddecidedthecutoffdateto

be 01.10.2007. A press release was issued to this effect on

24.09.2007,whichappearedinnewspaperson25.9.2007.Itis

furtherallegedthateventhoughthiscutoffdateof01.10.2007

hadbeenannounced,accusedA.Raja,inconspiracywithother

accusedpersons,hadalreadytakenaviewtokeepthecutoff

dateas25.09.2007,asearlierconveyedtoAccessServicescell

officerbyaccusedR.KChandolia.Thiswasalsomanifestwhen

heapprovedanamendeddraftlettertobesenttoMinistryof

Law& Justice, wherein the alternatives proposed mentioned

that applications upto 25.09.2007 would be considered.

AccusedA.Rajaapprovedtoissuethisletter,eventhough,his

attentionwasdrawnbytheDOTofficerstopara3.1.1ofNTP99

whichmandatesadequateavailabilityofspectrumforallocating

new licences and TRAIs repeated recommendations about

giving new licences subject to availability of spectrum for

existing operators and for new operators. Accused A. Raja,

however, decided to send this letter dated 26.10.2007 to

MinistryofLaw&Justiceforitsopiniononthevariousoptions

indicatedforallocationofnewlicences.

Reviewofspectrum

27. ItisallegedthatonreceivingsaidreferenceMinistry

ofLaw&Justiceopinedvidenotedated01.11.2007thatthe

matter being very important, needed to be considered by

EmpoweredGroupof Ministers. It is alleged that accusedA.


Raja,insteadofreferringthisimportantmattertoEmpowered

GroupofMinisters,stucktothisdecisiononcutoffdate,which

wasdecidedinconspiracywithotheraccusedpersonsincluding

accused Sanjay Chandra of M/s Unitech Ltd. and accused

ShahidBalwa&accusedVinodGoenka,withapurposetorope

in theapplicationsof M/sUnitechWireless (Tamilnadu)Pvt.

Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group companies later

merged into it) within the consideration zone despite there

beingnosufficientspectruminmanytelecomcirclesandwitha

designtoshuffle thepriority list toundulybenefit especially

M/sSwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.byallowingittogetpriorityover

otherapplicantsintheprimetelecomcircleofDelhiforscarce

spectrum. InpursuancetothesaidconspiracyaccusedA.Raja

didnotreviewtheavailabilityofspectrumcirclewise,despite

beingsoadvisedbytheconcernedDOTofficerswhoadvisedto

decidethenumberofLOIstobeissuedineachserviceareaand

also put up the details of spectrum availability circle wise

indicating that spectrum available in many circles was

inadequate to accommodate applications received till

25.09.2007.AccusedA.Rajainsteadwentaheadtodecidethe

cutoffdateas25.09.2007,inconspiracywithaforesaidaccused

persons.Theavailabilityofspectrumineachcircle,andnumber

ofnewlicenceesthatcouldbeaccommodatedineachcircle,as

per spectrum availability as in November 2007, and

subsequentlyinJanuary,2008,asperDOTrecordsputuptothe

accusedA.Rajaareasfollows:


S.No.

ServiceArea

Spectrumavailable(November2007)

Spectrumavailable(January2008)

Total(MHz)

Total(MHz)*

NewOperatorsto beaccommodatedfor initialspectrumallotment

Total(MHz)

NewOperatorsto beaccommodated forinitialspectrumallotment

1. Delhi 15 15 03/03 08 012. Mumbai 25 25 05/05 20 43. Chennai 30 60 06/>10 45 104 Kolkata 25 45 5/10 40 095. AP 25 55 5/11 45 106. Karnataka 25 55 5/11 40 097. Kerala 30 65 6/>10 50 >108. Tamil

Nadu30 60 6/>10 50 >10

9. Maharashtra

25 45 5/>10 30 6

10. Gujarat 20 20 4/4 9 211. Rajasthan 10 10 2/2 1 012. Punjab 25 25 5/5** 15 313. Haryana 25 25 5/5** 8 114. J&K 25 25 5/5 10 215. UP(E) 25 25 5/5** 13 216. UP(W) 20 20 4/4 10 217. MP 25 55 5/>10 40 918. West

Bengal20 20 4/4 13 2

19. Bihar 30 30 6/6 18 420. HP 30 30 6/6 12 221. NE/Assam 25 25 5/5 10 222. Orissa 30 60 6/>10 45 10

*Withoutconsideringdefenseusagesintheband(17351775MHz)**Someearliercommitmentforallotmentofspectrumincertaindistrictsin

theserviceareaof2001licenseeweretobemetfirst.

Needandtiming

28. The DOT officers, including then Secretary

(Telecom), alsodrewattentionof accusedA. Raja, videnote

dated25.10.2007,topara3.1.1ofNTP99whichrequiresDOT

to seek TRAI recommendations on introduction of new

operatorsinaservicearea.AspertheNTP99andsection11of


theTelecomRegulatoryAuthorityofIndiaAct,1997(amended

in2000),TRAIsrecommendationswererequiredfor,andTRAI

wasobligedtorecommend,eithersuomotuoronarequest

fromthelicensor,theneedandtimingforintroductionofnew

serviceproviderandalsothetermsandconditionsoflicenseto

aserviceprovider.However,accusedA.Raja,inpursuanceto

the said conspiracy brushed aside the legal position & the

mandateoftheTRAIonneedandtimingfor introductionof

new service providers; and instead arbitrarily decided on

02.11.2007 on file the cutoff date to be 25.9.2007, thereby

benefitting M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt.Ltd.

(representingallthe8Unitechgroupcompanieslatermerged

intoit)formanytelecomcirclesandM/sSwanTelecomPvt.

Ltd.forDelhicircle.

CorrespondencebetweenA.RajaandHon'blePrimeMinister

29. In furtherance to the conspiracy, accusedA. Raja,

lateronthesameday,i.e.02.11.2007itself,wrotealettertothe

HonblePrimeMinister,misrepresentingthefacts&fraudulently

justifyinghisdecisionregardingthecutoffdateof25.9.2007on

thegroundthatonthisdatetheannouncementofcutoffdate

appeared in newspapers. He also misled the Honble Prime

MinisterandincorrectlystatedtheopinionoftheMinistryof

Law&JusticetoreferthemattertoEGOMtobeoutofcontext.

It is alleged that accused A. Raja was already in criminal

conspiracywithaccusedSanjayChandra,ManagingDirectorof

M/s.UnitechLtd.andaccusedShahidBalwa&VinodGoenkaof


M/sSwanTelecomPvt. Ltd. before the publicationof cutoff

dateinnewspapers.Heknowinglymisrepresentedthefactsand

misledtheHonblePM,whilementioningthatthedepartment

wasnotdeviatingfromtheexistingprocedureinasmuchasthe

overriding principle of introducing new cellular operators

subjecttoavailabilityofsufficientspectrumwasflouted.Healso

suppressed the designhealreadyhad in mindregarding the

manner in which he, in conspiracy with other coaccused

persons,andforbenefittinghisfavouredcompanies, intended

toallocatethelicences,whichwasclearlyindicatedinvarious

options mentioned in the letter dated 26.10.2007written to

MinistryofLaw&Justice.

30. It is alleged that while this communication from

MOC&IT to Honble Prime Minister was in transit, Honble

PrimeMinistersentalettertoA.Rajaon2.11.2007.Thisletter

appropriatelyflaggedtheissueofprocessingoflargenumber

ofapplicationsreceivedforfreshlicencesagainstthebackdrop

ofinadequatespectrumtocatertooveralldemand.Para3of

theAnnexuretotheHonblePrimeMinistersletteralsoreferred

toNTP99andmentionedthatsincespectrumisverylimited

eveninthenextseveralyearsallthelicenceesmayneverbe

abletogetspectrum. Thesuggestionfromthehighofficeof

HonblePrimeMinister,thatavailabilityofspectrumhadtobe

assessedbeforecommittingtoissuelicences,andthatalicence

without requisite spectrum meant nothing to a telecom

operator,were,however,brushedasidebytheaccusedA.Raja,

asadherencetothesedirectionswouldhavefoiledhisdesignto


undulyfavourtheapplicantcompanies, hewas inconspiracy

with.

31. On receipt of this letter dated 02.11.2007 from

HonblePrimeMinisterinlateevening,andhavingbeencaught

onthewrongfoot,evenbeforehisletterdated2.11.2007could

reachPMO,accusedA.RajaimmediatelycalledaccusedR.K.

Chandolia,hisPSathisresidenceinthenightitself.AccusedA.

Raja,withthehelpofcoaccusedRKChandolia,andotherstaff,

draftedaresponsetotheletterofHonblePrimeMinisterand

finalizeditonthenightof02.11.2007itselfathiscampofficeat

his residence. This important matter relating to the policy

decisions of the Department of Telecommunications, which

required a serious consideration by the Department of

Telecommunicationintermsofthepolicyissues,wasnoteven

dealtwithinthefilesofthedepartment,andwasdecidedby

thesaidaccusedpersonsinfurtherancetotheirconspiracywith

privatepersons/companiesaforesaid.Inhisresponse,accused

A. Raja misrepresented, with a dishonest intention, the fact

statingthattherewas,andis,nosingledeviationordeparture

intherulesandprocedurescontemplatedinallthedecisions

takenby myMinistry andas such full transparency is being

maintainedbymyMinistryandfurtherassureyouthesamein

futurealso.

32. It is further alleged that accused A. Raja, in

conspiracywithaccusedRKChandolia,decidedthecutoffdate

for consideration of applications to be those received upto

25.09.2007, to wrongly benefit accused Sanjay Chandra,


Managing Director, M/s Unitech Ltd., M/s Unitech Wireless

(Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group

companieslatermergedintoit),accusedShahidBalwa,Vinod

GoenkaandM/sSwanTelecomPvt. Ltd., byaccommodating

applicationsofM/s.UnitechgroupofcompaniesandM/sSwan

TelecomPvt.Ltd.intoconsiderationzoneforallcirclesapplied

for,despiteinadequateavailabilityofspectruminmanycircles

including Delhi (one of most lucrative) for the companies

standinginqueueaheadofthesecompanies.

II. Violationof firstcomefirstserved

Policyoffirstcomefirstserved

33. It isalleged thattheDOThadbeenfollowingthe

principle of firstcomefirstservedbasis for allocationof UAS

Licences since the year 2003and this principle was adopted

fromtheprocedurefollowedfortheallocationofspectrumfor

WLLservicesofBasictelephoneoperators.Thefirstcomefirst

served principle meant that the applicant which applied first

shallbeallocatedLOI,Licenceandspectrumfirst.Thisexisting

procedurewasalsodescribed,almostcorrectly,asAlternativeI

in theDOTletter dated26.10.2007addressedtoMinistryof

Law&Justice,whichwasapprovedbytheMOC&IThimself.

34. It is alleged that under the existing procedure /

policy for allocation of licences on firstcome firstserved

principle,LOIwasissuedfirsttoanapplicantwhohadapplied

first. Then sufficient time was given for compliance of LOI

conditions. The LOI prescribed a time of seven days for


acceptance/complianceoftheLOIandfifteendaystodeposit

EntryFeeandPerformanceBankGuarantee(PBG)/Financial

BankGuarantee(FBG).Licenceswere,then,alsoissuedonthe

same priority as per dates of application. After issuance of

licence,thelicenceewasrequiredtomakeanapplicationbefore

Wireless, Planning & Coordination (WPC) Wing of DOT for

allocation of spectrum. This gap facilitated time lead to an

applicanttoretainhisdateofapplicationseniorityatallstages.

ManipulationoffirstcomefirstservedbyA.Raja

35. However,infurtherancetothecriminalconspiracy,

the said procedure was manipulated by accused A. Raja in

conspiracywithaccusedSiddharthaBehura(TelecomSecretary

w.e.f. 01.01.2008)and R K Chandolia and was redefined to

benefit the Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech

Ltd.,M/sUnitechWireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.Ltd.(representing

allthe8Unitechgroupcompanieslatermergedintoit),accused

ShahidBalwa,accusedVinodGoenkaandM/sSwanTelecom

Pvt.Ltd.ThefirstindicationofsuchillconceiveddesignofA.

Raja,incollusionwithotheraccusedpersons,includingaccused

SiddharthaBehurawhojoinedthisconspiracyon01.01.2008,

was manifest in the letter dated26.10.2007sent byDOTto

Secretary,MinistryofLaw&Justice.Thislettermentionedthat

Inthepresentscenariothenumberofapplicationsarevery

largeandspectrumislimitedanditmaynotbepossibleforthe

Government to provide LOI / Licence / Spectrum to all

applicantsatalliftheexistingprocedureisfollowed.Moreover


theexistingprocedureofsequentialprocessingwillalsoleadto

inordinatedelaysdeprivingthegeneralpublicof thebenefits

whichmorecompetitionwillbringout.

DeletionfromDraftLOIandViewofLF

36. It is alleged that on 02.11.2007, Director (ASI),

DOT put up a note seeking orders on issuing LOIs as per

existing policy which was approved by MOC&IT, while also

approving the cutoff date as 25.09.2007. However, then

Secretary(Telecom)observedon5.11.2007thatactionmay

be initiatedafter orders of theMOC&ITareobtainedonthe

above issues. He had expressed his desire to discuss this

further. A note was again put up on 07.11.2007 by the

Director(ASI)mentioningthereinthataspertheexistingpolicy,

theLOIsweregrantedbasedondateofapplicationstosatisfy

theprincipleoffirstcomefirstservedbasis.Inthiscontexthe

alsoreferredtothepolicyreportedtoParliamentinRajyaSabha

QuestionNo. 1243answeredon23.8.2007. Accused A. Raja

althoughapprovedthenote,butwithdishonestintentionandin

furtherancetotheconspiracydeletedpara3ofthedraftLOI,

whichwasalsoputupvidethisnote.Thesaidpara3mentioned

thatthedateofpaymentofentryfeewouldbetheprioritydate

forsigningoflicenceagreement.Ifthedateofpaymentofentry

fee in more than onecase is same then license will be first

signed with the applicant company whose application was

receivedearlier.

The aforesaid change in the LOI draft was the


manifestation of the malicious design, first indicated in the

letterdated26.10.2007writtentoMinistryofLaw&Justice,by

accusedA.Rajawithanaimtobenefitaccusedprivatepersons/

companiesbydeviatingfromtheexistingpolicyinamannerto

bebeneficialtothesaidaccusedprivatepersons/companies.

37. ItisallegedthatwhenthefilewenttotheLicensing

Finance(LF)branchofDOTforvettingoftheLOI, theDOT

officers objected to the changes made in the draft LOI and

mentioned on 23.11.2007 that LOI making the payment of

Entry Fee as the priority date has been deleted. However, it

would be appropriate to clarify as to what the priority date

wouldbe.Itappearslogicaltokeepthedateofapplicationas

dateofpriorityprovidedtheapplicantisabletoestablishthat

heiseligibleasonthedateofapplicationandisalsoeligible

whentheLOIisbeingissued.Itissuggestedthatthisshouldbe

clarifiedtotheapplicantsbyinsertingasuitableparaintheLOI

forthesakeofclarityespeciallyinviewofthelargenumberof

applicationsreceived.

38. Inthisnoteitselfitwasalsomentionedthatinpara

5oftheDraftLOIithasbeenclarifiedthatthepaymentofentry

feeshallnotconferrightonthelicenseefortheallocationof

radiospectrumwhichshallbeallottedasperexistingpolicy/

guidelinesasamendedfromtimetotimesubjecttoavailability.

In this regard it is pointed out that the present occasion is

unique in the sense that a large number of applications are

beingprocessedsimultaneouslyanditwouldbeappropriatefor

allconcernedtoknowthelikelihoodofallotmentofspectrumto


them.NTP99alreadystipulatesthat availabilityofadequate

frequency spectrum is essential particularly in these days

whenitisthewirelessservicesthataretheorderofthedayand

theseservicescannotbeprovidedwithoutspectrum.Hence,it

wouldbeappropriatethattheprospectivelicenceesknowthe

approximatetimewithinwhichtheywillgetspectrum.Inany

case for spectrumallocationalso, thedateof priority should

alsobethesameasthedateofhisapplicationprovidedheis

foundeligibleonthedateofapplicationandhedeposits the

EntryFeeandcompliestotheLOIwithinthestipulatedtime.

39. Itisallegedthattheaforesaidnoteclearlyspeltout

notonlywhatwasthepolicyoffirstcomefirstservedbutalso

themannerinwhichitwasbeingimplementedtillsuchtimeby

theDepartmentofTelecommunications.Thisnotewasfurther

endorsed by Member (Finance), Telecom Commission and

Secretary (Telecom) thereby also suggesting revision of the

entryfeefornewlicencesinlinewiththerevisionoffeefor

dualtechnologyspectrumassuggestedbyMinistryofFinancein

its letter dated 22.11.2007. However, finding this note, and

other suggestions of DOT officers, an impediment in his ill

conceiveddesign,accusedA.Rajadeliberatelycondemnednot

only the observations in the note but also the officers

attemptingtoputthethingsincorrectperspective.

40. It is alleged that, in aforesaid manner the DOT

officialstriedtopreventaccusedA.Rajatoproceedaheadwith

his design to delete a clause which would have resulted in

reshufflingofthepriorityfromthedateofapplicationtotimeof


submissionofcomplianceofLOIs.AccusedA.Raja,therefore,

had no option but to clarify that LOIs in previously used

proformamaybeissued,becausetherevisionofLOIproforma

assuggestedbyDOTofficerswouldhavethwartedhisdesign

prematurely. He, therefore, directed that a separate letter

seekingdulysignedcopiesofallthedocumentssubmittedatthe

timeof applying for UASLasperexistingguidelinesmaybe

obtained, thereby mandating that eligibility on the date of

application was essential requirement. Such letters were

thereafter issued to each applicant during December, 2007

asking for the certificates that the companies met various

eligibilityparametersasondateofapplicationandthereafter.

LettertoPMbyA.Raja

41. InfurtherancetotheconspiracythataccusedA.Raja

had entered into with R K Chandolia, Sanjay Chandra,

ManagingDirector,M/sUnitechLtd.,accusedShahidBalwaand

accused Vinod Goenka for favouring M/s Unitech Wireless

(Tamilnadu) Pvt.Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group

companies later merged into it) andM/sSwanTelecomPvt.

Ltd.,hewrotealetterdated26.12.2007toHonblePM,withthe

helpofaccusedRKChandolia.Inthis letterheintentionally

anddeliberatelymisrepresentedthefactsaboutfirstcomefirst

served policy and wrote, in the context of Issue of New

Licencesthat:

DoThasbeenimplementingapolicyofFirstcomeFirstServedforgrantofUASlicences.Thesamepolicyis


proposed to be implemented in granting licence toexistingapplicants.However,itmaybenotedthatgrantofUASlicenceandallotmentofRadioFrequencyisathreestageprocess.

1. IssueofLetterofIntent(LOI):DoTfollowsapolicyofFirstComeFirstServedforgrantingLOItotheapplicantsforUASlicence,whichmeans, an application received first will beprocessed first and if found eligible will begrantedLOI.

2. IssueofLicence:TheFirstComeFirstServedpolicyisalsoapplicableforgrantoflicenceoncompliance of LOI condition. Therefore, anyapplicantwhocomplieswiththeconditionofLOIfirstwillbegrantedUASlicencefirst.ThisissueneveraroseinthepastasatonepointoftimeonlyoneapplicationwasprocessedandLOIwasgrantedandenoughtimewasgivento him for compliance of conditions of LOI.However,sincetheGovernmenthadadoptedapolicyofNoCaponnumberofUASlicence,a large number of LOIs are proposed to beissuedsimultaneously.Inthesecircumstances,anapplicantwhofulfilstheconditionsofLOIfirst will be granted licence first, althoughseveral applicants will be issued LOIsimultaneously.Thesamehasbeenconcurredby the Solicitor General of India during thediscussions.

3. Grant of Wireless Licence: The FirstComeFirstServedpolicyisalsoapplicableforgrantof wireless licence to the UAS licencee.


WirelesslicenceisanindependentlicencetoUASlicenceforallotmentofRadioFrequencyand authorizing launching of GSM/CDMAbased mobile services. There is amisconception that UAS licence authorizes aperson to launch mobile servicesautomatically. UAS licence is a licence forproviding both wire and wireless services.Therefore, anyUAS licenceholderwishes tooffermobileservicehastoobtainaseparatewireless licence from DoT. It is clearlyindicatedinclauses43.1and43.2oftheUASLicenceAgreementoftheDoT.

Since the file for issue of LOI to all eligible

applicants was approved by me on 2.11.2007, it is

proposedtoimplementthedecisionwithoutfurtherdelay

andwithoutanydeparturefromexistingguidelines.

42. Itisallegedthattheaforesaidletterwasdraftedby

accusedA.RajaandaccusedR.K.Chandoliaatthecampoffice

cumresidenceofaccusedA.Raja,andwasnotaresultofthe

deliberationsof theDepartmentof Telecommunications in its

filesassuch.Itisallegedthattherewerenodiscussionswiththe

thenlearnedAdditionalSolicitorGeneral.Thepositionreflected

inthisletterasabove,wasinstarkdeviationfromtheexisting

procedures,andwasfraudulentlyadoptedastheprocedurefor

grant of UAS licences in conspiracy with accused Sanjay

Chandra,ManagingDirector,M/sUnitechLtd.,accusedShahid

BalwaandaccusedVinodGoenkawithanintentiontofavour

M/sUnitechWireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.Ltd.(representingallthe


8Unitechgroupcompanieslatermergedintoit)andM/sSwan

TelecomPvt.Ltd.

Roleof Siddhartha Behura and R.K.Chandolia

43. Itisallegedthaton01.01.2008accusedSiddhartha

Behura joined DOT as Secretary (Telecom) and joined the

ongoingconspiracybetweenaccusedA.Raja,R.K.Chandolia

andotherprivatepersons/companies. Infurtherancetothe

said conspiracy on 7.1.2008, accused R.K. Chandolia gave a

copyof letter dated26.122007, sent byaccusedA. Raja to

HonblePM,toDDG(ASI)intheofficechamberofA.Rajaand

followed it up with a written forwarding letter dated

07.01.2008 enclosing therewith copies of letter exchanged

between MOC&ITandHonble PM. Accused R. K. Chandolia

askedDOTofficerstotreattheselettersaspolicydirectivesand

accordingly put up note regarding processing of files for

allocationofnewlicences.

44. It is alleged that while putting up a note dated

07.01.2008 for processing UASL applications received upto

25.9.2007, Director (ASI) reiterated the existing policy and

notedthat sequenceof grantingLOIs/UASLicencehasbeen

maintained till now according to the date of respective

applicationforaparticularservicearea.Inhisnoteheraised

theissueofdateofeligibilityandDDG(ASI)clarifiedthatthe

eligibility on the date of applicationneeds to be considered.

However, he reproduced the parts of the letter dated

26.12.2007 addressed by MOC&IT to Honble PM on policy


matters regardinggrant of UASLicencesandmentionedthat

thesearetobetreatedaspolicydirectives.

DraftpressreleaseandopinionofSG

45. It isalleged thatwhenthismatterwasputupon

7.1.2008 before accused Siddhartha Behura, Secretary

(Telecom), he attached a draft press release for approval of

MOC&IT. This draft Press Release contained the manner in

whichLettersofIntentwereplannedtobeissuedtoapplicants.

It is alleged that MOC&IT approved the same and asked

Secretary to obtain Solicitor Generals opinion since he was

appearingbeforetheTDSATandHighCourtDelhi. Afterthis

accusedSiddharthaBehuratookthefilehimselftothethenLd.

Solicitor General of India, who advised I have seen the

matter.TheissuesregardingnewLOIsarenotbeforeanycourt.

What is proposed is fair and reasonable. The press release

makesfortransparency.Thisseemstobeinorder.Itisalleged

that accused A. Raja, in conspiracy with accused Siddhartha

Behura subsequently struck out the last para of the press

release, which mentioned However, if more than one

applicantcomplies withLOIconditiononthesamedate, the

intersesenioritywouldbedecidedbythedateofapplication.

Itisalsoallegedthat,whenaccusedA.Rajastruckoutlastpara

ofdraftpressrelease,atthesametimehealsoinserted,inhis

aforementioned note dated 07.01.2008, the words press

release appd as amended. This insertion in his note was

willfully done by accused A. Raja after the then Solicitor


Generalhadalreadyrecordedhisnotedated07.01.2008after

his note, on the running note sheet. By this dishonest act

accusedA.Raja,inconspiracywithaccusedSiddharthaBehura,

fraudulently portrayed to the Department of

Telecommunicationsthattheamendeddrafthadtheconsentof

thethenLd.SolicitorGeneral.Inthismannerhefalsifiedthe

records in furtherance of his design to cheat DOT by

manipulating the allocation of new licences in a manner

wrongfullybenefittingtheaccusedprivatepersons/companies

aforesaid.Thisamendmentinthepressreleaseledtoredefining

theconceptoffirstcomefirstservedonthebasisofpriorityin

submission of compliance to the LOI against the established

practice of priority in order of receipt of applications. It is

alleged that this press release was issued to the public on

10.1.2008at1347hours.

DistributionofLOIs:Fourcounters

46. It is alleged that in furtherance to the conspiracy

accusedR.K.Chandolia,inconspiracywithaccusedSiddhartha

Behura, designed the manner in which the LOIs were to be

distributedtovariousapplicantsandaskedtheDOTofficialsto

implementit.WhentheconcernedDOTofficersresistedtothe

proposedunfairandillconceivedschemeproposed,whichwas

not in line with the firstcome firstserved principle, accused

SiddharthaBehuradirectedtheDOTofficers to implement it

and asked to take his approval for the same on file, if so

required.Later,whenDOTofficerssoughthisapprovalforthis


schemeofdistributionofLOIs, heevenapproved it. This ill

conceiveddesignincludedestablishing4counterstodistribute

LOIs,inthecommitteeroomofSancharBhawanat2nd Floor,

subvertingthesystemoffirstcomefirstservedinletteraswell

asinspirit.Inthisdesign,theaccusedpersonsdeliberatelydid

notevenensurethatonlyafterthefirstbatchof4applicants

had been issued the LOIs, the second batch be called. The

manner in which the counters were placed, priority of the

applicantsasperdateofapplicationandthenumberofLOIs/

letters that were to be distributed at each counter, is as

mentionedbelow:

S.No.

CounterNo.1 CounterNo.2 CounterNo.3 CounterNo.4

1 M/s.ByCell(Priority:1)(1 rejectionletteronly)

M/s. TataTeleservices.(Priority:2)(3 LOIs +1 InPrincipleapproval forDualTechnology)

M/s. IdeaCellular.(Priority:3)(9LOIs)

M/s. SpiceCommunications.(Priority:4)(4LOIs)

2 M/s. SwanTelecom(Priority:5)(13LOIs)

M/s. HFCLInfotel(Priority:6)(RejectionLetter)

M/s.S.Tel(Priority:7)(6LOIs)

M/s.Parsvnath.(Priority:8)(1 rejectionletter only absent)

3 M/s. DatacomSolutions(Priority:9)(22LOIs)

M/s. LoopTelecom(Priority:10)(21LOIs)

M/s.Allianz(Priority:11)(Aletter)

M/s. UnitechGroup.(Priority:12)(22LOIs)

4 M/s. ShyamTelelink(Priority:13)(21LOIs)

M/s. SeleneInfrastructure(Priority:14)(RejectionLetter)

47. It is alleged that on 10.01.2008 another press

releasewasissuedbyDepartmentofTelecommunicationsinthe


afternoonaskingtherepresentativesofallapplicantcompanies

tocollecttheLettersofIntentat3.30PMatSancharBhawan

and the same was put up by DOT on its website. The

representatives of the companies were also telephonically

informedbytheDOTofficersforthispurpose.Representatives

ofthecompaniesassembledatcommitteeroomoftheSanchar

BhawanforcollectionofLOIs/letters,andcollectedtheLOIs

fromsaidcounters.ItisalsoallegedthatthedistributionofLOIs

wasnotinfirstcomefirstservedmannerandthewillfuldesign

of such distribution resulted into an disorderly manner of

priority.ThedistributionofLOIsinaforesaidfraudulentmanner

resultedinreshufflingofthepriorityofapplicantsfromthedate

ofapplicationtotimeofcompliancewhichhaddifferenceoffew

minutesandcompletelychangedtheprioritytothebenefitof

M/s.SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.(STPL),whichgotfirstpriorityin

Delhiwherespectrumforonelicenseeonlywasavailable,and


8 Unitech group companies later merged into it), for many

circleswherespectrumwasnotsufficienttoaccommodatelast

applicant. Thealteredorder of priority, visvis the dates of

applicationareasmentionedinatabularformbelow:

SL.No.

SERVICEAREA COMPANY

DATEOFAPPLICATI

ON

DateofLOI

Compliances&Entry

Fee

TimeofLOI

Compliances&EntryFee

1 Mumbai SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 16:102 Delhi SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 16:11

3AndhraPradesh

DatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:14


4 AssamDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:14

5 BiharDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:15

6 DelhiDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:16

7 GujaratDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:16

8 HaryanaDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:17

9HimachalPradesh


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:17

10Jammu&Kashmir


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:18

11 KarnatakaDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:18

12 KeralaDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:18

13 KolkataDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:19

14MadhyaPradesh


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:20

15

UttarPradesh(East)


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:20

16

UttarPradesh(West)


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:20

17 RajasthanDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:21

18

Tamilnadu(injcludingChennai)


28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:21

19 MumbaiDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:22

20NorthEast DatacomSolutionsPvt.

Ltd.28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:22

21 OrissaDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:22

22Maharashtr

aDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:23

23West

BengalDatacomSolutionsPvt.Ltd.

28Aug2007 10/1/2008 16:23

24

Tamilnadu(injcludingChennai) IdeaCellularLtd.

26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:30

25 Karnataka IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:31

26 Punjab IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:32

27West

Bengal IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:32

28 Assam IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:33


29 Kolkata IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:33

30 Orissa IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:33

31Jammu&Kashmir IdeaCellularLtd.

26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:34

32NorthEast

IdeaCellularLtd.26Jun2006 10/1/2008 16:34

33 RajasthanAdonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech).

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:41

34 DelhiHudson Properties P.Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:41

35 MumbaiUnitech InfrastructuresP.Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:41

36 PunjabAdonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:42

37AndhraPradesh

Aska Projects Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:42

38 KarnatakaAska Projects Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:43

39 KeralaAska Projects Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:43

40 HaryanaAdonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:44

41HimachalPradesh

Adonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:44

42Jammu&Kashmir

Adonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:44

43

UttarPradesh(West)

Adonis Projects P. Ltd.(Unitech) 24Sep

2007 10/1/2008 16:45

44 KolkataAzare Properties Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:45

45


Unitech Builders &Estates Pvt. Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:45

46 AssamNahan Properties Pvt.Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:46

47 BiharNahan Properties Pvt.Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:46

48 GujaratVolga Properties PvtLtd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:47

49MadhyaPradesh

Volga Properties PvtLtd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:47

50

UttarPradesh(East)

Nahan Properties Pvt.Ltd.(Unitech) 24Sep

2007 10/1/2008 16:48

51West

BengalNahan Properties Pvt.Ltd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:48

52Maharashtr

aVolga Properties PvtLtd.(Unitech)

24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:48

53NorthEast Nahan Properties Pvt.

Ltd.(Unitech)24Sep2007 10/1/2008 16:49

54 Orissa Nahan Properties Pvt. 24Sep 10/1/2008 16:49


Ltd.(Unitech) 2007

55 DelhiSpiceCommunicationsLtd.

31Aug2006 10/1/2008 16:51

56 HaryanaSpiceCommunicationsLtd.

31Aug2006 10/1/2008 16:52

57AndhraPradesh

SpiceCommunicationsLtd.

31Aug2006 10/1/2008 16:53

58Maharashtr

aSpiceCommunicationsLtd.

31Aug2006 10/1/2008 16:55

59 Assam TataTeleservicesLtd.21Jun2006 10/1/2008 17:20

60Jammu&Kashmir TataTeleservicesLtd.

21Jun2006 10/1/2008 17:20

61NorthEast

TataTeleservicesLtd.21Jun2006 10/1/2008 17:20

62 Assam STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:1063 Bihar STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:10

64HimachalPradesh STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:10

65Jammu&Kashmir STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:10

66 NorthEast STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:1067 Orissa STelLtd. 7Jul2007 10/1/2008 18:10

68AndhraPradesh SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:15

69 Gujarat SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:1570 Haryana SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:15

71Maharashtr

a SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:15

72

Tamilnadu(injcludingChennai) SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:15

73

UttarPradesh(East) SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:15

74 Karnataka SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:2075 Punjab SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:2576 Rajasthan SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:25

77

UttarPradesh(West) SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:25

78 Kerala SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd. 2Mar2007 10/1/2008 18:30

79 BiharLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:22

80MadhyaPradesh

LoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:23

81 OrissaLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:23

82 UttarPradesh

LoopTelecomPrivateLtd.

6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:24


(West)

83Jammu&Kashmir


84West

BengalLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:25

85 KarnatakaLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:27

86 KolkataLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:27

87 KeralaLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:28

88 PunjabLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:28

89 DelhiLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:29

90AndhraPradesh


91Maharashtr

aLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:30

92 HaryanaLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:31

93NorthEast LoopTelecomPrivate

Ltd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:32

94



95

UttarPradesh(East)


96 AssamLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:34

97 GujaratLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:34

98HimachalPradesh


99 RajasthanLoopTelecomPrivateLtd. 6Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:35

100AndhraPradesh ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:43

101 Assam ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:44

102 Bihar ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:44

103 Delhi ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:44

104 Gujarat ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:45

105 Haryana ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:45

106HimachalPradesh ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:45

107Jammu&Kashmir ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:46

108 Karnataka ShyamTelelinkLimited 25Sep 11/1/2008 9:46


2007

109 Kerala ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:46

110 Kolkata ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:46

111MadhyaPradesh ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:47

112Maharashtr

a ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:50

113 Mumbai ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:50

114NorthEast

ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:51

115 Orissa ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:51

116 Punjab ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:52

117

Tamilnadu(includingChennai) ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:52

118

UttarPradesh(East) ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:52

119

UttarPradesh(West) ShyamTelelinkLimited

25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:52

120West

Bengal ShyamTelelinkLimited25Sep2007 11/1/2008 9:53

48. It is further alleged that as per the illconceived

designofdistributionofLOIsandreceiptofLOIcompliance/

Entry Fee, etc., applicant company representatives were

requiredtorushtothereceptionareaoftheSancharBhawanat

GroundFloor, afterreceivingtheLOIs, forsubmissionofLOI

compliance/EntryFee,etc.Asaresultofthesaidconspiracy,

M/sSwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.wasthefirsttosubmitcompliances

forDelhi(wherespectrumwaslimitedforonelicenseeonly)

andMumbaicircles;andM/sUnitechWireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.

Ltd. (representing all the 8 Unitech group companies later

mergedintoit)wereabletogetpriorityinallcirclesovermany

other applicants which had applied much before it. This


desperateracetothereceptionarealedtoalotofchaos,which

also resulted in a situation that physical fitness of the

representativesbecamethemaindecidingfactorforpriorityin

submissionofcomplianceofLOIsandentryfee,etc.,makinga

mockery of the firstcome firstserved policy. This design

certainly benefitted those in criminal conspiracy and led to

incidental gains/losses to others. In this manner the whole

processofallocationofLOIsandlicenceswasvitiatedandwas

arbitraryinnature.

Priorinformation

49. Itisallegedthattheaccusedpersonsconnectedwith

M/s.SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.andM/sUnitechLtd.hadprior

knowledgeofsuchillconceiveddesignoffirstcomefirstserved

processandhadbeenkeepingthedemanddraftsreadysince

earlyNovember,2007andOctober,2007itself,respectively.M/s

SwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.hadgotfirstFBG&PBGsmadefor2

circles as early as first half of November, 2007. It was

subsequently changed to Delhi and Mumbai, in view of the

advance knowledge that spectrum was limited in metros

especially in Delhi circle. The first manifestation of the

knowledgeofM/sSwanTelecomaboutthemannerinwhich

thepolicy shall be implemented is seen in the fact that M/s

SwanTelecomPvt. Ltd. applied to PunjabNational Bank for

loan as early as in October, 2007 and mentioned that the

DemandDraftswouldberequiredataveryshortnoticeasthese

arerequiredtobedepositedassoonastheLOIwouldbeissued.


Similarly, M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd.


intoit)alsohaditsDDsreadyby10thOctober2007,evenbefore

thedecisionwastakentocalltheapplicantsfortheissuanceof

LOIs by twisting the FCFSpolicy giving priority for issue of

licences to those whocomplied with LOI conditions first. In

December 2007, through media reports, such indications

became public and most of the companies were thereafter,

keeping their demand drafts / PBG/FBG, etc. ready for

depositingwhenevercalledfor.

III. Dualtechnologyandspectrumallocation

TRAIrecommendationsandacceptancethereof

50. TheTRAIinitsrecommendationsdated28.08.2007

had,atparas6.21and6.23,mentionedasunder:

6.21:Alicenceeusingonetechnologymaybepermitted

on request, usage of alternate technology and thus

allocation of dual spectrum. However such a licencee

mustpaythesameamountoffeewhichhasbeenpaidby

existing licencees using the alternative technology or

whichwouldbepaidbyanewlicenseegoingtousethat

technology

6.23:Regardingintersepriorityforspectrumallocation,

whentheexistinglicenseebecomeseligibleforallocation

of additional spectrum specific to the new technology,

suchalicenseehastobetreatedlikeanyotherexisting

licenseeinthequeueandtheintersepriorityofallocation


shouldbebasedonthecriteriathatmaybedeterminedby

the Department of Telecommunications for the existing

licensee.

51. Telecom Commission approved the said

recommendationsandthesamewereacceptedbyMOC&ITon

17.10.2007.However,itisallegedthataccusedA.Raja,while

approvingtherecommendations,notedthat inviewofabove

approvals,pendingrequestsofexistingUASLoperatorsforuse

ofdual/alternatewirelessaccesstechnologyshouldbeaskedto

pay the required fees. Allocation of spectrum in alternate

technologyshouldbeconsideredfromthedateofsuchrequests

toWPCsubjecttopaymentofrequiredfees.

Accordingly,on18.10.2007accusedA.Rajaaccordedin

principle approval for dual technology spectrum to M/s.

Reliance Communications Limited, M/s HFCL Infotel Limited

andM/sShyamTelelinksLimited,andmentionedinhisnote

thatforallocationofspectrumfordualtechnology,thedate

ofpaymentofrequiredfeeshoulddeterminetheseniority.

Applications of TTSL and TTML and clubbing them with

referencetoLawMinistry

52. ItisallegedthatassoonastheDOTacceptedTRAI

recommendations on allowing allocation of Dual Technology

spectrumandthisdecisionwasnotifiedon19.10.2007through

apressrelease,M/s.TataTeleservicesLtd.(TTSL)andM/sTata

Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. (TTML), existing CDMA

operatorsinmanycircles,alsosubmittedapplicationsfordual


technology spectrum on 19.10.2007. Before, the said press

release was issued, M/s Reliance Communications (for 18

circles), M/sHFCLInfotelLimited(1circle)andM/sShyam

Telelinks Limited (1 circle) had already been granted in

principleapprovalfordualtechnologyspectrumon18.10.2007.

DuringthesametimeCellularOperatorsAssociationofIndia

(COAI)&othersfiledapetitionno.286of2007beforeTelecom

DisputesSettlement&AppellateTribunal(TDSAT)challenging

thepolicyondualtechnology.

53. Itisalleged thatwhenthisrequestofM/sTTSL/

M/sTTMLwasputup for in principleapproval touseGSM

technology under UAS Licence, accused A. Raja dishonestly

clubbedthisissuealsowiththeletterdated26.10.2007being

senttoMinistryofLaw&Justiceforguidanceastoinwhich

manner the pending applications of new licencees and dual

technologyspectrumbedecided.Infact,aspertheapprovalof

theTRAIrecommendationsbyTelecomCommission,whichwas

also approved by the MOC&IT earlier, the matter regarding

interseseniorityoftheapplicantsfordualtechnologyspectrum

andspectrumfornewlicenceeshadalreadybeendecided,and

thedualtechnologyspectrumapplicantsweretobetreatedat

parwiththeexistinglicencees,andnotwithapplicantsfornew

licences.

Criteria for Interse Priority for Spectrum Allocation andProceedingsbeforeTDSAT

54. MinistryofLaw&Justicehad,onthis, opinedon


01.11.2007thatthematterbereferredtoEmpoweredGroupof

Ministers. However, the same was also not acceded to by

accused A. Raja, as already mentioned above. During the

proceedings of petition no. 286 of 2007, filed by Cellular

OperatorsAssociationofIndia(COAI)&Others,DOTfiledan

affidavit on 13.11.2007 before TDSAT. In this affidavit the

detailsaboutcriteriafordecidingintersepriorityofallocation

ofspectrum,inconsonancewiththeTRAIrecommendationsas

acceptedbytheDOT,wasagainspeltout.Thesedetailswere

alsospeltoutinanotedated14.12.2007abouttheproceedings

dated12.12.2007beforeTDSATandalistoftheactionpoints

reflectingthepositionofprocessingofpendingrequestsofM/s

TTSL/M/s TTML for usage of dual technology over the

processing of pending applications for grant of new UAS

Licences was also approved. This position was also

communicatedtotheWPCWingofDOT,whichisthecustodian

offrequencyspectrumandisrequiredtoallocatespectrumto

variouslicenceesasperpolicy.

Delayingrantofinprincipleapproval

55. ItisallegedthataccusedA.Raja,inconspiracywith

otheraccusedpersons,didnotaccordinprincipleapprovalto

M/s TTSL / M/s TTML till 10.01.2008, when LOIs for new

licences were distributed to applicants till 25.09.2007, and

dishonestlyclubbedthedistributionofinprincipleapprovalsto

TTSL/TTML with distribution of LOIs for new licences.

Accordingly,M/sTataTeleServicesLimited&TTMLweregiven


inprincipleapprovalon10.01.2008foruseofdualtechnology

in20Circles, alongwiththeLOIsgiventonewlicencees.In

para2oftheletterconveyinginprincipleapprovalithasbeen

clearlymentionedthatdateofreceiptofpaymentofrequired

fee shall determine the date of priority for allocation of

spectrum. It is alleged that TTSL and TTML deposited the

requisite fee on the same day, i.e. 10.01.2008 and also

submittedapplicationsforallocationofstartupGSMspectrum

in20serviceareasonthesamedayi.e.10.01.2008withWPC

wingofDOT.

56. These applications were received by DOT at the

receptioncounterandfurtherdeliveredintheofficeofWireless

Advisor. However, it is alleged that the applications were

thereafter not traceable andhave remaineduntraced, except

oneapplicationforKarnatakaCircle,whichhasbeentracedby

theWPCofficialsduringinvestigation,intheWPCofficeitself.

Delayinamendmentoflicence

57. It is alleged that vide a note dated 14.01.2008,

Under Secretary (ASIII) put up the case of TTSL/TTML for

amendment of UAS Licence condition 43.5(iv), allowing

TTSL/TTMLtheuseofdualtechnologyspectrum,onapattern

similartotheoneissuedtoM/sRelianceCommunicationsLtd

earlier.This filereachedtheofficeofaccusedA.Rajaforhis

approval on 23.01.2008. However, accused A. Raja, in

furtherance to his conspiracy with accused Shahid Balwa &

Vinod Goenka of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and accused


SanjayChandraof M/s UnitechLtd., andto wrongly benefit


8Unitechgroupcompanieslatermergedintoit)andM/sSwan

TelecomPvt.Ltd.keptthefilependingwithhimtill27.02.2008.

In pursuance to this conspiracy, accused A. Raja, in the

meantime,approvedsigningofnewlicencesw.e.f.26.02.2008.

M/sSwanTelecomPvtLtdsignedthe licence forMumbai&

Delhiserviceareason26.02.2008andappliedforallocationof

spectrumon27.02.2008.Itwasonlyafterensuringthereceipt

of applications of M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. in Delhi &

Mumbai service areas before WPC wing, accused A. Raja

approvedtheamendmentsintheUASLicenceofM/sTataTele

ServicesLimited/TTMLon27.02.2008.Itisallegedthateven

thisamendmentwasformallycommunicatedtoM/sTataTele

Services Limited/ M/s TTML on 04.03.2008, only after M/s

UnitechLtd.groupcompanieshadalsosignedallthelicences

andappliedforthespectruminvariouscircles.Theamended

UASlicenseagreementbetweenTataTeleservisesLtd.(TTSL)/

TTMLandDOTwas signedon 04.03.2008. The authorized

person for TTSL/TTML by abundant precaution submitted

anothersetof applicationinWPCCell forallocationofGSM

spectruminalltheappliedcirclesalsoreferringtothedateof

their first application dated 10.01.2008. However, accused

public servants, in conspiracy with aforesaid accused private

persons/companies,dishonestlytreatedthisdateof05.03.2008

as the date of seniority for allocation of spectrum for M/s

TTSL /TTML instead of the date of making payments i.e.


10.01.2008,whichwastobetreatedaspriorityasperaccused

A.Rajasdecisionearlier.Evenasperthepolicyguidelinesfor

dual technology and approvals of Telecom Commission and

DOT, M/s Tata Tele Services Limited/ TTML being existing

telecomoperatorsweretobetreatedasexistinglicenceesand

hadintersepriorityoverthenewapplicants.

Dateofpriorityforallocation

58. WPCWingallocatedspectrumtoalltheapplicants

in 8 circles, where sufficient spectrum was available to

accommodateall thenewlicenceesaswell asTTSL/TTML,

simultaneously.However,theissueofinterseprioritybecame

relevant & critical for the remaining circles, where sufficient

spectrumwasnotavailabletocatertotherequirementofallthe

newlicencees&dualtechnologyspectrumseekers.Therewere

demands for spectrum fromexisting telecomoperators, dual

technology spectrum seekers and new operators in the

remaining14circlesincludingDelhi,whereonlyoneapplicant

couldbeaccommodatedforwantofadequatespectrum.It is

alleged that the concerned officers of WPC were being

persistentlypesteredbyallaccusedpublicservantstoprocess

applicationsinthesecircles,especiallyforDelhi,intheorderof

their applications for spectrumwere received in WPC, while

treatingthedateofapplicationofTTSL/TTMLas05.03.2008,

insteadof10.01.2008.Itisfurtherallegedthatwhenthefilefor

spectrumallocation in Delhi circle was not processed in this

manner,accusedSiddharthaBehuraandaccusedRKChandolia


causedthetransferoftwoconcernedofficersofWPC,whowere

not prepared to toe their line, out of the WPC wing on

25.08.2008. In pursuance to conspiracy with accused Shahid

Balwa & Vinod Goenka of M/s Swan TelecomPvt. Ltd. and

accusedSanjayChandraofM/sUnitechLtd.,accusedA.Raja

and other accused public servants forced the then Wireless

Advisortoputupanoteintheaforesaidmannerandonhis

puttingupsuchanote,accusedSiddharthaBehuraandaccused

A.RajaapprovedallocationofspectrumtoM/sSwanTelecom

Pvt.Ltd.inDelhicircleonverynextday,i.e.26.08.2008.This

became a precedent for remaining circles also wherein M/s

UnitechWireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.Ltd.(representingallthe8

Unitechgroupcompanieslatermergedintoit)gotpriorityover

fewothercompanieswhichappliedearlier,deprivingM/sTata

TeleServicesLimited/TTMLoftheirpriorityoverothernew

licenceesinvariouscircles.

59. ItisallegedthataccusedA.Rajainconspiracywith

accused Siddhartha Behura, accused R K Chandolia, accused

ShahidBalwa&VinodGoenkaofM/sSwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.

and accused Sanjay Chandra of M/s Unitech Ltd., allocated

spectrum to M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. in Delhi circle

unreasonablydeprivingM/sTataTeleServicesLimitedandM/s

Spice Communications, which were having priority over M/s

Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the Dual Technology

approvals and seniority of new applicants as per date of

application,respectively.Itisfurtherallegedthatthemannerin

whichspectrumwasallocatedinDelhicirclewassubsequently


treated as a precedent for other circles, and M/s Unitech

Wireless(Tamilnadu)Pvt.Ltd.(representingallthe8Unitech

groupcompanies latermergedinto it)gotspectruminmany

circlesaheadofM/s.LoopTelecom,M/s.TataTeleservices(dual

technology), M/s. S. TelandM/s. SwanTelecom.Intelecom

circlesofGujarat,WestBangal,UP(East),UP(West),Punjab,

Haryana, Assam, J & K, Bihar and Himachal Pradesh, M/s.

Unitechgroupcompaniesgotspectruminfullinsometelecom

circlesandmostof theareas inothercircles, aheadofother

companies,whichhadappliedfortheUASlicensepriortoM/s

Unitechgroupcompaniesbutgotpartialspectrum/spectrumin

fewerdistrictsonlyinthesecircles.TheallocationofnewUAS

licencesandspectrum,inthismanner,wasinstarkviolationof

theTRAIrecommendationsdated20.02.2003and27.10.2003

andNTP99,whichmandatedthatapplicationsforCMTS/UAS

licences could be considered only if sufficient spectrum was

availableforexistingoperatorsaswellasnewapplicants.Had

this principle been followed, in most of the aforementioned

telecom circles M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Pvt. Ltd.


intoit)wouldnothavegotanylicenseatallandM/sSwan

TelecomPvt. Ltd. would not have got UAS license for Delhi

service area. After accused A. Raja demitted the office of

MOC&IT, DOT has now admitted the case of priority of

TTSL/TTMLforspectrumovernewUASlicensees.

RentingofhousebyR.K.Chandolia


60. It is further alleged that accused R K Chandolia

rentedhisresidentialpropertyC6/39secondfloor,Safdarjung

Development Area, NewDelhi to M/s Associated Hotels Pvt.

Ltd.(asisterconcernofM/s.DBRealtyLtd.)on03.03.2009,

onamonthlyRs.63,000/.

Intraserviceroamingarrangement

61. It is alleged that accused A. Raja andSiddhartha

Behura, in conspiracy with accused Shahid Balwa & Vinod

GoenkaofM/sSwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.askedDOTofficersto

put up a note recommending allowing intra service area

roamingarrangementsbetweentwoserviceprovidersinacircle

byamendingtheUASLtermsandconditions.Thesaidaccused

personssoasked,despitethefactthaton24.04.2008Chairman,

TRAI,inalettertoaccusedSiddharthaBehura,thenSecretary

(Telecom)conveyedtheneedforcomplianceofthecontentsof

section11oftheTRAIAct, especiallyasregardsfor issueof

licencestonewserviceprovidersandamendmentstotheterms

andconditionsofthelicenseofexistingserviceproviders.Itwas

alsoclarifiedbyTRAIthatthetermsandconditionsof inter

connectivity, including intra circle roaming arrangement,

betweentheserviceproviderswasalsocriticalconditionofthe

license conditions and for that as per the provisions of the

section11oftheAct,therecommendationsoftheAuthorityhad

tobeobtained,beforethesamewereamended.

However, accused A. Raja and other public servants,

unauthorisedlyproceededfurthertoamendtheaccessservices


licensetomakeitmandatoryforallserviceproviderstoallow

IntraService Area Roaming arrangements with other service

providers.However,theofficersdidnotputupthenoteina

similar manner and instead recommended to allow mutual

commercial arrangements for Intra service area without any

forceontheoperatorstoenterintoIntraserviceareafacility.

AccusedA.Rajaapprovedthesameon11.06.2008inDOTfile

no.842725/2005VAS(Pt.)IonsubjectAmendmenttoAccess

ServiceLicencesregIntraServiceAreaRoaming.Healso,while

approvingthenote, directedthat Secretarymaydiscuss with

Industryformakingitmandatory.Itisallegedthatlateroutof

many applicants for intra circle roaming arrangements with

BSNL, only M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. could sign a

Memorandum of Understanding with BSNL for such an

arrangementon13.10.2008.

Failuretorollout

62. It is alleged that M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd.,

despitebeingtheonlycompanytoreceivespectruminDelhi

servicearea,amongnewlicencees,since2008didnotrollout

its services and failed to meet the rollout obligations, and

continuedtoreceivethepatronageofaccusedA.Rajatill he

demittedtheofficeofMOC&IT.

OffloadingofsharesbySTPLandUnitech

63. It is also alleged M/s Etisalat (Mauritius) Ltd., a

group company of M/s Emirates Telecommunications


Corporation (ETISALAT) of UAE, subscribed to 11,29,94,228

sharesoftheM/sSwanTelecomPvt.Ltd.on17.12.2008fora

total consideration of Rs.3228,44,61,409/ (Rs. 3228 Crore).

Similarly, M/s Genex Exim Ventures Pvt. Ltd. subscribed to

1,33,17,245sharesofthecompanyon17.12.2008foratotal

consideration of Rs.380,49,73,846/ (Rs. 380 Crore). It is

allegedthatthisamountofRs.380CrorewasarrangedbyM/s

Genex Exim Ventures Pvt. Ltd. through M/s ETA Star

Infrastructure Ltd. having its account at Oriental Bank of

Commerce,Goregaon,Mumbai.ItisallegedthatM/sAlWaha

Investments Ltd., Dubai, UAE, remitted Rs. 380 crore from

MashreqBank

IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL. JUDGE, CBI (04) (2G ... · licences and allocation of spectrum...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL. JUDGE, CBI (04) (2G ... · licences and allocation of spectrum...