This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MEMBER OF PARUAfv\ENT RAlYA SABHA
Member of Standing Committee on Information Technology Member of Consultative Committee on Finance Member of Parliamentary Forum on Youth Co-Chairman, Vigilance & Monitoring Committee, Bongolore Urban District
Dear Shri Priyadorshi,
Evidence of Illegd acts and conspiracy for issuance of new UASL licenses without bidding in 2003-2004, in violofion of the TRAI Act and Cabinet decision. Additional evidence also cited from the CAG Report of 16.11.201 0 and the Justice Shivrc] V. Patil One Man Committee (OMC) Report of 31.01.2011
This is fu rther to my letters dated on
22.12 .. 01 0 and 10,01 ,201 1, and my meeting with you 2
and undeniable which caused evidence that there were big beneficiaries loss to the Exchequer of illegal of
There is conclusive acts by TRAI/DoT Cabinet on
decision of 31.10.2003, UASL guidelines of 11.11..2003, NTP'99 as amended 11.11.2003, established procedure of multi-stage auctions, extant policy and the TRAI Act, Section 11 (1)[a)(i), Second Proviso and Section 11(1 )(0) (il, Fifth Proviso. The events and actions letter attempts leading to these issuance of licenses/spectrum in Telecom are This
often complex and it is easy for even the most informed to clarify the real situation, process of investigation doers to be identified.
to be mislead and confused.
in as simple a way as possible,
to allow the
and justice to be pursued and ALL the illegal
actions and wrong-
211 North Avenue, New Delhi- 110001 Indio Tel: + 91-11·23094044 Fax: + 91-11-23094042 E-mail: rojeev.c@nic..in
2003·04 (26 NewUAS Licenses Gran~d illegally to 4 companies).:
It seems that the prevailing view with regard to the issuance of new UAS licenses (not migration) to private companies during this period is sought to be [ustified by the potential accused/involved parties by citing the 'Note for Cabinet' - F.No.808-26/2003NAS, Sedion 2.4.6(i) and (ii), which state:
H2.4.6 Based on the above the GaM has recommended the following COUfYe ad ion: of
The scope of NTP·99 may be enhanced to provide for licensing of Unified Access Service for basic and cellular license services and Unified Licensing comprising all telecom services. Deportment of Telecommunications may be authorized fo issue necessary addendum to NTP·99 to this effect. The recommendations of TRAIwith regard to implementation of the Unified Access Licensing Regime for basic and cellular services may be accepted. DoT may be authorised to finalize the details of the implementation with the approval of the Minister of Communications & IT in this regard including calculafion of entry fee depending on the dote of paymen tr hosed on the principles given by the TRAIin its recommendations. "
The reality is this: The contention that there was a Cabinet decision which approved the grant of NEW UAS licenses is uHerly, completely fa.lse and is an aHempt to divert oHention from the real perpetrators of this iIlegol oct. To understand the seams in 2003- 2004, it is most erueia I to disti nguish, in clear terms, between (a) an existing SSO/Ilmited mobility operator and (b) a new UASL operator, specifically: i) An existing SSO/Iimited mobility operator has to be viewed on a circle-wise basis only. An existing SSG/limited mobility operator operating in, say 6 circles (e·.g. Tatas) as on 11.11.2003, does not qualify as an existing operator for the remaining circles where it did not hove a SSO license..The status of existing versus new has to be evaluated on a circle-wise basis only, TRAI recommendations of 27.10.2003, GoM approval of 30.10.2003, Cabinet decision of 31 ..10.2003 end UASL gu idelines of 11.1 1.2003 - only pertain to migration for existing SSOs/iimited mobility operators to the UASL regime. There is not a single word about new UASL operators in any of these four said docu ments/ a pprova Is.
As the CBI has cited in its charge sheet of 02.04.201
1 (Page 16/1 7), under the
TRAI' Act, Section 11 (1 )(a) (i) and (ii), Second Proviso. the Central Government needs to mandatorily seek recommendations before "new license 10 be issued to a se rvice p rcvi d er". This statu tory prov isio n co n not be ove rru n by any deci sio n of GoM, Cabinet or MoCiT /Do T officials.
as a basis of· evaluating
of the potential
parties, kindly evaluate the following
The Cabinet approved the TRAI recommendations and TRAI recommendations approved migration of existing BSO/limited mobility operators to UASL ONLY in CIRCLES where they were already licensed as 8S0s .. Cabinet note refers to "date of payment based on principles given by TRAI in its recommendations". This only refers to existing BSOs and consequently excludes new UASL applicants:
The authorization provided by the Cabinet is not unfettered. It can go neither
beyond the subject of the TRAI recommendations (bound by TRAI Act, Section 1 1(1) (a)(i), Second Proviso) nor co n it be in violation of the TRAI Act. If this authorization was meant for NEW UA5 licenses, then there would be no
calculation of entry fee depending upon the date of payment based on the principles given by TRAf'. The concept of date of payment
need/meaning to the phrase" only arises with regard to existing licensees who migrate on a circle-wise not to new UAS licensees. basis, and
A plain reading of the TRAI recommendations of 27.10.2003, Page 42, Annexure III shows that the date of payment is critical. and linked to the calculation of entry fee, but relates only to BSO operators where they seek mig ration, cirdes), and Shyam and HFCL with limited each). mobility pertaining to the circles Bha rti (6 i. e. Relia nee (1 8 ci rcles), Tatas (6 circles), (1 circle
NEW UAS licenses (i.e .. UAS ,
licenses for NEW circles), on the other hand, have no relevance to the phrase 'dote of payment'. Nor co n this be co Iculoted by the TRAI in its recommendations since the TRAI would not have known on 27.10.2003 when which new entrant will pay for which circle or enter through multi-stage biddinq etc. In conclusion, specific circles, this section which process - First
Come, First serve (FCFS) or
to mig.rating limited
and in case of Tctcs.
it is specifical'ly
to the 6 circles of
Gujarot, Maharashtra, Karnatako, Andhro Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Delhi only. The 12 NEW UAS licenses which they received in January/February 2004 are not covered by this authorization.
only refer to 'migration'or
new UASL licenses for operators: A plain reading of the TRAI recommendations, which is the basis of the GoM and Cabinet approvals of 30.10.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively, shows that the recommendations only use the words 'migration' or 'migrating' or 'existing BSOs' in 01.1 the relevant sections, including but not limited to Sections 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8,
7.12,.7.13,7.14,7.16,7.17,7.18,·7.19,7.20,721, 7.22, 7.23, 7.24,726, 7.29, 7.30, 7.31 and 7.37. There is no use of the phrase 'new unified access
license' anywhere and surely the GaM/Cabinet could not have the approved TRAI had (consequent recommended upon the statutory restrictions) for existing BSOs/CMSPs migrating beyond what to UASL.
UASL guidelines UAS licenses:
issued by DoT make no mention format
of 'new UAS
licenses'. They neither provide the application
nor the process to grant new
The entire UASl guidelines of 11.11 .. 003 relate to migration 2 for existing BSOs/limited mobility operators (which can only be on a circle-wise basis). It neither speaks about new UASlicenses nor does it prescribe a format for applying for such licenses. Most importantly, UASL guidelines of 11.11.2003 do not mention FCFS anywhere as a process for grant of new UASlicenses. That is because the guidelines were not meant to address new UAS licenses. It merely mentions that future applications will be received under the UASl regime without any hint of the format or the process/timing of allocation.
The letter by 5 hri Prod; p Ba i[o I, former TRAI C hai rma n, dated is the basis for 26 new UAS licenses -including January and April
12 to the Tatas - granted
is patently illegal:
Under the TRAI Act, the Chairman has no authority whatsoever to clarify statutory recommendations through a personal letter - that too based on a telephonic conversation guidelines - written after GoM approval" of 11.11.2003, Cabinet decision and issuance of UASL it is treated as a since neither nor can they The letter by itself is potently illegol.lf
fresh recommendation, theni! violotes Section 1 1(4) (Transparency) can such recommendations be generated without public consultation be given without being placed in the public domain.
In the current instance, there
was no consultation for new UAS licenses or even UAS licenses in the first place. Moreover, the letter of 14.11.2003 has never been placed on the TRAI website and is in fact missing from the TRAl's files - as per their reply to on RTI enquiry. This was a surreptitious move by the Chairman to benefit companies such as Totes
who had already applied for 7 new UAS licenses on 12.11..2003 in the SSO format. I am sure you are aware that the then TRAI Chairman went on to work with and consult for some of the beneficiaries of these licenses - this fact is already in the public domain. For collaborative evidence, please see CAG Report of 188.8.131.52, Sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 and the Justice Shivraj V. Patil OMC Report, Sections 2.51 ~ 2 . 55 and Section 3 . 2 (iv).
The DoT accepts that Chairman TRAi's letter is over and beyond the TRAI Recommendations approved by the Cabinet on 31.10,2003: A reading of the file notings within the DoT beginning 20.11.2003 till 24.1 1.2003 dearly shows that senior-most members of the Telecom Commission and officials of the DoT, including lega I advisors, do not ag ree with the contention that the Cabinet had authorized the grant of new UAS licenses with the approval of the then MoCiT. The handwritten note on file dated 21. 11.2003 by D(LF) (which remains uncontested on files till date) states:
"The matter was discussed in a meeting with M(P), M(F), LA(T)and DDG(LF) in the chamber of M(F) today. It emerged in that: In view of the letter doted 14th November 2003 from TRAl it is to be presumed that the entry fee for new applicants would be equal to the entry fee paid by the Iourth cellular operator and the entry fee of the existing 850 fixed by the Government (based on TRAIrecommendations) where there is no cellular operator. Further the new applications would submit P8G equivalent to tourth cellulor operator (however the quantum of PBG may need to he decided where there are no fourth cellular operator). The above is over and above the recommendations of TRAI on unified /;censing which was approved by the Cabinet as the same was about migration of only exisfing/ cellular and basic service licensees to the unified access service license. 2) It is presumed that such new licenses in the category of UASL would be on a first come/ first served basis on basis of applications submitted for consideration.
Important notes: • All the highlighted sections above show that the UASL quidelines did not prescribe even basic information such as PSG etc., and therefore, could not have been applied to new UASL operators. The basis of this note is the letter of 14.11.2003 and that leads to the presumption of entry fee. It dearly states that this is over and above the TRAI recommendations which were approved by the Cabinet os. the same was about migration of existing CMSPs, BSOs to UASL only (not new UAS licensees), Even the process for grant of such licenses i.e. FCFS has to be presumed since nothing is stated in the UASL guidelines of 11 ,11 ..2003. This note is based on the meeting of member of the Telecom Commission and is signed by DOG (LF), senior DOG (VAS), Director AS (II), Member (P), Member (F), Cha irman - Telecom Commission a nd eventually by the then MoCiT - between 21.1.2003 and 24.11.2003. Not one sinqle signatory has contradicted the handwritten note which is the basis of originating the approval for grant of new UAS licenses.
The decision to grant new UAS licenses in 2004 violates the TRAI Act, Section 11 (l)(a}(i), Second Proviso: The TRAI,Act, as cited by the CBI in its charge sheet of 02.04.2011, recognizes the need for mandatory recommendations to .be sought by the Central Government from the TRAI while issuing licenses to new service providers, By exornple, since Tatas would be considered 'new service providers' in the 12 circles, as would others who received licenses in January/Februa ry 2004, a specifico nd separate set of recommendations would have to be received as per the statute - which in turn will have to follow a process of public consultation compliant with Section 4 of the TRAI Act. Since no such consultation ever took place and no such consequent recommendations were made/placed in the public domain, any grant of licenses to 'new service providers' or 'new UASl operators' is a blatant violation of the TRAI Ad. This compliance should have been followed for all: 26 licenses granted,
Substantial evidence in the CAG Report which shows that the TRAI Chairman's letter was unauthorized, including that the TRAI recommendations of 2003 rega rd ing bldd ing of fo urthlflfth cell ulor operator we re violated: As it is well known that the fourth/fifth cellular operator, as per the TRAI recommendotions of 27.10.2003, was to enter through a process of multi-stage b.idding (Section 7.37 and 7..39). As per the DoT's own odmission (Justice Shivraj Patil OMC Report - Annexure 27, Page 313, Section 7), grant of new UAS license was nothing but the grant of new CMSP licenses.
Consequently, the then TRAI Chairman, Shri Pradip Baijal, in conspiracy with the then DoT, allowed a backdoar entry into cellular mobile telephony (under the garb of UASL) to certain operators, bypassing the process of tendering and bidding that was the norm for new cellular licenses till that point. This was in violation of the TRAI Act and while deliberately delaying implementation of the bidding for the fourth and fifth cellular mobile operator or UASL operator. So in eHect, the nomenclature was changed to grant spectrum without the auction process in blatant violation of TRAI's own recommendations and the Cabinet approval. of 27.10.2003 and 31.10.2003 respectively. Further collaborative evidence is available in the CAG Report, Chapter 3.
The OMC Report provides collaborative evidence of the violation of the TRAI Act in the grant of new UAS licenses and the benefits that accrued to these private companies: Relevant sections of the Justice Shivraj Patil OMC Report indude Sections 3.2(i)(iv), Sections 2.51 - 2.55, and most importantly Section 6.1 (i), which state:
"This apart, the decision 50 taken was not notified fa public for the benefit of all prospective applicants. Without there being any notified procedure to be followed for the grant of UASLs and without applications having been invited from all; the procedure thus formulated was applied to facilitate consideration of applications mode by Tata Tele Services limited in the forms prescribed for grant of BSLs.
said officials appear to be responsible for deviation brought out in formulation of the procedure.
Conclusion: The only set of licensees who could have legally received UAS licenses as a consequence of the TRAI Recommendations of 27.10.2003, Cabinet decision of 31 .10.2003 and UASL Gu ide lines of 11.1 1.2003, a re the 31 mig ration licenses (7 Iicensees) that have been identified in Annexure III of TRAI Recommendations of 27.10.2003 and Annexure I of UASL Guidelines of 11.11.2003. All other new UAS licenses (not migrotion) granted since January 2004 till the onnouncemenf of the new UASL Guidelines of 14.12.2005 (being investigated independently) are blotantlyillegal, and explicitly violate TRAI Act, Section 1 1(1)(aHi), Second and fifth Proviso. If this was not the case/there was no need whatsoever for both the TRAI Recommendations and the UASL Guidelines to attach such deta.iled annexures identifying the dote of payments and the additional entry fee that will need to be paid for migration to UASL in each of these 31 circles only.
In fact, the "date of payment" and resultant "calculation of entry fee" indicated in these annexures for migrating licenses directly identifies itself with the language used in the Cabinet approval of 31.10.2003, Section 2.4.6(ii) - which is being falsely cited by the potential accused to masquerade as a Cabinet approval for grant of new UAS licenses. With all the evidence above, it is clear that in 2003-04, serious illegalities were committed
to ensure UASL licenses were issued in 2004/2005 at 2001 prices - to benefit private companies, cause loss to exchequer and i-n contravention to the Cabinet approvals, Existing policy and TRAI Act. Copy of all relevant annexures I hope that the above-mentioned is being attached evidence herewith for your ready reference. that
and facts will loy to rest any impression approval.
new UAS licenses in 2003-2004 were in accordance with Cabinet were issued in violation of Cabinet approval and law. Yours Sincerely,
~~ RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR
Shri Vivek Priyodorshi Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of investigation CGO Complex Lodi Rood New Delhi
Encl. : List of Annexures and Actual Annexures
Description Letter from Shri M. S. Verma, . dated 20.02.2003 regarding operators TRAI Recommendations Cabinet Chairman Issuance TRAI to Shri Vinod Vaish, Secretary - DoT cellular mobile of licenses to additional
2 3 4
on Unified Licensing (in reality, UASL) dated 27.10.2003 for Constitution of GaM on Telecom Matters of 27.10.2003
0 Note dated 10 .. 9.2003 doted issues
Cabinet Approval . and other telecom
of TRAI Recommendations
Note from Dr. Ashok Chandra, Deputy Wireless Advisor on the subject "Group of Ministers on telecom ma Hers- SeHing up the 'Task Force' on modalities for release of spectrum for growth of telecom services'
from Shri AS. dated 11.11.2003 ';tIddendum to the New Telecom Policy-1999 (NTP-99)' Memorandum for migration
UASL Guidelines dated 11.11.2003 the Universal Access Service regime
BSOs and CMSPs to
from Shri Pradip Baijal, Cha irman-TRAl to Shri Vinod Vaish, dated 14.11.2003 separating TRAI ·Recommendations of 27.10.2003 to new unified licenses also.
Secretary-DoT as applicable
DoT File Nofings regarding granf of new UASL license based on opplicctions received after the announcement of UASl guidelines dated 11.11.2003 DoT Internal guidelines Note on Issuance of new cellular mobile licenses in face of new UASL of 11.11 .2003-equafing UASL with CMSPs by Shri Arvind Chawla, Director (BS-II) on the subject of Spectrum on First Come First Served Basis'
DoT Note dated 23.03.2001 'Procedure for Allocation
letter from TRAI dated 19.11.2003 of the on the subject "Recommendation TRAI on Issues relating to Spectrum" - referring to Shri Pradip BoijaYs leHer of 14.11.2003.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.