Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Court order dismissing Subramanian Swamy's plea against Chidambaram

Court order dismissing Subramanian Swamy's plea against Chidambaram

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17,565|Likes:
Published by ndtvonline

More info:

Published by: ndtvonline on Feb 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL. JUDGE, CBI (04)
(2G Spectrum Cases), NEW DELHI.
CC No. 01(A)/11
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja & others
04.02.2012Present: Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy in person with Sh. TarunGoomber, Mrs. (Dr.) Roxna Swamy and Sh. P. N. Mago Advocates.
ORDER:-
This order shall dispose of plea of the complainant for summoning Sh. P. Chidamabaram, the then Finance Minister, as anaccused in this case.
2.
The complainant claims to be a public spirited citizen, well versed inadvanced economics, finance and mathematics, and he is also familiar with the current legal, social and political paradigm. He further claimsthat being a law abiding citizen, he bonafide believes that it is his duty toset into motion the legal process whenever instances of grave corruptionimpinging on national interests come to his attention. It is further claimedthat the complainant wants the punishment of the offender in the interest of the society, being one of the objects behind the penal statutes for the larger good of the society.
 3.
It is alleged that accused
A. Raja
was Union Minister of Communicationsand Information Technology (he ceased to be by way of his resignationfrom the post on November 14, 2010), and other known/ unknown accusedpersons who are/ were involved in this larger conspiracy which was askulduggery to take wrongful gain for themselves and to give the wrongfulloss to the nation not only in monetary terms but also to pose a threat toIndia's national security. The above stated accused persons in connivancewith presently unnamed others and some other unknown personsdishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the nation's resources andwealth to take the wrongful gain for themselves and to give the wrongfulloss to the nation by willful misallocation of 2 G Spectrum
belonging to the
 
nation and entrusted to accused A. Raja, which was under his control as Minister of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), hence a public servant, bycorrupt or illegal means by misusing his position, as a public servant, obtained for himself and for the other accused persons pecuniary advantage. All the accusedpersons are involved in these serious and grave offences and are liable to be tried andpunished under the various provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for brief 'PCA'].
 4.
It is further alleged that the documents with the Petitioner, some of them included and published in his recent book “Corruption and CorporateGoverance in India: Satyam, Spectrum and Sundaram (Har AnandPublishers, 2009), as well as those available as public documents fromthe CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), ED (Enforcement Directorate),CVC (Central Vigilance Commissioner) and CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) and from RTI (Right to Information) applications, make out astrong prima facie case of corruption, of 
fraud and gross illegalities carried out byaccused No. 1 A. Raja [alongwith his co-conspirators] as per CAG Report
.
5.
It is further alleged that : (a) at all releavant times in 2007-2008,accused A. Raja was Union Minister of Communications and InformationTechnology. He ceased to be so when he resigned from the post onNobember 14, 2010, and which was immediately accepted by the Presidentof India on recommendation of the Prime Minister.(b) Thus, at all relevant times till resignation, accused A. Raja was a publicservant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct 1988, more particularly Section 2(c)(i) and (viii).(c) On 14.11.2010, the accused ceased to be a Union Minister and hence,no more entitled to the safeguard of Sanction under Section 19 of the PCA.
 6.
It is further alleged that the matter comes within the scope of Sections13(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the PCA. It arises primarily from the awarding byaccused A. Raja and his co-conspirators, of new Unified Access Service
 
(UAS) Licences (Licences for allotment of 2G Spectrum), to two unqualifiedand undeserving Real Estate Companies, Swan Telecom (now renamedEtisalat DB) and Unitech Wireless (renamed as Telenor operating asUninor). This arose in the following manner:(1) The Department of Telecommunications [DoT], is a department of theMinistry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, which Ministry at the relevant time in 2007-2008, was headed byaccused A. Raja.(2) On or about 24.09.2007, while inviting applications for these licences,DoT had announced that such applications would not be considered aswere made after the cut-off date of 01.10.2007.(3) The number of licence available for 2G spectrum (a scarce andextremely valuable national resource) was 122, spread over 22 serviceareas, called circles.(4) By the cut-off date, the number of applications received was 575, madeby some 41 corporations. Thus, it was necessary for DoT to evolve andexecute a fair procedure for the allotment of these 122 licences among the575 applications. Such fair procedure must necessarily promote the publicinterest.(5) DoT had also to determine and announce the price at which theselicences would be allotted. Earlier in 2001, the price prevailing had beendetermined by auction.(6) But in 2001, there had been only approximately 4 million mobiletelephones in operation, whereas by 2007-2008, the estimated number of mobiles was 350 million, and this number was growing at the rate of 10%per month.(7) Thus, obviously allotting licences on the basis of 2001 prevailing priceswould enable the allotees to make windfall profits, at the cost of the public

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
amitguin liked this
Sanjay Chetia liked this
Pawan Kumar liked this
Dhiraj K Dalal liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->