Skip to main content

2G spectrum Case Study by mayurakshi Sarkar

 2G spectrum Case Study

Beginning of the Case

A.Raja communication and IT minister in the year 2007-2009 government of congress. He allocates 122 licences of 2G spectrum in the year 2008 with the fixed price option and he made a condition which favors some telecom companies. He sold the licence with a very low price and without any rules and regulations. He reduces the deadline of application of 2G spectrum 01.10.2007 to 05.09.2007 due to the reduction of date so many companies did not apply for 2G spectrum and on the date of issuing the licence that is 10.01.2008 he gave only some hours to the companies for the submission of the cheque and other documents. The companies which were favored by the Raja were ready with their cheque and other documents. On 16.11.2010 comptroller and auditor general of India gave their report and tell Raja did not take any advice from Law and Finance ministry.

What are the Charges on Former Telecom Minister A Raja

Cheap Telecom Licenses

Entry fee for 2G spectrum licenses 2008 pegged at 2001 prices mobile subscriber base had shot up to 350 million in 2008 from 4 million in 2001.

No Procedures Followed

  • Rules changed by the A.Raja before beginning the 2G Spectrum.

  • The date of application reduces 25 days.

  • Licenses issued on a fixed price basis.

  • No proper auction process followed.

  • Raja ignored the advice of TRAI, Law Ministry, Finance Ministry.

  • TRAI had recommended auctioning of the spectrum at market rates.

Raja among 12 named in 2G Scam Charge Sheet

 

Raja, his own secretary R K Chandolia, previous telecom secretary Siddharth Behura and previous MD of Swan Telecom Shahid Usman Balwa are among the 12 people and organizations charge-sheeted by the CBI in the 2G Scam. 

The charge sheet, running into 127 pages and having 88,000 annexure, was documented on Saturday under the steady gaze of judge O P Saini in the exceptional court set up for the 2G case. The organization has likewise recorded three corporate majors – Reliance Telecom, Swan Telecom, and Unitech Wireless – that supposedly profited by the preference appeared by Raja in range distribution. 

Dependence Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group’s (ADAG) overseeing chief Gautam Doshi, bunch president Surendra Pipara and VP Hari Nair have additionally been named as blamed alongside Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and Swan executive Vinod Goenka. While Raja, Chandolia, Behura and Balwa are in a correctional facility, the corporate honchos have been asked by the judge to show up under the watchful eye of the court on April 13. 

The denounced have been reserved for criminal connivance, deceiving, imitation and under different segments of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Raja and the two other community workers, Chandolia and Behura, have additionally been accused of abuse of authority position. In the charge sheet, the CBI has given a well-ordered detail of how Raja, in trick with the other blamed, caused lost Rs 30,984 crore to the state exchequer.

The CBI has affirmed that in May 2007, not long after Raja took over as telecom serve, he designated Chandolia and Behura, who was known to him, in a similar division with an expectation to incubate criminal connivance. “… Raja went into the trick with other denounced people and organizations with a reason to issue UAS licenses to Swan (as the MD, Balwa, was known to him) and furthermore to organizations advanced by Unitech, by controlling the need list based on letter of plan compliances as opposed to existing rules/routine with regards to choosing applications based on date of utilizations according to accessibility of the range,” the charge sheet peruses.

Raja even disregarded the law service’s feeling and proceeded with the slice off dates so as to help Swan and Unitech. Managing the infringement of the primary start things out serve premise strategy, the charge sheet says it was re-imagined to profit the corporate denounced. 

Role of CAG in the Case

This report for the year finished March 2010 has been set up for accommodation to the President under Article 151 of the Constitution. The report contains the consequences of the assessment by Audit of the Issue of Licenses and Allocation of 2G Spectrum of Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The review covers the period from 2003-04 to 2009-10.

Telecom Commission was not Consulted

From an investigation of the records and data made accessible it gives the idea that the High Powered Telecom Commission which additionally incorporates low maintenance individuals from the Ministry of Finance, Industry, IT and Planning Commission was not notified of the TRAI proposals of August 2007 and consequently, was not managed a chance to ponder on the benefits of the TRAI suggestions. It is likewise observed that the High Powered Telecom Commission was not counselled at the season of award of 122 UAS licenses in 2008.

What the Court said in its Verdict?

An extraordinary CBI court on Thursday vindicated each of the 18 denounced including A Raja and K Kanimozhi in 2G range assignment case. The trick became exposed very nearly seven years prior when the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG in a report considered then Telecom Minister A Raja in charge of causing the state exchequer lost Rs 1,76,379 crore by dispensing 2G range licenses at disposable costs. Yet, today the court found that the indictment neglected to demonstrate the charges. This decision, notwithstanding, doesn’t abrogate the Supreme Court judgment or detract from the way that the licenses issued during 2G range distribution were unlawful. 

The charge sheet of the moment case depends for the most part on a misreading, specific perusing, non-perusing and outside the realm of relevance perusing of the official record, Special Judge OP Saini said in his decision. The charge sheet depends on some oral proclamations made by the observers during the examination, which the observers have not possessed up in the observer box, Special Judge included. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more