2G Court Discharge Order On Marans in Aircel-Maxis Case Feb 2, 2017

IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL.
JUDGE, CBI (04)

(2G Spectrum Cases), NEW DELHI.
CC No. 01/14
Case RC No. 22(A)-2011-CBI, ACB, New Delhi
CBI Vs. (1) Dayanidhi Maran (A-1);
(2) Kalanidhi Maran (A-2);
(3) M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited (A-5); &
(4) M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited,
Mauritius (A-8);
Order:
Reserved on: 16.11.2016
Pronounced on: 02.02.2017
Presence/ Appearance:
Sh. Anand Grover Sr. Advocate/ Special PP
with Sh. K. K. Goel & Sh. A. K. Rao Sr. PPs, IO Dy.
SP S. K. Sinha and Inspectors Shyam Prakash &
Manoj Kumar for CBI.
Sh. Kapil Sibal & Ms. Rebecca John Sr.
Advocates with Sh. Maninder Singh, Sh. Anirban
Bhattacharya, Sh. Shikher Deep Aggarwal, Sh.
Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Chahat Chawla Advocates
for accused Kalanithi Maran;
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi & Sh. R. S.
Cheema Sr. Advocates with Sh. Sushil Bajaj, Sh.
Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Ms. Tarannum
Cheema and Ms. Tannya Baranwal Advocates for
accused Dayanidhi Maran;
Sh. Parag Tripathi Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Anirban Bhattacharya, Sh. Shikher Deep Aggarwal,
Sh. Abhishek Gupta and Sh. Chahat Chawla
CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Page 1 of 424
Advocates with Authorized Representative Sh. K.
Swaminathan for accused M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited (A-5); and
Sh. Sidharth Luthra Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Neeraj Chaudhari, Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sh. Anuj
Berry and Sh. Malak Bhatt Advocates with
Authorized Representative Sh. Ajay Sehgal for
accused M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings
Limited (A-8).
ORDER ON CHARGE
This order shall dispose of the question: As to
whether, on the basis of material on record, a prima facie case
warranting framing of charge against the accused is made out
or not.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3. One Sh. C. Sivasankaran, promoter of Siva group,
has been in telecom sector since 1994, when M/s Sterling
Cellular Limited, promoted by him, was provided Cellular
Mobile Telecom Services (CMTS) licence in Delhi service area.
Sh. C. Sivasankaran had the controlling stake in Siva group of
companies including the telecom companies, through his family
members. He formed a holding company viz. M/s Aircel Tele
Ventures Limited (ATVL) in 1997. M/s ATVL had 100%
ownership of M/s Aircel Limited operating in Tamil Nadu
service area, M/s Aircel Cellular Limited (ACL) operating in
Chennai service area and also in M/s Dishnet DSL Limited
(later on M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited).

Page 2 of 424
M/s Aircel Limited launched its operations in Tamil Nadu
service area in April, 1999.
In the year 2003, M/s ATVL also acquired M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited held by joint venture of RPG (RP Goenka
group) and Vodafone (UK), which was the service provider in
Chennai telecom circle.
4. Sh. C. Sivasankaran wanted to expand his GSM
mobile business from these two service areas to other service
areas through his company M/s Dishnet DSL Limited.
Accordingly, M/s Dishnet DSL Limited applied to DoT for grant
of Unified Access Service Licences (UASLs) on 05.03.2004 in
eight service areas, that is, Assam, North-East, West Bengal,
Bihar, Orissa, MP, Himachal Pradesh and J&K. The DoT issued
Letters of Intent (LOI) on 6th April, 2004 for these eight service
areas. The company submitted compliance to the LOIs on
20.04.2004 for seven service areas.
For the remaining service area of Madhya Pradesh, the
company sought some additional time.
This company also applied for grant of UASLs for two
more service areas, that is, UP (West) and UP (East), on
21.04.2004.
The proposal for extension of time to comply with LOI for
MP service area and issuance of LOI for grant of new UASLs for
UP(E) and UP(W) service areas were de-linked from the signing
of licences for seven service areas and these seven licences were
executed on 12.05.2004.
This company, that is, Dishnet Wireless Limited, also
applied for grant of four UAS licences in Punjab, Haryana,

Page 3 of 424
Kerala and Kolkata service areas on 01.03.2005.
5. In May, 2004, there was change of Government at
Centre and Sh. Dayanidhi Maran took over as Minister of
Communications and Information Technology (MOC&IT) on
26.05.2004. Sh. Dayanidhi Maran worked as MOC&IT,
Government of India, New Delhi, during the period from
26.05.2004 to 17.05.2007.
Late Dr. J. S. Sarma worked as Additional Secretary
(Telecom) between October 2003 and November 2004. He
again joined DoT as Special Secretary on 04.06.2005 and took
over as Secretary (Telecom) on 01.07.2005 and held the office
till 16.07.2006.
6. Sh. Kalanithi Maran, brother of Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran and promoter of M/s Sun TV Networks Limited,
Chennai, which is a broadcasting company, distributing and
telecasting different TV channels in different languages since
2000, also promoted another company in the name of M/s Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited in the month of February, 2005 to
provide Direct to Home broadcasting service in India.
7. Sh. Ralph Marshall was Director of M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia, and M/s Astro All Asia
Networks Plc. UK. Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan was having the
majority shareholding in both companies.
8. In December 2005, these three companies were
allegedly sold to Maxis Communications of Malaysia. It is
alleged that the sale of these companies held by Sh. C.
Sivasankaran to M/s Maxis Communications (through its
subsidiary M/s Global Communications and a joint venture

Page 4 of 424
company named M/s Deccan Digital Networks (P) Limited
formed between Indian partner M/s Sindya Securities and M/s
Global Communications) was with the intervention of Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran.
9. It is alleged that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT, in abuse of his official position, deliberately delayed
grant of UAS licences in seven service areas and other
approvals/ permissions on various issues pending before
Department of Telecommunications (DoT) related to Aircel
Tele Ventures Limited on frivolous grounds with an intent to
force its exit from telecom business by constricting its business
environment.
10. It is alleged that after the change of ownership, the
applications for issuance of licences and other requests/
approvals pending since long before the DoT were smoothly
acceded to and after such transfer undue favour was given to
these companies, for which alleged illegal gratification was paid
through the companies of Sh. Kalanithi Maran.
11. The details of delay in grant of LOIs, UAS Licences
and other approvals, acquisition of telecom companies of Sh. C.
Sivasankaran by Maxis Communications, Malaysia, smooth
approvals, post-acquisition by Maxis Communication and
payment and receipt of bribe are as under:
A. Allegations relating to delay
12. It is alleged that the grant of LOIs, extension of time
in MP service area and various other regulatory approvals of
M/s Aircel Limited, M/s Dishnet DSL Limited and M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited were delayed on frivolous grounds. The details

Page 5 of 424
of such delays are given as under:
(i) Delay in grant of LOIs for award of UASL in UP(E) and
UP(W) and grant of extension of time of signing licence
agreements in MP service area to M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited
13. It is alleged that DoT had issued LOI for Unified
Access Service Licence (UASL) for eight telecom service areas
including Madhya Pradesh in favour of M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited (a Siva group company) on 06.04.2004. UAS licence
agreements in respect of seven service areas were executed on
12.05.2004. However, licence agreement in respect of Madhya
Pradesh service area was not executed.
14. It is further alleged that M/s Dishnet DSL Limited
submitted a letter dated 20.04.2004 requesting for extension of
time by 90 days from 20.04.2004 required to fulfill the
formalities of bank guarantee to sign the licence agreement in
Madhya Pradesh service area. This application was processed in
file No. 20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol. III).
submitted applications dated 21.04.2004 for grant of UAS
Licences for UP (East) and UP (West) service areas. These
applications were also processed in file No. 20-231/2003-BS-
III (Vol. III). DoT officials examined the applications and
recommended for approval for issue of LOI to M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited for award of UASL in respect of UP (E) and UP (W)
service areas and for grant of extension of time by 90 days for
signing the licence agreements in respect of MP service area.
Sh. Nripendra Misra, Secretary, DoT concurred with the

Page 6 of 424
proposal and marked the file to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT, for approval on 13.07.2004. In spite of the
unanimous recommendations, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, instead of
according approval, raised objections and sought clarification
through his PS Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy on 26.08.2004.
16. It is further alleged that M/s Bharti Airtel Limited
and M/s Reliance Infocomm Limited had submitted
applications dated 15.04.2004 and 24.06.2004 respectively for
grant of UAS licence for Assam and J&K service areas, which
were approved by accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT, on 22.06.2004 without raising queries and, as such,
the queries raised by accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on the
proposal of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited for grant of licences in
UP (E) and UP (W) and grant of extension of time for signing of
UAS licence agreement were with dishonest intention and
against the DoT guidelines.
(ii) Delay in grant of approval for change in equity of M/s

Aircel Limited and taking on record name change of
Srinivas Computers Limited.
17. It is alleged that M/s Aircel Limited (a Siva group
company) was having a CMTS licence in Tamil Nadu service
area in 2004. M/s Aircel Limited applied for approval for
change in equity structure consequent upon sale/ transfer of
shares of M/s Aircel Digilink Limited (ADIL) vide request letter
dated 28/29 June 2004. This application was processed in file
No. 842-325/2000-VAS.
18. It is further alleged that M/s Aircel Limited also

Page 7 of 424
sent letters dated 21.06.2004 and 22.06.2004 to DoT for
change of name of the promoter namely from Srinivas
Computers Limited to M/s Aircel Televentures Limited. M/s
Srinivas Computers Limited was having 100% equity shares in
M/s Aircel Limited and 79.24% in M/s Aircel Cellular Limited.
Copies of above referred letters were also processed in the
above referred file. The applications were examined by DoT
officials till Secretary (T) and all recommended for approval of
the proposals of the company to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. When
the file reached the Minister on 27.08.2004, he instead of
approving the unanimous recommendations returned the file to
Secretary (T) through his PS Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy on
15.09.2004 mentioning that there are many inter related issues
between mergers and acquisitions, licensing, FDI and FII
investments in holding companies and their sister concerns. An
overall view on issues arising in such cases needs to be taken
before a decision can be taken. All the inter-related issues
mentioned above pertaining to the case being dealt in the below
mentioned files be examined and a consolidated note
submitted:
(i) F. No. 842-21/2001-VAS (Vol. III)
(ii) F. No. 842-325/2000-VAS
(iii) F. No. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I)
(iv) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III
19. It is further alleged that accused Dayanidhi Maran
dishonestly directed that this consolidated note be put up by
(Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Additional Secretary (T). It is
further alleged that Additional Secretary (T) was not in the

Page 8 of 424
chain of officers through whom the file of Licensing Division
had to move. Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma in connivance with
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran put up a note, as desired by him,
on 30.11.2004 (after a gap of about 75 days). He, contrary to the
recommendations of the Licensing Division officers and the
Secretary (T), recommended that before granting the UAS
licenses to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited, DoT may await the
decision on TDSAT on the issue of vigilance cases and penalties
imposed by DoT on Dishnet. Consequently, as per the
directions of Secretary (T), a legal opinion on the comments of
accused Dr. J. S. Sarma was obtained from Sh. O. P. Nahar,
Legal Advisor (T), on 11.01.2005 who, inter alia, opined that
DoT had withdrawn its own letter of imposition of penalty so
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited cannot be faulted on this count and
denial of LOIs/ licence will not withstand legal scrutiny.
20. In view of the above referred legal opinion dated
11.01.2005, DoT officials again recommended for taking on
record the change of name of promoter from M/s Srinivas
Computers Limited to M/s Aircel Televentures Limited and also
recommended that the transfer of 100% equity of M/s Aircel
Limited to M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited may be taken on
record as all the licence conditions and other guidelines in this
regard are being made. Sh. N. Misra, Secretary (T), concurred
with the recommendation and sent the file for approval to
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 24.01.2005.
21. Despite such legal opinion dated 11.01.2005,
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran dishonestly did not grant the
approval, and instead returned the file through his PS Sh. K.

Page 9 of 424
Sanjay Murthy on 03.03.2005 mentioning that reports on
mergers and acquisitions were awaited. It is further alleged that
no such report on mergers and acquisitions was awaited at that
point of time. A report on the subject had already been
submitted by accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma on 30.11.2004.
After having the legal opinion, there was no good reason for not
granting the approvals sought by M/s Aircel Limited (a Siva
group company). It was a clear manifestation of the dishonest
intention and abuse of the official position by the accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran.
(iii) Change of name from M/s Dishnet DSL Limited to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Limited
22. It is alleged that M/s Dishnet DSL Limited applied
for change in name of the company from M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited to M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited 21.07.2004. The
application was processed in file No. 20-225/04/Genl.-
Mts./Dishnet/BS-III. The DoT officials recommended to take
on record the change in name. Sh. Nripendra Misra, Secretary
(T), concurred and sent the file to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
for approval on 01.10.2004 who dishonestly did not grant
approval and send the file to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma,
Additional Secretary (T), through his PS Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy
stating that The issues pertaining to this case are similar to
the issues being examined for preparation of a consolidated
note bringing out the interrelated issues between mergers and
acquisitions, licensing, FDI and FII investment in holding
companies and their sister concerns. The issues arising from
this case may also be incorporated in the consolidated note

Page 10 of 424
being prepared.
23. Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma as discussed above
had prepared a note on 30.11.2004 and on the same date he
marked the file to Secretary (T)/ MOC&IT. Instead of
approving the simple request of taking on record the change of
name of company (approval had already been there from ROC),
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran dishonestly sent this file, alongwith three
other files pertaining to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited on
03.03.2005 to Secretary (T) for re-examination if there was
undue haste in processing the case earlier.
(iv) Delay in grant of UASL for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and
Kolkata
24. It is alleged that M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited had
applied for grant of UASL for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and
Kolkata service areas on 1st March 2005. These applications
were processed in file No. 20-231/2005-BS-III. Sh. A. R.
Devarajan, AD (BS-III), put up a note on 09.03.2005
recommending for issue of LOI in favour of M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited for the said four service areas. After some
clarifications regarding foreign equity pattern, the request for
grant of UASLs in the four service areas was kept pending
because of the mala fide direction of accused Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran to link show cause notices and advisories to the grant of
UASLs. This direction was conveyed through Sh. Nripendra
Misra in file No. 20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol. III) on 30.03.2005.
(v) Delay in Spectrum Allocation to M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited in Bihar Telecom Circle
25. It is alleged that prior to 31.01.2005, cases for

Page 11 of 424
frequency assignments were being approved by Joint Wireless
Advisor/ Deputy Wireless Advisor. However, accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran directed that cases related to frequency
assignments for telecom service providers and terrestrial
broadcasting and uplinking of satellite TV channels should be
submitted to him for approval through Member (T) and
Secretary (T). Accordingly, a note dated 31.01.2005 was issued
under the signature of Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary
(T), in this regard. Accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran later on
directed that the cases related to frequency assignments should
be submitted via Member (T) to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma,
Special Secretary (T), for approval. Accordingly, a note dated
16.06.2005 was issued under the signature of accused (Late)
Dr. J. S. Sarma, Special Secretary (T) modifying the orders
dated 31.01.2005 issued under the signature of Sh. Nripendra
Misra.
submitted application dated 24.05.2004 for allocation of GSM
spectrum in Bihar service area. This application was processed
in file No. L-14047/02/2004-NTG. DoT officials including
Wireless Advisor and Member (T) recommended for
earmarking 4.4+4.4 MHz spectrum in all 37 districts in Bihar to
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited and the file was sent to accused Late
Dr. J. S. Sarma, who was competent to approve the allotment of
startup spectrum on 17.06.2005. Accused Late Dr. J. S. Sarma,
in connivance with Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, did not approve the
proposal and sent back the file to Sh. P. K. Garg, the then
Wireless Advisor on 28.06.2005 mentioning that there was

Page 12 of 424
another file on the same subject and also directed to put up a
consolidated note. DoT officials including Wireless Advisor and
Member (T) again recommended for earmarking of initial
4.4+4.4 MHz spectrum in 1800 MHz to M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited and sent the file to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, by
then he was promoted to the rank of Secretary (T) on
13.07.2005. Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma instead of according
approval raised frivolous query with regard to the stage of
network planning and again sent back the file to Sh. P. K. Garg,
Wireless Advisor, on 26.07.2005. It is further alleged that
accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma instructed Sh. P. K. Garg to get
the complete information about network planning and
identification of sites etc. and then put up the file again to him
(Dr. J. S. Sarma) only when the former would call for the same.
Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma called for the file only in January
2006 when Sh. C. Sivasankaran sold the company to M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia and the file was approved on
03.02.2006.
(vi) Delay in allocation of additional spectrum to M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited in Chennai metro
27. It is alleged that M/s Aircel Cellular Limited sent a
letter dated 11.07.2005 to Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless Advisor,
intimating that their VLR subscriber base has crossed 5 lacs
and requested for allotment of 1.8 MHz + 1.8 MHz of
contiguous band for both uplink and downlink communication
in the GSM 1800 MHz band. This letter was processed in file
No. L-14043/3/2005-NTG with unanimous positive
recommendations of officials of WPC wing of DoT. The file was

Page 13 of 424
sent to Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless Advisor, on 23.07.2005.
28. It is further alleged that Sh. P. K. Garg kept the said
file pending with him at the verbal instructions of accused
(Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma. Eventually, the additional spectrum to
M/s Aircel Cellular Limited was allocated by accused Late Dr. J.
S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T), on 19.01.2006, that is, after
sale of M/s Aircel Cellular Limited to M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia.
(vii) Representations submitted by the company
29. It is alleged that various issues of M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited were pending with DoT. Hence, M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited submitted two representations dated 17.08.2005 and
30.09.2005 to Dr. J. S. Sarma, Chairman, Telecom Commission
& Secretary (T), seeking redressal of the representations. These
representations were processed in file No. 20-231/2005-BS-III.
Accused Late Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T), marked
the file to Sh. Yashwant Bhave, the then Additional Secretary
(T), for comments on 15.09.2005 who offered his comments on
05.06.2006, that is, after a gap of about 216 days. The
statement of Sh. Yashwant Bhave has been got recorded under
Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in which he has
categorically stated that he held the file with him on the oral
directions of accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma.
(viii) Delay in grant of approval to (a) change of name from
RPG Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited;
(b) to approve the purchase of 20.76% shareholding of
foreign partner namely M/s Siva Cellular Holdings
Limited in Aircel Televentures Limited by Aircel

Page 14 of 424
Televentures Limited to make it 100% Indian company;
(c) taking on record the name change from Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited.
30. It is alleged that M/s Aircel Cellular Limited made a
request vide letter dated 26.02.2004 to DoT for taking on
record the change of name from RPG Cellular Services Limited
to M/s Aircel Cellular Limited. The applicant enclosed a copy of
fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of
name issued by Registrar of Companies, Chennai, on
23.01.2004.
31. M/s Aircel Cellular Limited submitted an
application dated 21.06.2004 to DoT mentioning that Sterling
Infotech Group (SIG) holds 100% stake in Aircel Cellular
Limited as under:
(a) 79.24% of the shares of ACL is held by Aircel Televentures
Limited
(b) 20.76% of the shares of ACL is held by Siva Cellular
Holdings Limited, formerly Airtouch International
(Mauritius) Limited
32. The applicant further mentioned that ATVL is
buying the entire 20.76% of ACL's equity held by SCHL and for
which ATVL had already obtained the approval from Reserve
Bank of India. It further mentions that ATVL now holds 100%
of the equity share capital of ACL. The applicant requested DoT
to take note of it and update the records accordingly.
33. M/s Aircel Televentures Limited submitted an
application dated 21.06.2004 to DoT mentioning that the name
of Srinivas Computers Limited has been changed to Aircel

Page 15 of 424
Televentures Limited w.e.f 28.04.2004. A copy of fresh
certificate of incorporation dated 28.04.2004 issued by ROC,
Chennai, was also enclosed with the application. The applicant
requested for taking on record the name change from Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited. M/s Aircel
Cellular submitted an application dated 28.06.2004 to DoT
requesting for approval for change of equity in Aircel Cellular
Limited. M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (ADIL) was the
proposed equity holder.
34. The above referred request letters were examined in
file No. 842-21/01-VAS-III by the DoT officers and the file was
sent to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 14.01.2005 with unanimous
recommendation for approval of the aforesaid proposals.
However, accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran dishonestly did not
grant approval and the file was returned on 03.03.2005 by Sh.
K. Sanjay Murthy, PS to MOC&IT, to Secretary (T) with the
remark that reports on mergers and acquisitions are awaited. It
is further alleged that M/s Aircel Cellular Limited vide its letter
dated 07.03.2005 informed the DoT that they are withdrawing
the application for change of shareholding pattern with
immediate effect.
35. The aforesaid requests were again processed and
submitted for approval and the file was sent to accused (Late)
Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T), on 06.09.2005 for
approval, who raised certain queries on 20.09.2005, which
were complied with by the DoT officers and the file was again
put up to him on 01.10.2005. Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma
desired a discussion with Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, the then Advisor

Page 16 of 424
(P), and after having discussion directed to prepare a brief
consolidated note which was complied with and the file was
again put up to him through Advisor (P) on 09.11.2005. Then,
accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma approved the above referred
three recommendations on 10.11.2005. The delay caused in
giving the approvals to the aforesaid proposals is a clear
manifestation of the conspiracy hatched by the accused
persons.
(ix) Delay in provisioning of POIs by BSNL to M/s Dishnet
DSL Limited
36. It is alleged that provisioning of Point of
Interconnects (POIs) by BSNL to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited was
delayed for a period of three to seven months in Himachal
Pradesh (7 months), NE-I (3 months) and Orissa (3 months)
service areas due to an email dated 06.05.2005 of Sh. Mahipal
Singh, joint DDG (Regulation 1), BSNL Corporate Office, New
Delhi. Sh. Mahipal Singh and Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then DDG,
took plea that the aforesaid email dated 06.05.2005 was sent at
the advice of Sh. A. K. Sinha, the then CMD, BSNL. There is no
such written instruction on the file from Sh. A. K. Sinha, who
denied having given any such instructions to Sh. K. S. Guliani,
orally or in writing. However, the statements of Sh. Mahipal
Singh and Sh. K. S. Guliani have been got recorded under
Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. Both Sh. K. S. Guliani
and Sh. Mahipal Singh have stated before the Magistrate that
the instructions to withhold the POIs of M/s Dishnet Wireless
Limited were issued at the instance of Sh. A. K. Sinha, the then
CMD, BSNL, as Sh. Dayanidhi Maran would be furious if

Page 17 of 424
provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited is done.
37. However, there is no documentary evidence to
prove the allegation that email dated 06.05.2005 was sent to
the field offices of BSNL which led to delay in POI connection to
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited at the instance of Sh. A. K. Sinha.
Files being called by the Minister

38. It is further alleged that accused Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran verbally called for the files of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited
in which LOIs for eight service areas for grant of UAS Licence
were approved and the file for change of name of the company,
for perusal through his PS on 21.12.2004. Accordingly, the
following files were sent to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
through Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T), on
24.12.2004:
(i) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III (containing the grant of
LOIs for eight initial circles to M/s Dishnet
DSL Limited)
(ii) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III/Pt
(iii) F. No. 20-225/04-Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III
(containing the application of M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited for taking on record the name change)
39. These files remained with accused Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran till 30.03.2005 and thereafter he dishonestly linked the
grant of UAS licence to the show cause notices/ advisory letters
issued to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited or its group companies.
40. It is further alleged that on the date of linking the
issuance of UAS licence with show cause notices/ advisories,
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran was aware of the fact that Sh. O.
P. Nahar, the then Legal Advisor (T), had already given a legal

Page 18 of 424
opinion dated 11.01.2005 in the matter which stipulated that
the defaults in one licence could not hamper grant of other
licences.
Case of Essar Spacetel (P) Limited

41. It is further alleged that M/s Essar Spacetel (P)
Limited filed applications for grant of UAS Licences for Assam,
Bihar, Orissa, HP, J&K, North-East and Madhya Pradesh
service areas in the month of December 2004. These
applications were being processed in file No. 20-231/2004-BS-
III (Vol. 4). These applications were thoroughly examined by
DoT officials and were found in order. Sh. B. Sivaramakrishnan,
Member (P), also examined the case and on 01.07.2005
reported that in case of another company namely M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited the LOI of new licences have not been given
on account of similar reasons. He opined that issuance of LOI
for UASL should not be linked with the violations in other
agreements. He recommended that a view may be that the LOI
need not be held up in such cases wherein parallel action is
already going on the erring companies with regard to licence
conditions violations and actions will necessarily be taken as
per the final decisions that will be arrived at. This view was in
consonance with the legal opinion dated 11.01.2005 of Sh. O. P.
Nahar, LA (T), obtained in the matter of M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited. Sh. B. Sivaramakrishnan, Member (P), marked his
note to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, Secretary (T), who
desired a discussion. Accordingly, a discussion took place in the
chamber of accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma on 22.07.2005 which

Page 19 of 424
was also attended by Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS). During
discussion, the case of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited was also
referred to and the legal advice dated 11.01.2005 of Sh. O. P.
Nahar was apprised to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma. However,
accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma dishonestly did not concur with
the view of Sh. B. Sivaramakrishnan, Member (P), and directed
to have the details of all show cause notices/ advisory letters
issued to sister concerns of applicant company and nature of
default. This direction of accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma was
recorded by Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), on 25.07.2005 and VAS
cell was directed to do the needful in the matter.
42. The direction of accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma was
with dishonest intention and in connivance with accused
Dayanidhi Maran, since if he would have concurred with the
view of Sh. B. Sivaramakrishnan, Member (P), for the issuance
of LOI to M/s Essar Spacetel (P) Limited, it would have positive
impact on the pending applications for UASL of M/s Dishnet
DSL Limited.
Guidelines for Unified Access Service Licence: Non-
compliance
43. It is alleged that a guideline for Unified Access
Services Licence was issued vide order No. 808-26/2003-VAS
dated 11.11.2003. This guideline does not stipulate linking show
cause notices or advisory issued to the applicant company or its
sister concern or its associates from the processing of grant of
any further UAS licences in other service areas or processing of
any request such as change of name etc. It is further alleged
that the format of basic service licence application was adopted

Page 20 of 424
for processing of application of grant of new UAS licence. The
time limit prescribed for processing of application of basic
services was inherently adopted. The guideline for grant of
Basic Services was issued by DoT on 25.01.2001 with the
approval of the then MOC&IT. As per clause 12 of the said
guideline dated 25.01.2001, the application was to be decided
so far as practicable, within 15 days of the submission of the
application and the applicant company should be informed
accordingly.
44. The guideline dated 11.11.2003 for grant of UASL
was revised with the approval of accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
on 13.12.2005. It also does not stipulate linking show cause
notices or advisory issued to the applicant company or its sister
concern or its associates from the processing of grant of any
further UAS licenses in other service areas or processing of any
request such as change of name etc. On the other hand, such
applications were to be decided within 30 days of the
submission of the application as far as practicable. It is alleged
that accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and accused Late Dr. J. S.
Sarma dishonestly and fraudulently violated the guidelines for
issuance of UAS Licences.
B. Allegations relating to transfer/ acquisition of

companies by Maxis
Constricted business environment and pressure to sell
45. It is alleged that no regulatory approvals for various
issues of M/s Aircel Limited/ M/s Dishnet DSL Limited were
forthcoming from DoT which led to constricting the business

Page 21 of 424
environment for Siva group of companies. Besides, accused
Dayanidhi Maran and his brother accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran
also put pressure on Sh. C. Sivasankaran to exit from telecom
business completely.
Contact by Standard Chartered Bank and negotiations

46. It is alleged that the Standard Chartered Bank (SCB)
had been assisting M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia
to acquire telecom business in India since middle of 2004. It is
further alleged that M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia
was interested to look at an acquisition of M/s Aircel Limited.
M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia in consultation
with SCB prepared a draft offer for M/s Aircel Limited. SCB
contacted and discussed the offer with Sh. C. Sivasankaran,
promoter of Siva Group. SCB got the feedback from Sh. C.
Sivasankaran through an e-mail dated 17.10.2005. The key
points of the feedback were as under:-
(a) Needs a discussion with Ralph Marshall of Maxis to
ascertain whether the blessings has been received for
regulatory approvals.
(b) Valuation expectation of US$850 million enterprise
value.
47. From the said email, it is apparent that Sh. C.
Sivasankaran had a concern with regard to regulatory
approvals. Sh. C. Sivasankaran met accused Sh. Ralph Marshall
of Maxis in Kuala Lumpur on 04.11.2005. Accused Sh. Ralph
Marshall conveyed to Sh. C. Sivasankaran that he had full
support of accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and it is in his interest

Page 22 of 424
to 100% stake in the company to M/s Maxis Communications
Berhad. Sh. C. Sivasankaran mentioned that he had no desire to
sell more than 74% stake and that is also the law of India that
no foreign company can buy more than 74% stake in Indian
telecom company. Sh. C. Sivasankaran also spoke to promoter
and owner of M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia,
namely Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan who also mentioned on pone
that he was very close to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and his
brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran, and advised Sh. C. Sivasankaran
to follow the instructions of accused Sh. Augustus Ralph
Marshall and Maran brothers.
48. Thereafter, negotiations between M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia and M/s Aircel Limited stated
taking place. Sh. V. Srinivasan of Siva group sent an email
dated 10.11.2005 to Sh. Ralph Marshall. It reads as under:
'We will transfer the available licences and frequency
spectrum on an as is where is basis on closing. We will have
no obligations to procure the balance licences of frequency
spectrum. For the avoidance of doubt, we have clarified that
obtaining regulatory approvals is the Buyer's responsibility.'
49. It is further alleged that Siva group did not want to
take the responsibility of obtaining regulatory approvals as
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran had choked the business
environment for Siva group of companies.
Intervention by Maran brothers

50. It is alleged that accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran called
Sh. C. Sivasankaran to his office in Chennai on 12.11.2005. This

Page 23 of 424
meeting was organized by accused Sh. Ralph Marshall. Accused
Sh. Kalanithi Maran asked Sh. C. Sivasankaran to sell 100%
stake in M/s Aircel Limited to M/s Maxis Communications
Bhd., Malaysia. Sh. C. Sivasankaran pleaded mentioning about
the government rules and also it was in his interest to keep 26%
equity so that he could participate in the growth of the
company. Sh. Kalanithi Maran said that M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia, would find the Indian partner
who would hold 26% stake. During the meeting on 12.11.2005,
accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran also mentioned that his brother
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran will call him. Later in the evening, Sh. C.
Sivasakaran received a call on his mobile phone from Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, who told him in no uncertain terms that he
had no choice but to sell 100% stake in M/s Aircel Limited, M/s
Aircel Cellular Limited and M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited to
M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia as nothing else
would meet with his approval.
Structure of companies to be sold

51. The structure of telecom companies of Sh.
Sivasankaran at the time of their proposed acquisition/
acquisition by M/s Maxis Communications Bhd. was as under:
Aircel Televentures Limited
100%
Aircel Limited
100% 100%

Page 24 of 424
Aircel Cellular Limited Dishnet Wireless Limited
Negotiations with Ralph Marshall and signing of agreements

52. It is further alleged that on the same day, that is,
12.11.2005, in the evening Sh. C. Sivasankaran met accused Sh.
Augustus Ralph Marshall at Club Lounge of Taj Coromandel
Hotel, Chennai. During the meeting, accused Sh. Augustus
Ralph Marshall confirmed that the sale had to be for 100%
equity stake in Aircel Limited, Aircel Cellular Limited and
Dishnet Wireless Limited and Maxis would on their own
identify an Indian partner to hold 26% equity. It is further
alleged that on 16.11.2005, accused Sh. Ralph Marshall of Maxis
sent four final offers to Sh. C. Sivasankaran and asked him to
choose one from them. The final offers were as under:
Parameters Final offer Final offer Final offer Final offer
(US $ m) A B C D
Upfront Buyer
Investment
Money paid to 520 800 900 800
seller
Money into 280 280 - -
company
Total 800 1080 900 800
investment
Other payments Call/Put Upside sharing - Free Warrants
to Buyer to options, if
Seller exercised
% Buyer 74% 100% 100% 100%
ownership after
transaction
% Seller 26% 0% 0% 0%
ownership after
transaction

Page 25 of 424
53. Sh. Srinivasan vide an email dated 18.11.2005 to
SCB confirmed the acceptance of offer B and also forwarded a
draft of the Share Purchase Agreement.
54. It is further alleged that the agreement for sale of
100% equity of M/s Aircel Televentures Limited (ATVL) in M/s
Aircel Limited was signed with M/s Maxis Communications
Bhd., Malaysia on 26.12.2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The
agreement came to be effective from 30.12.2005. Sh. V.
Srinivasan signed the said agreement on behalf of ATVL and
accused Sh. Ralph Marshall signed on behalf of M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia.
At the time of signing the agreements in Kuala Lumpur,
M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia informed Sh. C.
Sivasankaran that 26% equity of M/s Aircel Limited would be
held by M/s Sindya Securities and Investments (P) Limited, a
company owned and controlled by Ms. Suneeta Reddy and her
husband Sh. Dwarkanath Reddy of Apollo group.
Investment made by M/s Maxis Communications Bhd.,

Malaysia
55. It is alleged that M/s Global Communications
Services Holdings Limited (GCSHL), Mauritius, (a 100%
subsidiary of M/s Maxis) had subscribed to 26% equity in M/s
Aircel Limited on 5th January 2006 under automatic route for a
consideration of US$ 280 million into the company. It is
further alleged that upon receipt of FIPB approval, M/s GCSHL
directly acquired further 39% equity stake in M/s Aircel
Limited on 21.03.2006 from ATVL by paying consideration of

Page 26 of 424
US$ 422 million (Rs. 1881.02 crore) to ATVL.
56. It is further alleged that M/s Deccan Digital
Networks (P) Limited, which was a joint venture between M/s
GCSHL, Mauritius, and M/s Sindya Securities and Investments
(P) Limited (the Indian partner of M/s Maxis Communications
Bhd., Malaysia) acquired 35% equity stake in M/s Aircel
Limited on 21.03.2006 by paying a consideration of US$ 378
million (Rs. 1684.89 crore) to ATVL. The funding of the
investment by M/s Deccan Digital Networks (P) Limited in M/s
Aircel Limited is given below:
i) M/s GCSPL- US$ 2.57 million (towards 25.714 % equity
shares in M/s Deccan Digital Networks (P) Limited,
which indirectly gives 8.999% equity stake in M/s Aircel
Limited
ii) M/s Sindya Securities & Investments (P) Limited- US$
7.43 million (towards 74.286% equity shares in M/s
Deccan Digital Networks (P) Limited, which indirectly
gives 26.001% equity stake in M/s Aircel Limited
iii) M/s South Asia Communication (P) Limited (a 100%
subsidiary of M/s GCSHL, Mauritius)- US$ 368 million
(towards subscription of non-convertible redeemable
preference shares in M/s Deccan Digital Networks (P)
Limited
This structure provides M/s GCSHL, Mauritius, an equity
share of 73.999% in M/s Aircel Limited and an economic
interest of 99.3% in M/s Aircel Limited.
57. It is further alleged that FIPB approval was granted
on 13.03.2006 by the then Finance Minister and a letter dated

Page 27 of 424
20.03.2006 was sent to M/s Aircel Limited conveying the
approvals of the Government to M/s Global Communications
Services Holdings Limited, Mauritius. It is further alleged that
Finance Minister was competent to accord approval on project
proposals up to Rs. 600 crore and beyond that it requires the
approval of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). In
the instant case, the approval for FDI of 800 million USD was
sought. Hence, CCEA was competent to grant approval.
However, it was not obtained. It is further alleged that M/s
Aircel Cellular Limited and M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited (both
wholly owned subsidiaries of M/s Aircel Limited) was also
granted confirmatory FIPB approval taking note of the
aggregate FDI of 73.99% in Aircel Cellular Limited and in
Dishnet Wireless Limited. The approval was conveyed by letter
dated 20.10.2006 of FIPB unit, Department of Economic
Affairs, New Delhi.
C. Allegations relating to smooth approvals

58. It is alleged that after execution of the agreement for
sale, there was change of attitude of accused (Late) Dr. J. S.
Sarma and accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran towards the various
pending applications for UAS licences and other proposals of
the companies and regulatory approvals were acceded to
thereafter. The details thereof are as under:
(i) De-linking of show cause notices
59. It is alleged that accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, the
then Secretary (T), took steps for delinking show cause notices
from the processing the applications for grant of new licence at

Page 28 of 424
the end of December, 2005, that is, after the negotiations for
sale of M/s Aircel Limited to M/s Maxis Communications Bhd.,
was concluded. It is further alleged that as per oral directions of
accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, a proposal for delinking show
cause notices from the processing of applications of grant of
new licence was initiated on 27.12.2005 by Sh. R. K. Gupta,
ADG (BS-III) in file No. 20-231/2005/BS-III/Vol. II. He
prepared a self contained note explaining different pending
applications of different companies and reasons of pendency,
the legal opinion suggesting that linking of licences with show
cause notices will not withstand legal scrutiny.
60. It is also alleged that accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma
directed to have a discussion which took place on 13.01.2006. It
was chaired by Secretary, (DoT), and attended by other DoT
officials. It was felt that processing of application for grant of
new licences should be delinked from show cause notices or
explanation called for or any other advisory issued to that
company or any other sister/ group company in respect of any
other licence. Accordingly, Sh. P. K. Mittal put up a note on
19.01.2006. Thereafter, the said note was seen and signed by
other DoT officials including accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma,
Secretary (T). The said file containing the proposal for
delinking was sent to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on
27.01.2006. It remained pending till 16.05.2006 when Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran approved the proposal for delinking the
process of UASL from the show cause notices. It is further
alleged that M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia,
obtained FIPB approval on 20.03.2006 and accused Sh. T.

Page 29 of 424
Ananda Krishnan and other officials of M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., visited Chennai and inspected the office
of M/s Aircel Limited on 30.01.2006.
61. It is further alleged that the decision to delink the
processing of application for grant of new licences from show
cause notices or explanation called for or any other advisory
issued to that company or any other sister/ group company in
respect of any other licence was taken on the strength of legal
opinion dated 11.01.2005 of Sh. O. P. Nahar, the then LA (T).
This legal opinion dated 11.01.2005 was already brought to the
notice of accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 24.01.2005, which
was dishonestly and fraudulently ignored by accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran in order to delay the grant of UAS Licences to
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited. It is further alleged that accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran granted approvals for UAS Licences to M/s
Dishnet DSL Limited in seven service areas and other pending
issues after its acquisition by M/s Maxis Communications Bhd.,
Malaysia. The details are as under:
(ii) Approval granted for issue of LOI to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited after acquisition by M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd.
62. It is alleged that M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited and
M/s Aircel Cellular Limited obtained confirmatory FIPB
approval on 20.10.2006. Thereafter, Sh. R. K. Gupta, the then
ADG (AS-I), initiated a note on 08.11.2006 in file No. 20-
231/2003-BS-III (Vol III) mentioning that on 16.05.2006, the
then MOC&IT has approved the issue of delinking from the
show cause notices for explanation called for or any other

Page 30 of 424
advisory issued to the applicant company or any other sister/
group company in respect of any other licence. He
recommended for approval for issue of LOI to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited for award of UASL in respect of Punjab,
Haryana, Kerala, Kolkata, UP(E) and UP(W). He also
recommended for amendment to the LOI issued on 20.04.2004
to M/s Dishnet in respect of MP.
63. The file was sent to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
for approval by the then Secretary (T) on 21.11.2006 and the
approval was granted on 22.11.2006.
(iii) Approval granted for taking on record for change of name
from M/s Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet Wireless
Limited
64. It is alleged that Sh. S. A. Malik, AD (BS-III),
initiated a note on 29.06.2006 in file No. 20-225/04-Genl Mts/
Dishnet/BS-III mentioning that M/s Dishnet DSL Limited has
changed its name to M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited. He further
mentioned that the issue of change of name is long pending
because it got linked with issue of new UAS licences where an
overall view on the inter-related issues between merger and
acquisition, licensing, FDI and FII investment in holding
companies and their sister concerns was to be taken. He further
mentioned that AS (T) returned all the linked files for further
necessary action on 05.06.2006. He recommended that the
change of name of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited may be taken on record. The file was sent to
accused late Dr. J. S. Sarma, who approved the same on
30.06.2006.

Page 31 of 424
(iv) Approval granted to take on record change of name of the
promoter (of M/s Aircel Limited) M/s Srinivas
Computers Limited to M/s Aircel Televentures Limited
65. It is alleged that Sh. A. K. Dhar, ADG (VAS-I),
initiated a note dated 03.11.2005 in file No. 842-325/2000-
VAS mentioning that M/s Aircel Televentures Limited,
promoter of M/s Aircel Limited had applied for change of name
of the promoter, M/s Srinivas Computers Limited to M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited. The Registrar of Companies, Chennai,
had issued the certificate on 28.04.2004 and the company
intimated this change by letter dated 21/22.06.2004. He also
mentioned that the company had also requested for transfer of
its entire 100% equity to M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited.
However, subsequently the company withdrew its application
for transfer of its 100% equity to M/s Aircel Digilink India
Limited.
66. The file was sent to accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma
on 09.11.2005, who approved the proposal of change of name of
the promoter from M/s Srinivas Computers Limited to M/s
Aircel Televentures Limited on 10.11.2005.
(v) Allocation of startup spectrum to M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited in Bihar telecom service
67. It is alleged that accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, the
then Secretary (T), called for the file No. L-14047/02/2004-
NTG of WPC wing in the month of January, 2006 wherein the
application dated 24.05.2004 of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited for
allocation of GSM spectrum in Bihar service area was
processed. Accordingly, the file was put up to him by Wireless

Page 32 of 424
Advisor on 02.02.2006 and the approval for allotment of initial
4.4 + 4.4 MHz of GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz band to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Limited in Bihar service area was granted on
03.02.2006.
(vi) Allocation of additional spectrum to M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited in Chennai metro
68. It is alleged that accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma also
called for the file No. L-14043/3/2005-NTG of WPC wing in the
month of January, 2006 wherein the application dated
11.07.2005 of M/s Aircel Cellular Limited for allocation of
additional spectrum in Chennai metro was processed.
Accordingly, the file was put up to him by Wireless Advisor on
17.01.2006 and the approval for allotment of additional 1.8 +
1.8 MHz spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM band to M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited for Chennai metro was granted on 18.01.2006.
(vii) No query/ objection was raised by Sh. D. Maran, the then
MOC&IT, to the proposal of foreign investment of M/s
Global Communication Services Holdings Limited,
Mauritius, in M/s Aircel Limited
69. It is alleged that Sh. Ram Sharan, Under Secretary,
Foreign Investment Promotion Board, Department of
Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, forwarded a
copy of the above referred application filed by Sh. Sumesh
Sawhney to Sh. N. P. Singh, Deputy Director General, DoT,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, vide office memorandum No.
35/FC/2006 dated 01.02.2006 for comments. It was processed
in file No. 12-7/06-IP of DoT. Sh. Yashwant Bhave, the then
Additional Secretary (T), recommended that the proposal may

Page 33 of 424
be supported and sent the file to accused Dr. J. S. Sarma on
04.03.2006, who also supported the proposal and sent the file
to accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran for approval. No query was
raised by accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran in the matter. Sh. K.
Sanjay Murthy, the then PS to MOC&IT, conveyed the approval
of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to Dr. J. S. Sarma on 06.03.2006.
Maran, the then MOC&IT, had raised queries to the proposals
of M/s Aircel Limited, when it was in the hands of Sh. C.
Sivasankaran, for change in equity in the month of August,
2004 and had also ignored the legal opinion dated 11.01.2005
in the month of March, 2005. It reflects that accused Dayanidhi
Maran acted dishonestly at that time.
(viii)Dilution of Terms of Reference (ToRs)
71. It is alleged that in the month of November, 2005, the
Hon'ble Prime Minister approved, in principle, the constitution
of Group of Ministers for looking into the entire gamut of
allocation of spectrum to mobile operators. The Planning
Commission was requested to suggest detailed Term of
Reference (ToR) for the proposed GoM. The Planning
Commission sought the inputs from (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma for
the ToR of GoM at the earliest. Sh. Paran Kumar Garg, the then
Wireless Advisor, DoT, proposed a draft ToR for GoM on
09.01.2006, which included spectrum pricing policy and
spectrum allocation policy. It is also alleged that Planning
Commission forwarded a draft ToR to (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma on
10.01.2006 which also included spectrum pricing policy and
spectrum allocation policy. However, accused Sh. Dayanidhi

Page 34 of 424
Maran did not agree with the draft ToR prepared by Sh. Pawan
Kumar Garg. He dishonestly excluded spectrum pricing policy
and spectrum allocation policy from ToR and (Late) Dr. J. S
Sarma forwarded the ToR as approved by accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran to PMO on 10.01.2006.
72. It is alleged that PMO approved the ToRs on
spectrum related issues on 14.02.2006, which included
spectrum pricing policy. However, it did not include spectrum
allocation policy. The Cabinet Secretariat constituted the GoM
on 23.02.2006. Accused Dayanidhi Maran sent a DO letter
dated 28.02.2006 to the Prime Minister citing reference of his
meeting with the PM on 01.02.2006 and mentioned that the
GoM as constituted had much wider ToR, some of which
impinge upon the work normally to be carried out by DoT. He
requested to modify the ToR as suggested by him and also
enclosed a copy of the draft ToR which was already forwarded
to PMO by (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma on 10.01.2006. The said
proposed ToR of DoT did not include spectrum pricing policy.
Maran again addressed a DO letter dated 16.11.2006 to the
Prime Minister requesting for revision of ToR as prepared by
DoT. The ToRs as proposed by accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
were approved by PMO. Hence, it is evident that accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran dishonestly advised PMO to exclude the
spectrum pricing from the ToRs in order to benefit M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia, who had by then acquired
M/s Aircel Limited, M/s Dishnet DSL Limited and M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited. It is alleged that in the relevant time period,

Page 35 of 424
few applications for grant of new licences and spectrum of said
companies were pending at DoT as elaborated in this report.
D. Allegations relating to payment of bribe

74. It is alleged that M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc.,
UK, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, subscribed to equity
shares of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited at premium and equity
shares of M/s South Asia FM Limited at par. These two
companies were promoted by accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran. It is
further alleged that illegal gratification in the garb of share
premium of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was received by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran through his brother Kalanithi Maran
(promoter of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited), the detail thereof
is given as under:
(i) FIPB approval to M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited
75. M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was incorporated at
Chennai on 16.02.2005. Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT, and Sh. Kalanithi Maran are real brothers. M/s Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited was promoted by accused Sh. Kalanithi
Maran and his wife Smt. Kavery Kalanithi.
76. M/s Sun Direct TV was granted DTH licence for
DTH services in India by Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting on 28.08.2006. M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited
was granted Wireless Operating Licence by DoT on 21.06.2007
which was subsequently amended on 29.11.2007 and the MPVT
test report was issued by Network Operational Control Centre
(NOCC) which was received in DoT on 11.12.2007. Now
onwards, M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was in a position to

Page 36 of 424
launch its services on 11.12.2007.
77. It is further alleged that M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited submitted an application dated 13.12.2006 to the
Chairman, FIPB, New Delhi, for approval of issuance of equity
shares as foreign direct investment to M/s South Asia
Entertainment Holdings Limited (SAEHL), Mauritius,
constituting up to 20% of the total issued, subscribed and paid
up capital of the company, from time to time, by getting an
investment of approx. US$ 150 million (Rs. 675 crore). In the
application, accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran disclosed that M/s
South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited, a company
incorporated in Mauritius, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Astro Overseas Limited, which, in turn, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Astro All Asia Networks, Plc (AAAN). It is also
disclosed that AAAN was incorporated in England and Wales
and is registered as a foreign company in Malaysia. The
following facts have also been disclosed/ incorporated in the
above referred application dated 13.12.2006 and its enclosures
by accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran, Chairman of M/s Sun Direct
TV (P) Limited:
(a) The AAAN group of companies spends more than US$
160 million on content annually and has formed several joint
ventures with leading Indian content players, including
Sun TV, UTV and NDTV, to create vernacular content for
initial broadcast on its regional platforms, and eventually
for global export. The AAAN group of companies is also
the leading aggregator of interactive content for a host of
new media and communications devices, including 3G

Page 37 of 424
video streaming services, mobile TV channels as well as
numerous interactive TV programmes.
(b) AAAN is a public-listed company with the Usaha Tegas
group and the Malaysian Government's investment arm,
Khazanah Nasional, as its principal shareholders.
(c) Accused Sh. Ralph Marshall is also Executive Director of
Tanjong Public Limited Company which is involved in
power generation, gaming and leisure; Non-Executive
Director of Maxis Communications Bhd., and Executive
Director of Usaha Tegas Sdn. Bhd., which has significant
interests in the aforesaid companies.
(d) Accused T. Ananda Krishnanwas having 42.49% indirect
shareholding in Astro. Besides, he was also holding shares
of Astro through Pan Ocean, EABNS, PBS, HVL and SIL.
78. It is further alleged that the proposal of M/s Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited was considered by the FIPB in its
meeting held on 12.01.2007. FIPB recommended the proposal
for consideration and approval of the then Finance Minister
and also for submitting the proposal for consideration of
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) as the foreign
investment in flow exceeds Rs. 600 crore. The CCEA
considered the FDI proposals in the meeting held on
22.02.2007 and approved the proposal of foreign investment in
M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited, Chennai. Accordingly, approval
letter to M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was issued vide letter
dated 02.03.2007 under the signature of Sh. D. K. Singh, the
then Director (FIPB).
(ii) Investment in M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited by M/s

Page 38 of 424
SAEHL
79. It is further alleged that shareholders agreement
and share subscription agreement were executed by and
among M/s SAEHL, Mauritius, and accused Sh. Kalanithi
Maran and Smt. Kavery Kalanithi and M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited on 05.04.2007. The said agreements have been signed
by accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran on behalf of M/s Sun Direct TV
(P) Limited and in individual capacity too. Smt. Kavery
Kalanithi has signed the said agreements in individual capacity
and Sh. Raghvendra Madhav has signed on behalf of M/s South
Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited, Mauritius.
80. As per shareholders' agreement, (clause C, page 3),
M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited had an authorized share capital
of 200,000,000 shares of which 150,000,000 are issued and
fully paid up. As on the date of agreement, M/s Sun Direct TV
(P) Limited was wholly owned by Maran group in the following
proportions:
S. No. Shareholder Shareholding % of Share Capital
1 Kavery 123,000,000 82%
Kalanithi
2 Kalanithi Maran 27,000,000 18%
Total 150,000,000
81. As per the said agreement (clause F, page 4),

SAEHL and the Maran group agreed that the authorized share
capital of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited shall comprise of
380,000,000 shares. SAEHL also agreed to subscribe to and
M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited agreed to issue and allot to
SAEHL 69,000,000 shares at a subscription price of Rs.

Page 39 of 424
79.57/- per share and for an aggregate amount equivalent to Rs.
5,490,000,000/-. Accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran also agreed to
subscribe to and M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited has agreed to
issue and allot to accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran, 15,146,341
shares at a subscription price of Rs. 10/- per share and for an
aggregate amount equivalent to Rs. 151,463,410/-. As per the
said agreement (clause D, page 3), M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited was granted a DTH licence by the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, to prove
DTH services in India.
82. It is further alleged that share subscription
agreement was executed by and among accused Sh. Kalanithi
Maran and Smt. Kavery Kalanithi and South Asia
Entertainment Holdings Limited and M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited on 05.04.2007. The board of directors of SAEHL had
on 01.12.2006 approved the subscription of an equity stake of
20% in M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited to (i) participate for a
joint venture for the provision of Direct-to-home digital
satellite pay-television services in India and (ii) authorize
accused Sh. Ralph Marshall, or Sh. Grant Ferguson and Azran
Osman-Rani (authorized persons) to negotiate, finalize and
execute the share holders agreement, investment agreement
and all other documents.
83. The details of investment made by SAEHL and the
allotment of shares by M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited in favour
of SAEHL till 30.09.2011 are as under:
Date Amount Received (in No. of Shares
Rs.) Allotted
10.12.2007 315,71,32,309 3,96,77,420

Page 40 of 424
02.04.2008 117,00,30,302 1,47,04,415
31.07.2008 87,28,99,689 1,09,70,211
30.09.2008 29,00,53,020 36,45,256
05.12.2009 49,99,99,999 62,83,775
19.04.2010 24,99,99,926 31,41,887
07.07.2011 5,00,00,000 6,28,377
TOTAL 629,01,15,245 7,90,51,341
Opinion/ valuation by M/s ENAM Securities (P) Limited of Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited at the instance of Astro All Asia Network
84. It is alleged that M/s ENAM Securities (P) Limited,
a registered merchant banker with SEBI, executed an
engagement letter dated 07.05.2007 with M/s Astro All Asia
Networks Plc to offer professional services as advisors to M/s
South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited through its
holding company M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc. M/s ENAM
Securities (P) Limited was engaged by accused company M/s
Astro All Asia Networks Plc. after the execution of shareholders
agreement and share subscription agreement dated 05.04.2007
by and among M/s SAEHL, Mauritius, and accused Sh.
Kalanithi Maran and Smt. Kavery Kalanithi and M/s Sun Direct
TV (P) Limited. The scope of engagement was to provide an
expert opinion giving a fairness certification to the board of
directors of M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc. on its proposed
investment in M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited in accordance
with customary practice as to the fairness, from a financial
point of view of the subscription price to be paid pursuant to
the DTH venture, in a form suitable for inclusion into Astro's
circular to its shareholders in compliance with requirements of
Bursa Securities, Malaysia Bhd. (Malaysian Stock Exchange).
85. ENAM's report specifies that they have based their

Page 41 of 424
opinion on the business plan and had not made any
independent verification of the same. It has also been
mentioned in the report that this opinion was not intended to
form the basis of any investment decision by Astro and does not
purport to contain all the information that may be necessary or
desirable to evaluate the proposed joint venture. This opinion
was addressed strictly to the board of directors of Astro and was
provided for the purpose of fulfilling the listing requirements of
the Malaysian Stock Exchange. It revealed that no valuation of
M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was carried out prior to entry
into the share subscription agreement and shareholder's
agreement, both dated 05.04.2007. It is further alleged that the
share premium price of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was
decided by accused Sh. Ralph Marshall and accused Sh.
Kalanithi Maran.
(iii) Valuation of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited by Bank of
Baroda at the instance of CBI
86. During investigation, M/s BOB Capital Markets
Limited, a SEBI registered category-I merchant banker was
engaged by CBI vide engagement letter dated 06.08.2013 in
order to advise the correct valuation of the shares of M/s Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited as on 01.04.2007 as well as examine the
correctness of the business plan, financial projections etc. of the
business of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited.
87. M/s BOB Capital Markets Limited has furnished a
report bearing No. BCML/17/MB/2013/653 dated 02.09.2013.
It has considered Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method to value
the business of the company which was yet to launch the

Page 42 of 424
services at the relevant date, that is, 01.04.2007. It has opined
that the equity valuation of M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited as
on 01.04.2007 in connection with the transaction on post
money basis works out to Rs. 18,338 million (Rs. 1,833.8 crore)
after considering the equity investment as per share
subscription agreement and business plan and the pre money
value of the company comes to Rs. 1,284.80 and the price of
equity comes to Rs. 53.15 per share.
88. On the other hand, as per the share subscription
agreement dated 05.04.2007, the post money value of the
company, that is, M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was taken as
Rs. 2,745 crore and SAEHL subscribed equity shares at a price
of Rs. 79.57 per share. For the purpose of ready reference, the
details are tabulated as under:
Pre money Post money Price of equity
value of Sun value of Sun of Sun Direct TV
Direct TV (P) Direct TV (P) (P) Limited as
Limited as on Limited as on on 01.04.2007
01.04.2007 01.04.2007
As per share Rs. 2,196 crore Rs. 2,745 crore Rs. 79.57 per share
subscription
agreement
dated
05.04.2007
As per valuation Rs. 1,284.80 crore Rs. 1,833.8 crore Rs. 53.15 per share
report of BOB
Capital Markets
Limited
Conclusion from the reports by CBI

89. From the above, it is evident that the investment
made by M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc., UK, through M/s
SAEHL, Mauritius, in M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was not a
purely business driven investment but was illegal gratification

Page 43 of 424
in the nature of quid pro quo in lieu of approvals granted by
accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to M/s Maxis Communications
Bhd., Malaysia, and M/s Aircel Limited, M/s Dishnet Wireless
Limited and M/s Aircel Cellular Limited and that at least a
portion of the premium of Rs. 26.42 per share was unjustified/
overvalued which was paid by M/s SAEHL, Mauritius, to M/s
Sun Direct TV (P) Limited in the garb of equity subscription. As
per share subscription agreement dated 05.04.2007, SAEHL
agreed to subscribe to 69,000,000 equity shares at a price of
Rs. 79.57/-.
Details of allotment of shares of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited to

SAHEL
90. The details of allotment of equity shares of M/s Sun
Direct TV (P) Limited to SAEHL are as under:
S. Name of No. of Price per Total Amount Date of
No. the shares share board
Allottee allotted meeting
1 SAEHL 3,96,77,420 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 315,71,32,309/- 10.12.2007
2 SAEHL 1,47,04,415 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 117,00,30,302/- 02.04.200
8
3 SAEHL 1,09,70,211 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 87,28,99,689/- 31.07.2008
4 SAEHL 36,45,256 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 29,00,53,020/- 30.09.200
8
5 SAEHL 62,83,775 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 49,99,99,977/- 05.12.2009
6 SAEHL 31,41,887 Rs. 79.57 Rs. 24,99,99,949/- 19.04.2010
7,84,22,964
Valuation of Tata Sky by CBI: A comparison

91. During investigation documents were collected
regarding valuation of M/s Tata Sky Limited which was also in
the same business as M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited. It is

Page 44 of 424
alleged that M/s Tata Sky Limited, formerly known as M/s
Space TV Limited, was incorporated on 09.01.2001 at Mumbai
to provide Direct-to-Home (DTH) satellite subscription
television service to TV viewers across India. It commenced its
commercial operations from 15.08.2006. During 2006-07, M/s
Tamasek Capital (P) Limited (an investing company of
Singapore) entered into a negotiation with M/s Tata Sky
Limited for subscription of its equity shares. In this context, the
valuation of shares of M/s Tata Sky Limited as on 31.12.2006
was carried out in order to examine the proposal of issuing
equity shares to new investor. The valuer submitted a valuation
report dated 09.03.2007. The value per share of M/s Tata Sky
Limited as per Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method came to
Rs. 26.04. The value for equity shareholders of M/s Tata Sky
Limited came to Rs. 10319.92 million (Rs. 1031.992 crore). It is
pre money valuation.
92. It is further alleged that M/s Tamasek Capital (P)
Limited (an investing company of Singapore) subscribed to
5,14,80,000 equity shares at a price of Rs. 30/- per share. M/s
Baytree (FII) was the investing company which infused a total
sum of Rs. 154.44 crore in M/s Tata Sky Limited in order to
own 10% of the increased share capital. NDDS, in order to
maintain 20% shareholding in M/s Tata Sky Limited,
subscribed to 1,28,70,000 equity shares at a price of Rs. 30/-
per share in the month of May 2007. The total equity shares in
M/s Tata Sky Limited after subscription as stated above by
Tamasek and NDDS, came to 51,48,00,000. Hence, the post
money valuation of the company based on Rs. 30/- per share

Page 45 of 424
came to Rs. 1544.4 crore.
Conclusion by CBI
93. Considering the valuation report submitted by M/s
BOB Capital (P) Limited and the valuation of M/s Tata Sky
Limited, the overvalued share premium as decided by the
accused persons namely Sh. Ralph Marshall and Sh. Kalanithi
Maran is in the nature of quid pro quo.
(iv) Investment in M/s South Asia FM Limited, Chennai
(promoted by accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran) by M/s Astro
All Asia Networks Plc., UK
94. It is alleged that M/s South Asia Software
Technologies Limited, Mauritius (a subsidiary of M/s Astro All
Asia Networks Plc.) invested a sum of Rs. 116,67,36,080/-
(approx) in M/s Max Flexi Services (P) Limited, Hyderabad,
during the period from December, 2006 to December, 2010.
M/s Max Flexi Services (P) Limited further invested a sum of
Rs. 103,05,79,000/- (approx) in M/s A. H. Multisoft (P)
Limited, Hyderabad, (100% subsidiary of M/s Max Flexi
Services (P) Limited) during the same period. It is further
alleged that M/s A. H. Multisoft (P) Limited, Hyderabad,
invested a sum of Rs. 96,78,49,000/- (approx) in M/s South
Asia FM Limited, Chennai (a subsidiary of M/s Sun Direct TV
Network Limited, promoted by Sh. Kalanithi Maran) during the
period from February, 2007 to December 2010.
95. It is further alleged that M/s South Asia Multimedia
Technologies Limited (a subsidiary of M/s Astro All Asia
Networks Plc.) invested a sum of Rs. 82,93,58,030/- (approx)

Page 46 of 424
in M/s South Asia FM Limited (a subsidiary of M/s Sun TV
Network Limited, promoted by Sh. Kalanithi Maran) towards
equity subscription during 2007-2010. It is further alleged that
M/s South Asia Multimedia Technologies Limited (a subsidiary
of M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc.) also purchased equity
shares of M/s South Asia FM Limited (a subsidiary of Sun TV
Networks Limited, promoted by Sh. Kalanithi Maran) from M/s
A. H. Multisoft (P) Limited for a sum of Rs. 13,83,62,960/-
(approx.).
96. From the above, it is evident that M/s Astro All Asia
Networks Plc., UK, invested a total sum of Rs. 1,93,54,41,980/-
(approx) in M/s South Asia FM Limited towards subscription of
its shares at par value, that is, Rs. 10/- per share, during the
period from 20.02.2007 to 20.12.2010. The details are as
under:
S. Company Amount (in Nature of No. of
No. Rs.) Investment equity
shares
subscribed
1. South Asia 50,07,19,630/- Subscription of 5,00,71,963
Multimedia Equity shares
Technologies Ltd.
2. A. H. Multisoft Ltd. 50,07,19,620/- Subscription of 5,00,71,962
Equity shares
3. A. H. Multisoft Ltd. 46,70,01,370/- Subscription of 4,67,00,137
compulsory
convertible
preference shares
4. South Asia 46,70,01,360/- Subscription of 4,67,00,136
Multimedia compulsorily
Technologies Ltd. convertible
preference shares
Total 1,93,54,41,980/-
Conclusion by CBI

Page 47 of 424
97. It is also alleged that the investment made by M/s
Astro All Asia Networks Plc., UK, through its subsidiaries
namely M/s South Asia Software Technologies Limited,
Mauritius, and M/s South Asia Multimedia Technologies
Limited, in M/s South Asia FM Limited, was also not a purely
business driven investment but was illegal gratification in the
nature of quid pro quo in lieu of approvals granted by accused
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT, to M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia and the companies acquired
by it, that is, M/s Aircel Limited, M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited
and M/s Aircel Celullar Limited.
98. It is alleged that the above facts and circumstances
have thus established that accused persons viz., Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT, Sh. Kalanithi Maran, Sh. Ralph
Marshall, Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan, M/s Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited, M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc., UK, M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd., Malaysia, M/s South Asia
Entertainment Holdings Limited, Malaysia, and Late Dr. J. S.
Sarma, entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period
from July/ August 2004 to September 2008 and in pursuance
of the said criminal conspiracy accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran,
the then MOC&IT, and accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then
Additional Secretary/ Special Secretary/ Secretary (T), in abuse
of their official positions, deliberately delayed the grant of
licences in seven service areas and other approvals/
permissions on various issues pending before DoT related to
Siva group companies (M/s Aircel Limited, M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited and M/s Dishnet DSL Limited) on frivolous grounds

Page 48 of 424
with an intent to force its exit from telecom business by
constricting its business environment. It is further established
that the sale of telecom companies held by Sh. C. Sivasankaran
to M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia, through its
wholly owned subsidiary M/s Global Communication Services
Holdings Limited, Mauritius, and M/s Deccan Digital Networks
(P) Limited, was also with the intervention of accused Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran. After the
change of ownership, the applications for issuance of licences
and other requests/ approvals pending since long before the
DoT were acceded to, for which illegal gratification was paid by
M/s Astro All Asia Networks Plc., UK (a related party of M/s
Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia) to M/s Sun Direct TV
(P) Limited, in the garb of purchase of its shares at a premium
of Rs. 69.57 per share through its subsidiary M/s South Asia
Entertainment Holdings Limited. Accused Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 549,03,30,000/-
as quid pro quo through his brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran in the
garb of overvalued share premium invested in M/s Sun Direct
TV (P) Limited by M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings
Limited, Mauritius (a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Astro All
Asia Networks Plc., UK). Accused Sh. Dayanidhi Maran also
accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 193,54,41,980/- as quid
pro quo through his brother accused Sh. Kalanithi Maran in the
garb of subscription of equity shares in M/s South Asia FM
Limited by M/s South Asia Software Technologies Limited,
Mauritius, and by M/s South Asia Multimedia Technologies
Limited, Mauritius (both subsidiaries of M/s All Asia Networks

Page 49 of 424
Plc, UK).
99. Accused (Late) Dr. J. S. Sarma has since expired on
28.02.2014 at Hyderabad. Hence, no action against him.
100. It is further alleged that the aforesaid facts and
circumstances constitute commission of offences punishable
under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 12 & Section
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act,
1988, against accused persons, viz. Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, Sh.
Kalanithi Maran, Sh. Augustus Ralph Marshall, Sh. T. Ananda
Krishnan, M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited, M/s Astro All Asia
Networks Plc., UK, M/s Maxis Communications Bhd., Malaysia,
and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited,
Mauritius.
101. Further following substantive offences are also
made out:
(a) Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT- the offence
punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
of PC Act, 1988;
(b) Sh. Kalanithi Maran, Sh. Ralph Marshall, M/s Sun Direct
TV (P) Limited, Chennai, M/s Astro All Asia Networks
Plc., UK, and M/s South Asia Entertainment Holdings
Limited, Mauritius, for the offence punishable under Section
12 of PC Act, 1988.
102. Hence, this case.
103. I have heard the arguments at the bar in great detail
and have carefully gone through the record.
Both the parties have argued the matter for more than a
month beginning from 08.10.2016 to 16.11.2016. My attention

Page 50 of 424
has been invited in great detail to the voluminous files,
statements of witnesses, minute books and other material on
record by the parties. Apart from that, my attention has also
been invited to the relevant legal provisions as well as to a large
number of case law. I have carefully gone through the same.
Parties have also filed detailed written submissions on
record, copies of which were supplied to each other.
104. Let me take note of the law relating to charge.
105. In an authority reported as Union of India Vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4,
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of
charge observed in para 10 as under:
Thus, on a consideration of the authorities
mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the
Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained the Court
will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and
it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal
application. By and large however if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion against
the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section
227 of the Code the Judge which under the

Page 51 of 424
present Code is a senior and experienced Judge
cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth-
piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the
broad possibilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced before
the Court, and the basic infirmities appearing in
the case and so on. This however does not mean
that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into
the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
106. Let me make a brief survey of law relating to

conspiracy.
107. In an authority reported as Kehar Singh and
others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1998) 3 SCC
609, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraphs 275 and 276 as under:-
275. Generally a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy
and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of
the same. The prosecution will often rely on
evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they
were done in reference to their common intention.
The prosecution will also more often rely upon
circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be
undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or
circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether
the two persons are independently pursuing the
same end or they have come together in the pursuit
of the unlawful object. The former does not render
them conspirators but the latter does. It is,
however, essential that the offence of conspiracy
requires some kind of physical manifestation of
agreement. The express agreement, however, need
not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is
necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual
words of communication. The evidence as to
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful
design may be sufficient. Gerald Orchard of

Page 52 of 424
University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains the
limited nature of this proposition :
Although it is not in doubt that the offence
requires some physical manifestation of agreement,
it is important to note the limited nature of this
proposition. The law does not require that the act of
agreement take any particular form and the fact of
agreement may be communicated by words or
conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary
to prove that the parties ''actually came together and
agreed in terms'' to pursue the unlawful object :
there need never have been an express verbal
agreement, it being sufficient that there was ''a tacit
understanding between conspirators as to what
should be done''.
276. I share this opinion, but hasten to add that the
relative acts or conduct of the parties must be
conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence
as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot
be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully
arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.
The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and
incidents should not enter the judicial verdict. We
must thus be strictly on our guard.
108. In an another authority reported as State Vs.

Nalini and others (1999) 5 SCC 253, it was observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 583 as under:-
Some of the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name
implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the
principles.
1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal

conspiracy is committed when two or more persons
agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal
act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal
means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal
conspiracy is an exception to the general law where
intent alone does not constitute crime. It is

Page 53 of 424
intention to commit crime and joining hands with
persons having the same intention. Not only the
intention but there has to be agreement to carry out
the object of the intention, which is an offence. The
question for consideration in a case is did all the
accused have the intention and did they agree that
the crime be committed. It would not be enough for
the offence of conspiracy when some of the accuse
merely entertained a wish, howsoever, it may be,
that offence be committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of

conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular
accused was party to the conspiracy. Once the
object of conspiracy has been achieved, any
subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not
make the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving
shelter to an absconder.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or secrecy. It is

rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from
the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a

chain A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and
all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so
intend and agree, even though each member knows
only the person who enrolled him and the person
whom he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella-
spoke enrolment, where a single person at the
centre does the enrolling and all the other members
are unknown to each other, though they know that
there are to be other members. These are theories
and in practice it may be difficult to tell which
conspiracy in a particular case falls into which
category. It may however, even overlap. But then
there has to be present mutual interest. Persons
may be members of single conspiracy even though
each is ignorant of the identity of many others who
may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the

Page 54 of 424
crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to
agree to play the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to commit a

crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or
considering any plans for its commission, and
despite the fact that no step is taken by any such
person to carry out their common purpose, a crime
is committed by each and every one who joins in the
agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators
and there may be more than that. To prove the
charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that
intended crime was committed or not. If committed
it may further help prosecution to prove the charge
of conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should

agree to the common purpose at the same time.
They may join with other conspirators at any time
before the consummation of the intended objective,
and all are equally responsible. What part each
conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone
or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the
conspiracy and when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused

because it forces them into a joint trial and the court
may consider the entire mass of evidence against
very accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence
not only to show that each of the accused has
knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the
agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court
has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness
to the accused. Introduction of evidence against
some may result in the conviction of all which is to
be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy,
which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any
other substantive offence prosecution tries to
implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy
itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged
conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing
the precise contribution of each member of the

Page 55 of 424
conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and
convincing evidence against each one of the accused
charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed
by Judge Learned Hand ''this distinction is
important today when many prosecutors seek to
sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those
who have been associated in any degree whatever
with the main offenders''.
8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and

not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence
of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal
conspiracy is complete even though there is no
agreement as to the means by which the purpose is
to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement
which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy.
The unlawful agreement which amounts to a
conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may
be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances,
especially declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered
into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may
be reached by successive actions evidencing their
joining of the conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a

partnership in crime, and that there is in each
conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more
persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any
of them pursuant to the agreement is, in
contemplation of law, the act of each of them and
they are jointly responsible therefor. This means
that everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirators in execution or furtherance of the
common purpose is deemed to have been said, done
or written by each of them. And this joint
responsibility extends not only to what is done by
any of the conspirators pursuant to the original
agreement but also to collateral acts incidental to
and growing out of the original purpose. A
conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts

Page 56 of 424
done by a co-conspirator after termination of the
conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new
member does not create a new conspiracy nor does
it change the status of the other conspirators, and
the mere fact that conspirators individually or in
groups perform different tasks to a common end
does not split up a conspiracy into several different
conspiracies.
10. A man join a conspiracy by word or by deed.

However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy
requires more than a merely passive attitude
towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits
an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is
guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of
a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators,
actually standing by while the others put the
conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to
take no active part in the crime.
109. I may add that I have carefully gone through the

case law cited at the bar, but this has not been noted in the
order as the instant case is capable of being disposed of on the
facts alone without reference to any case law.
A. Issues relating to delay

110. It is submitted by Sh. Anand Grover, learned Sr.
Advocate/ Spl. PP for CBI, that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran was
MOC&IT from 26.05.2004 to 17.05.2007. It is further
submitted by him that Aircel Limited was having a telecom
licence for Tamil Nadu service are and Aircel Cellular Limited
was having a licence for Chennai service area. It is further
submitted that Dishnet DSL Limited was granted seven telecom
licences on 12.05.2004. It is further submitted that LOIs for

Page 57 of 424
these seven service areas as well as for MP service area were
issued on 06.04.2005. It is further submitted by him that in
due course, it also applied for UASL in UP (E) and UP (W)
service areas. It further applied for four licences in Punjab,
Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata service areas. It is his case that the
company had also applied for initial spectrum of 4.4+4.4 MHz
in Bihar service area. It is further submitted that the company
had also applied for additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz in
Chennai service area. It is further submitted that the Aircel
Limited and Aircel Cellular Limited had also applied for other
regulatory approvals relating to transfer of equity to Aircel
Digilink India Limited in Tamil Nadu and Chennai service areas
and also relating to change of name of promoter Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited. It is further
submitted that Dishnet DSL Limited had also applied for
change of its name to Dishnet Wireless Limited. It is further
submitted that company had also applied for provisioning of
POIs in several service areas.
111. It is further submitted by him that all these
regulatory approvals were not deliberately granted by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran in conspiracy with Dr. J. S. Sarma, who
worked in different capacities in the DoT like Additional
Secretary, Special Secretary and Secretary (T). It is further
submitted that even the various representations made by the
company to the DoT were not considered. It is repeatedly
submitted by him that these regulatory approvals were
deliberately withheld/ delayed by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on one
pretext or the other to force the exit of the aforesaid three

Page 58 of 424
companies belonging to Siva group of Sh. C. Sivasankaran from
telecom sector. It is further submitted that this was part of a
conspiracy hatched by Sh. Ralph Marshall and T. Ananda
Krishnan of Maxis, Malaysia, and Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr.
J. S. Sarma, to force Sh. C. Sivasankaran to sell the three
companies to Maxis of Malaysia. It is repeatedly submitted by
him that these delays were deliberate and conspiratorial in
nature. It is submitted that perusal of the material on record
indicates that queries put by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or by Dr. J.
S. Sarma, acting at the instance of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, were
outlandish and frivolous, carrying no meaning at all. It is
repeatedly submitted by him that there is enough material on
record to indicate dishonest and guilty intention of the accused
persons. It is repeatedly submitted by the learned Spl. PP that
there is enough material on record warranting framing of
charge against the accused.
112. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sh. Kapil
Sibbal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sh. R. S. Cheema, Sh.
Parag Tripathi, Sh. Sidharath Luthra, Ms. Rebecca John, all
learned Sr. Advocates for the defence that the delay in these
regulatory approvals cannot be attributed either to Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran or to Dr. J. S. Sarma acting at the instance of
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is their case that these files suffered
from various objections from the very beginning. None of the
files were query-free files. It is further submitted that whatever
questions were put by the Minister were well justified flowing
from the material on the file and conduct of the companies. It is
their case that there is no material on the file to indicate any

Page 59 of 424
conspiracy by the Minister or anyone else.
113. It has been repeatedly emphasized by the learned
legal luminaries that there is nothing on the file to indicate any
wrong doing by the Minister, what to talk of a conspiracy. It is
repeatedly submitted by them that there is nothing against the
Minister in these voluminous files. It is their case that by no
stretch of imagination these queries put by the Minister can be
termed as frivolous. It is repeatedly submitted by the learned
Sr. Advocates for the defence that there is no material on record
warranting framing of charge against the accused and all of
them deserve to be discharged.
114. Both the parties have extensively read out the files
and the statements of the witnesses at the bar for days together
in order to emphasize their point of view.
115. Let me deal with each issue separately.
I. Delay in grant of LOIs for award of UASL in

UP(E) and UP(W) and grant of extension of time of
signing licence agreements in MP service area to M/s
Dishnet DSL Limited (D-2)
Advocate/ Spl. PP for the CBI, that the case of extension of time
for compliance of LOI for MP service area and grant of LOIs for
UASL in UP(E) and UP(W) was quite simple and could have
been approved by the Minister without any hindrance, but he
put questions which were not only out of context but totally
frivolous. It is repeatedly submitted by him that there was no
reason for him to put these questions. It is further submitted by

Page 60 of 424
him that unnecessary questions relating to merger and
acquisition, FDI etc., were put by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to delay
the matter. My attention has been invited to the questions
recorded at 17/N in file D-2 as well as at 35/N in file D-40. It is
submitted by the learned Spl. PP that putting of these frivolous
questions shows dishonest intention of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to
force the exit of Siva group from the telecom sector. It is
submitted by him that no frivolous question was put in case of
Bharti Cellular and Reliance Infocom. It is further submitted
that the case of Essar Spacetel was invoked for sounding to be
even-handed by the Minister. It is further submitted that the
Minister had no reason to put the frivolous questions.
117. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defence
have forcefully submitted that the questions pre-dated the
Minister. These questions were already raised by the various
officers in different forms. Their emphasis is that the questions
were relevant and the Minister was duty bound to put them. It
is repeatedly submitted by the learned Sr. Advocates for the
defence that the applications suffered from numerous
deficiencies and LOIs could not have been granted to the
company. It is repeatedly submitted that the record and
reputation of the company was very bad as it was involved in
grey market and had also sold its ISP licence without
permission of DoT. It is repeatedly submitted that the financial
capacity of the company was doubtful from the day one and it
deserved no licence at all, what to talk of additional licences for
UP(E), UP(W) etc.
118. Both parties have invited my attention to the

Page 61 of 424
relevant note sheets in the file as well as the statements of
various witnesses in great detail for days together.
119. For better appreciation of the arguments of the
learned legal luminaries, the relevant files are required to be
read in their full spectrum. Accordingly, I proceed to examine
the relevant file in detail relating to the instant issue(s).
Issue of eight LOIs to Dishnet DSL Limited

120. Initially, Dishnet DSL Limited, an existing internet
service provider holding all India licence, applied for grant of
UASL in eight service areas, that is, Assam, Bihar, Himachal
Pradesh, J&K, Madhya Pradesh, North East, Orissa and West
Bengal on 05.03.2004, 36/C (D-38). These applications were
processed on 09.03.2004 in file D-38, at 9/N and the LOIs
were approved to be issued on 05.04.2004 at 13/N.
Accordingly, LOIs for eight service areas were issued, including
MP, on 06.04.2004.
121. Licence agreements were required to be signed
within 15 days of the issue of LOIs. However, the company
failed to do so. Not only the company failed to sign licence
agreements for seven service areas, it even failed to comply with
LOI for MP service area. This was a violation of clause 2 of LOI.
122. The LOIs issued on 06.04.2004 for eight service
areas, including LOI for MP service area, page 61 (D-38)
contains clause 2, which reads as under:
A copy of the prescribed licence agreement format
is enclosed with this LOI. The License Agreement, in
the prescribed format, shall be signed only after
compliance of the following, within a period of 15

Page 62 of 424
days from the date of receipt of this Letter of Intent,
failing which the same shall stand cancelled without
any further reference:-
(i) Payment of entry fee of Rs. 17.4501 crores for the
said service area;
(ii) Submission of bank guarantees (PBG and FBG)
of the value of Rs. 10 crores and Rs. 25 crores;
(iii) In respect of all licences granted under Section 4
of Indian Telegraph Act (including Indian Wireless
Telegraphy Act, 1933) to you or any of your
promoter(s)/ partner(s) or associate(s)/ sister
concern(s) you are required to furnish the following
before signing the licence agreement:
(a) No dues certificate;
(b).....................
(c) .................
Failure to comply with LOIs: Opening of new file D-2

123. As noted above, the LOIs were issued on
06.04.2004, which were to be complied with within 15 days.
However, the company failed to do so and consequently
requested for extension of time for complying with the LOI for
MP service area and also for signing of licence agreement in the
remaining seven service areas.
Though the company failed to sign the licence agreements
in the seven service areas and failed to comply with LOI for MP
service area, it had the audacity to apply for two more licences
in UP (E) and UP (W) service areas on 21.04.2004.
The issues of extension of time of the LOI for Madhya
Pradesh service area and request for extension of time to sign
licence agreements for seven service areas and the issue of LOIs
for grant of UASL for UP (E) and UP (W) by Dishnet were dealt
with in file D-2. All three issues were mixed up and taken

Page 63 of 424
together.
124. For better appreciation of facts, the various note
sheets are extracted as under:
125. The first note sheet dated 26.04.2004 was recorded
by Sh. A. R. Devarajan, AD (BS-III), as under:
Subject:
1. Request for extension of time of
LOI for Madhya Pradesh by 90
days for signing of the Licence
Agreement.
2. Request for Extension of time to

sign the Licence Agreement for
Seven service areas. M/s
Dishnet has submitted the
Entry Fee, PBG and FBGs for
these Seven Service areas.
3. Issue of LOI for grant of Unified

Access Licence for UP (East) & UP
(West) service area to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd.
1. PUC is the letter dated 20-4-2004 received

from Ms. Dishnet DSL Ltd. requesting for extension
of time by 90 days from 20-4-2004, required to
fulfill the formalities of Bank guarantees to sign the
Licence Agreement in Madhya Pradesh service area.
The LOI was issued on 6-4-2004.
2. PUC is a letter dt. 20-4-2004 received from

Ms. Dishnet DSL Ltd. requesting for extension of
time for signing the Licence Agreement for seven
circles viz. Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Orissa, North
East, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.
Since the LOI was issued on 6-4-2004 the time limit
of 15 days lapses on 20-4-2004. He has submitted
the Entry Fee, FBG and PBG for signing of the
Licence Agreement, but could not be signed because

Page 64 of 424
some documents/formalities were not complete and
it was not possible to sign the Licence on 20/4/2004
because he has submitted the documents on
20/4/2004 at 5:00 PM. In view of the above the
time may be granted for 1 month keeping the
effective date as 20-4-2004.
3. Applications have been received from M/s

Dishnet DSL Ltd. for grant of Unified Access Service
Licence for UP East & UP West service areas. The
application in original is placed below for ready
reference.
4. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd., an Internet service

provider holding all India Category A License. Its
sister concerns holding CMTS License in Tamil
Nadu and Chennai.
5. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. has applied in the

format earlier prescribed for making application for
basic service licence. A processing fee of Rs.
15,000/- per licence application has also been
furnished. This format has been accepted for issuing
earlier LOIs for UASL.
6. A check has been carried out with reference to

these applications for issue of letter of intent for
grant of UASL. Individual checklist in respect of
these two applications are placed at 23 & 23/A. As
per these checklists, the applications are in order
and LOI can be issued.
7. It is intimated that, 8 LOI have already been

issued to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
8. In view of the above, the case is submitted for

approval, for issue of Letter Of Intent (LOI) to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. for award of Unified Access
Service Licence (UASL) in respect of UP (E) and UP
(W) service areas as per the Draft format of LOIs
placed at 24/c & 25/c and authorizing Director
(BSIII) for signing the Licence Agreement after

Page 65 of 424
fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the LOIs.
Submitted for kind perusal and approval as in
Para 1, Para 2 and Para 8 please.
126. Thus, all three requests were recommended for

approval and the file was marked upward.
Questions about funding of the company and extension of time

127. Thereafter, file reached Sh. H. P. Mishra, DDG (LF),
who recorded note sheet dated 05.05.2004, questioning the
funding aspect of the company, as under:
As discussed, while the revenue projection etc.,
even the Co's roll-out plans seem to be reasonable,
the aspects of funding and esp. of the D/E ratio of
1:1 projected at P.P 5 and 5A don't seem to be very
explicit, particularly in the context of eight more
UAS licences applications by the Co. Please examine
and put up.
128. He marked the file to Director (LF), who recorded

note dated 06.05.2004 as under:
Sub: 1. Extension of LOI
2. New UASL Dishnet DSL
Pre notes kindly refer.

1. DoT has not prescribed any specific debt
equity ratio and is normally a business decision of
the company. In this instant case company has laid
down substantial requirement of funds. Therefore, it
may have to be examined with reference to the
following- aggregate fund requirement. The stated
debt equity ratio vis-a-vis the present equity base.
2. Secondly, no guidelines as such exist for
extension of LOI. The proposal for new UASL may
perhaps be kept on hold, till the licence agreements
for already approved service areas are signed. It may

Page 66 of 424
be noted that they have not submitted the entry fee
for MP even after 1 month from date of LOI.
3. Refer para 2 at 1/N. While the documents req.
were received on 20.04.2004, it is not clear why the
licence agreements are not yet signed for 7 areas,
and also why 1 month time is required.
4. It is better to process the cases of the same
entity in the same file for easy reference.
Submitted please.
129. He marked the file to Sh. H. P. Mishra, DDG (LF),

who again recorded a note dated 11.05.2004, as under:
1. Above notes refer.
2. As regards point 1 above, the two cases
presented in this file both state the D/E ratio as 1:1.
The present paid up equity is under Rs. 30 crores
(the authorized being Rs. 75 cr) and thus at present
the Co. can't take debt more than Rs. 30 crores if it
wants to maintain D/E ratio of 1:1. And yet the
business plans of the Co. (Annex VIII) for these two
applications above envisage a funding of Rs. 526.4
crores. If we add up this item for all the nine (9)
licences, the mismatch is apparently great. While it
can be argued that the investment would be spread
out over a period of time, it still needs to be
harmonious with facts. It's also seen that the total
Depn. shown in the two applications over a nine-
year period is at Rs. 3386 Mn & Rs. 3696 Mn
respectively. This seems to be project specific,
otherwise the totals would have been the same. BS
Branch may, therefore, like to take a total look at
these applications for new licences via-a-vis the
network roll-out mandated under UASL guidelines
and the data presented by the co.
3. I agree with Dir (LF/II)'s observations at sl.
2,3, and 4 on prepage.
130. It is, thus, clear that Director (LF) and DDG (LF)
were in agreement about the questionable funding arrangement

Page 67 of 424
of the company and regarding there being no guideline for
extension of LOI and also for extending time for signing the
seven licence agreements. The debt equity ratio of the company
was also not prudent and acceptable.
De-linking of signing of licence agreements for seven service

areas
131. After recording the abovesaid observations, the file
was marked to P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), who recorded note dated
11.05.2004, asking for de-linking of issue of signing of licence
agreements for seven service areas from the other two issues, as
under:
Let us delink the cases. Pl. process for approval of
item (ii) for which entry fee has been paid.
132. It is, thus, clear that without answering the queries

of Director (LF) and DDG (LF), Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS)
directed the de-linking of issues. No reason has been given
133. In response to the aforesaid note of Sh. P. K. Mittal,
Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III), recorded the following
note dated 11.05.2004:
Subject: Request for Extension of time to
sign the Licence Agreement for Seven
Service areas. M/s Dishnet has submitted
the Entry Fee, PBG and FBGs for these Seven
Service areas.
As desired case is again put up for approval as

below
PUC is a letter dt. 20-4-2004 received from

Ms. Dishnet DSL Ltd. requesting for extension of

Page 68 of 424
time for signing the Licence Agreement for seven
circles viz. Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Orissa, North
East, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.
Since the LOI were issued on 6-4-2004 the time
limit of 15 days lapsed on 20-4-2004. M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd had submitted the Entry Fee, FBG and PBG
for signing of the Licence Agreement on the last day
i.e. 20/4/2004 at 5:00 P.M. The documents require
examination verification & correction by the LOI
holder, if any. In the instant, corrections in FBG
were carried out by the LOI holder.
M/s Dishnet DSL had asked for extension for
signing Licence Agreement for seven days & keeping
in view the processing time, it was proposed that
extension of time for one month may be given. As
per information received from the DDG (LF)
regarding no dues certificate which is placed in the
file. The LOI holder as ISP Licensee is to pay Licence
Fee of Re.1/- for 2002-03 & 2003-04. DDG (LF)
may kindly see whether this statement may be taken
as a no dues for signing of the Licence Agreement.
In view of the above the extension of time may

be granted for 1 month keeping the effective date as
21-4-2004.
Submitted for kind perusal and approval as

above please.
134. Thus, the officer clearly records that the company is

to pay licence fee for its ISP licence for the years 2002-03 and
2003-04.
135. He marked the file to Sh. P. K. Mittal who recorded
the following note dated 11.05.2004:
Spoken to DDG (LF) on 11.05.2004. As per
information received from DDG (LF), it was decided
in a meeting taken by M(P) and attended by DDG
(LF) & Director (LF), that FBG equivalent to
disputed amount may be taken. Accordingly, the

Page 69 of 424
Licensee had submitted FBG. However, LOI holder
is to submit Rs. 2/- as Licence Fee for 2002-04.
Other issues raised will be submitted
separately.
'A' on prepage is submitted for approval pl.
136. It was approved by the Secretary (T) on 12.05.2004.

Thus, time was extended for licence agreements for seven
service areas without any reason or guideline, though the
company even had not cleared its dues for ISP licence, which
was a small amount of Rs. 2/-.
137. As per statement of Sh. P. K. Mittal dated
16.07.2012, page 3, after the announcement of UASL guidelines
dated 11.11.2003, applications for fresh UAS licences were to be
accepted in the format and manner of basic service licence
application. Clause 12 of guidelines dated 25.01.2001 relating to
Basic Services also reads as under:
The application shall be decided, so far as
practicable, within 15 days of the submission of the
application and the applicant company shall be
informed accordingly. In case the applicant is found
to be eligible for grant of licence for basic service,
the applicant shall be required to deposit Entry Fee
and submit Bank Guarantees / other documents and
sign the licence agreement within a period of three
months from the date of issue of the letter failing
which the offer of grant of licence shall stand
withdrawn at the expiry of permitted period.
138. This clause also speaks about withdrawal of LOI if

licence agreement is not signed within the specified period. A
bare perusal of the record would reveal that there is no
provision for extending the time even for compliance to LOI or

Page 70 of 424
for signing the licence agreement yet time was extended by de-
linking the issue of signing of licence agreement vide order
dated 12.05.2004 at 5/N (D-2).
139. Consequent thereto, UAS Licence agreements were
executed in respect of seven service areas on 12.05.2004 itself.
140. The question is: Why the time was extended for
signing the licences? Further the question is: Why the
department was recommending extension of time for
compliance of LOI relating to MP service area? It is clear from
the record that there are no guidelines in this regard. On the
contrary the guidelines referred to above are clear that
compliance has to be made within the specified period failing
which LOI shall be withdrawn without any further reference.
141. The question is: Why the provision regarding
compliance of LOI are so rigid? Why there is no provision for
extension of time in the guidelines? There is no discretionary
power with anyone. Why? It is because telecommunication is
lifeline of a country and this clause is aimed at ensuring that
only serious players with adequate financial means should
venture to enter the field. Non-serious players should not be
allowed to enter in such a serious field of national activity,
which requires huge capital outlay and should be shut out at the
very beginning. It is thus, apparent that the company was not
capable of complying with the LOI for MP service area and
signing of licence agreements in seven service areas in the very
first instance itself. Its funding was also in doubt as noted by
DDG (LF) Sh. H. P. Mishra.
142. It is, thus, clear that the extension of time for

Page 71 of 424
signing licence agreement was not as per the laid-down
guidelines. It was rather in violation of guidelines and
conditions of LOI.
Issue of extension of LOIs for MP service area and licence for

UP (E) and UP (W): Questions about financial capacity of
company
143. Thereafter, the remaining aforesaid two issues still
survived, that is, extension of time for MP service area and
issue of licence for UP (E) and UP (W) service areas.
144. Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III), again
recorded a note dated 17.05.2004, recommending both, that is,
extension of time for complying with LOI for MP service area
and grant of licence in UP (E) and UP (W) service areas to
Dishnet DSL Limited and marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh. P. K.
Mittal, who marked the file to DDG (LF).
DDG (LF) again recorded on 19.05.2004 as under:
Pls. check up reg. financial aspects of the
application as well as of the applicant.
145. He marked the file to Director (LF-II), who

recorded a note dated 20.05.2004, pages 7/N and 8/N, as
under:
Comments of DDG (LF) at 6/N kindly refers.
1. The co. has signed 7 licences, while MP is yet
to be signed (although appd) and the co. has applied
for 2 more Cat B licences- UPE, UPW.
Earlier, when the first eight cases (including MP)
was processed, it was stated by LF Branch, that the
funding requirement, as per the business plan of the
co. is substantial (nearly Rs. 1500 cr) against a paid

Page 72 of 424
up equity of Rs. 29.7 crores, and that such a scenario
may require examination in view of the fact that new
access service licence are now issued, as approved
by the Minister on a first-come-first serve basis.
The issue of Debt/Equity ratio is linked to the
issue pointed earlier by LF Branch.
It is also noted that, while conditions governing
grant of licence talks about requirement of networth
and paid up equity, it is silent on the aspect of
funding, D/E ratio etc. which are also important
financial indicators. Perhaps, it was earlier felt that
the two conditions of networth and paid up equity
are sufficient to have serious players in the
framework of competitive bidding, which is not the
case now after introduction of UASL regime.
We are of the view that the issues pointed out may
require examination and disposal in the changed
scenario.
2. In the instant case, it is noticed that the

combined networth have gone up by almost Rs. 200
cr, with that of Dishnet alone almost doubling. This
mean that the company must have booked
exceptional profits in a span of 1 month (29/2/04
to 31/3/04), as the paid up equity continues to be
at Rs. 29.7 cr. It may be decided, whether this
necessitate a closer look.
3. Thirdly, the co. has applied for a total 10

licences (some in Cat B & rest in C). The condition
for 4th cellular requires a minimum paid up equity
for that many licences. It may have to be examined,
whether the paid up equity is sufficient, vis-a-vis
condition laid down in the guidelines.
Submitted please.
146. He marked the file to DDG (LF) Sh. H. P. Mishra,

who recorded note dated 21.05.2004, page 8/N, as under:
1. Above notes refer. I don't think liberalization

Page 73 of 424
can be equated with laissez faire. So long as
licensing is resorted to, and the applicant
companies are asked to furnish certain background
data/ documents, it is automatically implied that
these will receive some scrutiny so as to satisfy the
Licensor (the Central Govt) that the applicant is fit
for grant of licence in practical, probabilistic terms.
2. Member (P) may also kindly see.
147. Perusal of the note sheet reveals that officers are

repeatedly questioning the financial fitness of the company to
undertake telecom projects.
148. On 24.05.2004, when file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal,
he asked for linking up of file wherein seven licences were
approved, that is, file D-38.
149. In due course the file reached Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
Director (BS-III), who recorded a note dated 25.05.2004, page
9/N, as under:
Ref: Notes on 7/N.
It is clarified that the issue of Debt Equity
Ratio was raised by LF Branch while considering the
application for grant of additional licence to M/s
DISHNET DSL Ltd. and not at the time of
processing of grant of seven licence for UASL service
in various service areas initially.
2. Irrespective of the above fact, it is pointed out

that initially during Cellular Service/ Basic Service
Licence the external commercial borrowing which is
a part of ability to raise fund was linked to equity
ratio. It was specified that the commercial
international borrowing by licensee shall not be
more than double the foreign equity of the licensee.
This was acting as an impediment and hindrance for
raising the funds and later on which was changed to
50% of the project cost and the same is being
followed at present as per RBI/Ministry of Finance.

Page 74 of 424
It is also pointed out that ECB approvals upto US$
50 Million comes under automatic route which
means that corporate can raise the loan without any
approval from the Government. ECB limit for the
telecom project is 50% of the total project cost
including licence fee. Copy of the ECBs guidelines is
placed at F/A.
3. Therefore, keeping in view the above, it may

not be desirable to prescribe Debt Equity Ratio. It is
worthwhile to point out that even in the tripartite
agreement no such provision has been stipulated. It
should be left to the best judgement of the lender to
decide about the re-payment capacity and
capabilities of the borrower. Therefore, it is felt that
this condition is not desirable and should not be
insisted upon as has been the practice so far while
granting Unified Access Service Licence (UASL)/
Basic Service/NLD/ILD Licence.
4. As regards Paid Up Equity is concerned, the

norms are very clear and the applicant company in
question fulfills the condition of minimum paid up
capital. Further, it is not desirable to ask for reasons
for increase in the networth in the instant case.
With above observations, it is suggested that

the proposal in Para 7 of 6/N may be considered for
approval.
150. It is clear from the perusal of note of Sh. Sukhbir

Singh that he is blaming the LF branch for not raising the
questions when seven licences were processed. He also dubbed
the other questions raised by the LF branch officers as not
desirable, without answering the same properly and
recommends the proposal.
151. File again reached Sh. H. P. Mishra, DDG (LF), who
recorded note dated 02.06.2004, page 10/N, as under:

Page 75 of 424
Reference notes on preceding page. The file was
presumably sent to us to scrutinize the application.
If so, the discrepancy noticed between the capital
structure (comprising, inter-alia of debt & equity) of
the company and its project financing plans as
disclosed by the company was rightly pointed out.
This was earlier also covered in our notes dated
22.3.04 (Paras 5,8,10 of N. 10-11; F/D) without
referring to D/E ratio.
2. The comments of BS Branch at para 2 above

are not relevant to the discussion at hand. So are the
observations at para 3 above, since nowhere has the
LF Branch talked about the need to prescribe any
debt equity ratio.
3. As regards the views of BS Branch in para 4

above, Member (P) may kindly decide the matter as
deemed fit. We have merely pointed out (para 2 at
7/N) that the combined Net Worth of the company
and its promoter company has undergone a sudden
and large increase in just one month. It may be
decided whether this merits a closer look since:
(a) there is no supporting document to explain this,
and (b) additional NW is actually needed for
additional licenses.
152. Thus, the two branches, that is, LF and BS, are at
loggerheads about financial plan of the company. BS branch
asking LF branch as to why these issues were not raised earlier.
The LF branch reminding that they raised the issues as early as
22.03.2004 (D-38), when eight LOIs were approved including
for MP service area. It appears that on account of the past
conduct of the company, the officers of Licence Finance Branch
were subjecting the company to strict scrutiny, which is not
palatable to the BS branch.
153. Thereafter, a letter was sent to the company seeking

Page 76 of 424
certain clarifications as indicated by note sheet at page 11/N
and after some note sheets Sh. P. K. Mittal recorded on
21.06.2004, at page 12/N, as under:
The case to be put up for approval of Competent
Authority for grant of LOI. The views of LF and
issue, so far not addressed & indicated may also be
covered in the note.
154. On this Sh. A. R. Devarajan, AD (BS), again

recorded a note dated 23.06.2004, page 13/N, mentioning the
background of the case and recorded in paragraphs 7 to 9 as
under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
7. There are two cases which are being under
process since 26.4.2004.
(i) In my opinion the Issue at subject -1,
approval may be accorded for the
extension of time because LOI has
already been given to M/s Dishnet
and this is a separate issue.
(ii) The issue in subject-2 is being dealt
since long.
8. For issue LOIs for the UP(E) and UP(W)

service areas LF section has raised some issue,
which can be seen in previous note-sheets. In brief
the issues are
a) The noting of the Director (LF-II) on N/s
3 Para 1 he says that DOT has not prescribed
any specific Debt Equity Ratio and is normally
a business decision of the Company. In this
instant case Company has laid down
subsequentia Also it is submitted that
noting of Director (LF-II) in Para (a)
above itself says that DOT has not
prescribed any specific Debt Equity
Ratio and is normally a business decision of

Page 77 of 424
the Company l requirement of funds. Therefore,it
may have to be examined with reference to the
following aggregate fund requirement, the stated
Debt Equity Ratio vis-a-vis the present equity base.
It is submitted that 8 LOIs were issued to M/s

Dishnet Ltd. out of which licences for 7 service
areas have already been signed except Madhya
Pradesh Service area. At the time of issue of
the 8 LOIs this issue of Debt Equity Ratio was
not raised by the LF Section. Also it is
submitted that noting of Director (LF-
II) in Para (a) above itself says that DOT
has not prescribed any specific Debt Equity
Ratio and is normally a business
decision of the Company. Therefore, this
issue requires a decision whether LOI may be
issued for UP(E) & UP(W).
b) The noting of the Director (LF-II) on N/s

7 Para 2 says that The increase in the
networth of the Company within a short span
of time requires a closure look.
M/s Dishnet DSL was asked to submit the

reason of increase of the networth. The reply is
found satisfactory by DDG (LF) on N/s 11.
9. If the issue raised in Para 8(a) does not

require further discussion and found satisfactory
for issue of the LOI then the case is submitted for
Service Licence (UASL) in respect of UP (E) and UP
(W) service areas as per the Draft format of LOIs
placed at 30 & 31/c and authorizing Director (BSIII)
for signing the Licence Agreement after fulfilling the
conditions stipulated in the LOIs. The case is also
submitted for approval of extension by 90 days of
LOI of Madhya Pradesh Service Area.
155. Thereafter the file reached in due course to Sh. H. P.

Page 78 of 424
Mishra, DDG (LF), who recorded a note dated 29.06.2004,
page 14/N, to the following effect:
The matter was discussed with M(P) yesterday
evening when DDG (BS) was also present. The basic
point of LF Branch can be summarized below. The
funding plans submitted by the co. the ten
applications for new UASL's have all shown D/E
ratio as 1:1. Considering the facts that (a) the auth.
equity of the co. is 75 cr, (b) subscribed/ paid up
equity is below Rs. 30 crores, (c) the projects
funding requirement is shown by the co. as over Rs.
2110 crores (as per data av. with us), and (d) the
company has given year wise interest & depreciation
provisions that have to correlate with extant
framework of prevailing rates, it's not clear how the
funding requirements would be met keeping the
D/E ratio at 1:1 (as indicated by the co.). BS Br. may
consider getting this aspect clarified appropriately.
156. Thus, the capacity of the company to raise funds for

telecom projects proposed to be undertaken by it is in serious
doubt and is being questioned again and again.
157. Thereafter, a letter was again issued to the company
seeking certain clarifications and the company provided the
same. Thereafter, in the light of clarifications, Director (LF) Sh.
P. K. Sinha recorded the following note dated 01.07.2004, page
15/N:
As per the letter of DDSL placed at 69/c, DDSL is
in the process of tying up with Banks & FIs for debt
as also would infuse addition equity from other
sources (after increasing the auth. capital) to
maintain the debt equity ratio as 1:1. Since the
funding plans are internal decision of the company,
we perhaps may have to accept the statements in
their said letter.
Submitted for consideration pls.

Page 79 of 424
158. Thus, the two officers were made to give up their
earlier stand and made to accept that funding plan are internal
decisions of the company. It is apparent that company could
not furnish any acceptable clarification.
159. He marked the file to DDG (LF) Sh. H. P. Mishra,
who recorded the following note on 05.07.2004:
1. Discussed with D (LF) and DDG (BS).
2. We may take the statement made by the
company on record and process the case for
approval by the competent authority.
160. On recording this note, he marked the file to DDG

(BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal. Thus, all issues raised by the LF branch
are ignored without any valid reason, though the LF branch was
right in putting these questions as business plan of the
company is an essential part of a telecom project.
161. In the end, note sheet dated 08.07.2004, 16/N, was
recorded by Sh. A. R. Devarajan, AD (BS-III), seeking approval
for both issues, that is, extension of time for LOI for MP service
area by 90 days and issue of grant of UAS licence for UP (E)
and UP (W) to the following effect:
Subject:
1. Request for extension of time of the LOI
for Madhya Pradesh by 90 days for signing
of the Licence Agreement.
2. Issue of LOI for grant of Unified Access
Licence for UP (East) & UP (West)
service area to M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd.
PUC is a letter dated 20.4.2004 received from M/s.

Dishnet DSL Ltd. requesting for extension of time
by 90 days from 20.4.2004 to sign the Licence

Page 80 of 424
Agreement in Madhya Pradesh Service area. The
LOI was issued on 6.4.2004.
Applications have been received from M/s.
Licences for Uttar Pradesh (East) & Uttar Pradesh
(West) service areas placed below for ready
reference.

Nadu and Chennai.
3. M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. has applied in the

basic service licence. A processing fee of Rs.15,000/-
per licence application has also been furnished. This
format has been accepted for issuing earlier LOIs for
UASL.

the applications for issue of letter of intent for grant
of UASL and the check list is placed at 23/c. As per
the check lists, the applications are in order and LOI
can be issued.
5. Licensing Finance raised queries on 2/n,3/n,

4/n,7/n & 8/n on Net Worth, Debt Equity Ratio
and Source of Funds for their projects to cost
around Rs.1500 Crores. Clarifications received from
the Company are placed at 67/c & 69/c. Thereafter
Licensing Finance (LF) has given their consent for
issuing of the LOIs at 15/N.

Dishnet DSL Ltd. for award to Unified Access
Service Licence (UASL) in respect of UP(East) &
UP(West) Service Areas as per the Draft format of
LOIs placed at 30/c & 31/c and authorizing
Director (BSIII) for signing the Licence Agreement
after fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the LOIs.

Page 81 of 424
7. Grant of extension of time by 90 days for
signing the Licence Agreement for Madhya Pradesh
Service area.
Submitted for kind consideration and

approval please.
162. Sh. A. R. Devarajan records that LF branch had

raised certain queries in response to which clarifications were
received from the company and the LF branch had given its
consent to the issue of LOIs.
163. Thus, after taking note of the statement of the
company regarding its financial position, including funding
plans at its face value, officials at all levels agreed to approve
the aforesaid two requests of the company. This was agreed to
by Secretary (T) also on 13.07.2004 and the file was marked to
the MOC&IT Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. The objections regarding
financial capacity of the company were not dealt with in an
objective manner and were brushed aside on the specious
ground that these are internal decision of the company.
Reaching of file to the office of MOC&IT and its return

therefrom
164. As per note sheet at 16/N, the file was marked by
the Secretary (T) to MOC&IT on 13.07.2004 and it reached its
office on the same day.
165. However, the file was returned by the office of the
Minister on 26.08.2004 with the following remarks recorded by
Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, PS to the Minister, at 17/N (D-2):

Page 82 of 424
From pre-page
I have been directed to seek the below
clarifications :
a) The financial/equity between M/s. Dishnet

DSL Ltd. and its sister concerns holding
licence elsewhere, particularly in Tamil Nadu
and Chennai.
b) To please verify the status of the newspaper

reports regarding sale of M/s. Dishnet DSL
Ltd. or any of its sister concerns to any other
company.
c) To also verify whether M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd.

or any of its sister concerns granted licences in
other service areas were later sold to another
licensee/entity.
d) It is recalled that the company has violated

certain licence conditions entailing specific
penalty being imposed on it. The legal
implications to this case may please be
examined and reported.
166. The file was marked to the Secretary (T), who

marked it downward. Thereafter, letters were issued to
different branches on 09.09.2004 asking for information on the
aforesaid issues. Thereafter, the file is silent till 13.12.2004.
Observations in D-40
167. File D-40 relates to change of name of the company
from Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures
Limited and also change of equity structure of Aircel Limited on
transfer of shareholding from Srinivas Computers Limited to
Aircel Digilink Limited. This file was also returned by the

Page 83 of 424
Minister and Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, PS to MOC&IT, had
recorded the following note on 15.09.2004, 35/N, while
returning the file:
I have been directed to convey the following:
There are many inter-related issues between

mergers & acquisitions, licensing, FDI and FII
investment in holding companies and their sister
concerns. An overall view on issues arising in such
cases needs to be taken before a decision can be
taken. All the inter-related issues mentioned above
pertaining to the case being dealt in the below
mentioned files be examined and a consolidated
Note submitted:-
(i) F. No. 842-21/2001-VAS (Vol. III)- (D-

30)
(ii) F. No. 842-325/2000-VAS- (D-40)
(iii) F. No. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I)- (D-
45)
(iv) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III- (D-2)
2. AS (T) may prepare the note and submit the

same through Secretary (T). The above mentioned
files are placed below.
168. On recording this note, the file was marked to

Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra, who recorded the following
note dated 15.09.2004 itself:
My recommendation are available on the file.
AS(T) pls. comply with the orders of MOC&IT and
submit it to MOC&IT for superior orders.
169. After recording this note, he marked the file (D-40)

to AS (T).
AS (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma gave his comments in D-40 at

Page 84 of 424
36/N to 38/N on 30.11.2004, which is noted as under:
Report of Dr. J. S. Sarma

170. In terms of the order dated 15.09.2004 recorded by
the Minister, Dr. J. S. Sarma, Addl. Secretary (T) gave his
report dated 30.11.2004 to the following effect at 36/N to 38/N
(D-40) and marked the file to Secretary (T):
Kind attention is invited to the notes on pre-page
as well as the note of PS to MOC&IT on the file 20-
25/04/Genl. Mts/Dishnet placed below.
There had been certain inter-related issues between

concerns in the cases pertaining Aircel Ltd., Aircel
Cellular Ltd., Dishnet DSL Ltd.; the licensee
companies and their promoter companies. These
issues are analyzed, company-wise, as under:-
1. M/s Aircel Ltd: (earlier known as M/s Srinivas

Cellcom Ltd.)
M/s Srinivas Cellcom Ltd. was incorporated on

12.12.1994. The company was granted licence for
CMTS for Tamil Nadu Circle on 22.05.1998. The
company changed its name from M/s Srinivas
Cellcom Ltd. to M/s Aircel Ltd. on 28.10.99.
100% share of Aircel Ltd. is with Srinivas

Computers Ltd. The name of the company has been
changed to M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd.
Shares of M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. are held by

M/s Sterling Infotech Ltd. (99.998%).
The promoter company of Aircel Ld. i.e. Aircel

Televentures Ltd. has proposed to sell the shares of
Aircel Ltd. (1800 million shares) to Aircel Digilinks

Page 85 of 424
India Ltd., a company promoted by Hutch Group.
With this transaction, the ownership of Aircel Ltd.
will be transferred from Sterling Infotech Ltd. to
Hutch Group.
The present FDI policy permits 49% FDI in the

licence company and another 24.99% through the
investment company making a total of 73.99%
(direct + indirect). Further, as per the policy,
investment company setup for making investment
in the licensee company must ensure that
management control of the company must rest in
Indian hands.
From the flow chart at Flag 'X', it is noted that

Aircel Digilinks India Ld. has a very complex equity
structure. Companies like Telecom Investment
India Ltd. (TIIL), UMTL Holdings Ltd., Usha
Martin Telematics Ltd., etc. are investment
companies set-up for making investment in telecom
sector. However, instead of investing directly in the
licensee company, they have pyramiding structure
and have potential to induct foreign equity in the
licensee company much beyond 73.99%. Even at
present, of the investment company Usha Martin
Telematics has indirect and direct foreign equity of
86.73%.
In file no. 842-325/2000-VAS, it has been

recommended to allow change in the equity
structure thereby change in the ownership.
However, the equity structure of the new
management is so complex that it is difficult to
believe that management control will remain with
Indian shareholders. Perhaps, Aircel Digilinks India
Ltd. may have to simplify its equity structure so that
direct and indirect FDI do not cross the prescribed
limits. Till this is done, the request of the company
may be kept in abeyance.
2. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd: (earlier known as

RPG Cellular Services Ltd.)

Page 86 of 424
RPG Cellular Services Ltd. was issued licence to
operate CMTS in Chennai in 1994. 49% foreign
equity of the company was held by AirTouch
(Mauritius).
M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. subsequently

purchased the foreign and Indian holding of RPG
Cellular Service Ltd. and changed its name to Aircel
Cellular Ltd.
Certain doubts have been raised on acquisition of

foreign equity from AirTouch (Mauritius) to Siva
Cellular Holding Ltd. (Mauritius) and thereafter
transfer to Srinivas Computers, as such transaction
were carried out without the knowledge of DoT.
The company has now applied for change in name of

the company from RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to
Aircel Cellular Ltd., Change in its ownership original
Indian promoters and foreign promoters to Srinivas
Computers Ltd. (now called Aircel Televentures
Ltd.)
The company has further applied for transfer of

100% shares held by Srinivas Computes Ltd. to
Aircel Digilinks India Ltd., a Hutch Group company.
This proposal is not recommended on the grounds
that promoters of the new management also hold
substantial equity another company Hutchison
Eassr South Ltd. who also hold the licence for same
service in the same service area i.e. Chennai.
3. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd:
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. has been promoted by

Sterling Infotech Ltd. (79.11%), and three foreign /
OCB companies. The company is holding all India
Internet Licence and is in operation. They have also
been issued LoIs for UASL.
As per the information available, there are five

Page 87 of 424
vigilance cases against the company with regard to
provision of Internet Service and DoT had imposed
penalties total amounting to about Rs.2.27 crore.
The company has not paid the penalties and filed
cases in TDSAT.
From the above, it is noted that M/s Sterling

Infotech has promoted all the three companies. It is
holding equity shares of 79.11% of Dishnet DSL
directly whereas 100% shares of Aircel Ltd. and
Aircel Cellular Ltd. through Srinivas Computers Ltd.
(or Aircel Televentures Ltd.). The Company is now
proposed to sell its holding in Aircel Ltd. and Aircel
Cellular Ltd. to Aircel Digilinks India Ltd. (Hutch).
While there request to cell the equity of Aircel
Cellular Ltd. cannot be considered as per the licence
conditions, before considering the other case,
perhaps, we may ask the Aircel Digilinks India Ltd.
to ensure that FDI policy is not violated and
restructure its equity in line with declared policy of
the Government.
Before granting the UASL licences to Dishnet, we

may await for the decision of TDSAT on the issue of
vigilance cases and penalties imposed by DoT on
this company.
171. On giving his report, Dr. J. S. Sarma marked the file

to Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra, who asked the DDG
(BS) to put up the legal status on the comments of AS (T).
Report of Sh. O. P. Nahar, LA(T)

172. Accordingly, matter went to LA(T) Sh. O. P. Nahar,
whose opinion dated 11.01.2005 (42-43/N, D-40) is as under:
This is a reference on three aspects with regard to
two companies.
Firstly M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. whose majority

Page 88 of 424
shareholding is held by M/s Sterling Infotech Ltd.
applied for certain UASL license whereafter few
LOIs are issued or are in process of issuance. In the
meantime some vigilance cases against this internet
service provider arose and DOT purported to
impose penalty of Rs. 2.27 crore by issuing letter dt.
25.08.2004. Thereupon the company challenged
this imposition of penalty before, TDSAT when
Petition is allowed after withdrawal of DOT's
aforesaid letter dt. 25.08.2004 whereby penalty was
sought to be imposed. This withdrawal by DOT is
made for the reasons that an opportunity for
hearing before imposition of penalty was not given.
Presently the Show Cause Notice proposing
imposition of penalty is in the process of issuance.
In this regard it may be stated that there is no

pending litigation as on today. Moreover
approaching a court / tribunal is a normally enjoyed
legal right, hence, this equity fact cannot disqualify
the intending licensee from getting LOIs or license.
Moreover the DOT withdrew of its own the letter of
imposition of penalty so M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
cannot be faulted on this count and denial of
LOIs/license will not withstand legal scrutiny till the
company is not blacklisted for already committed
major malpractices in accordance with
administrative instruction, if any, after holding a
full fledged enquiry and affording fair opportunity
of hearing (M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals
Ltd. vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266).
The Second question referred relates to the pattern

of equity holding especially the foreign equity. It is
brought out at 34-36/N that direct foreign equity is
below 49 per cent but indirect foreign equity is
24.99 per cent through foreign investment
companies. There is no restriction against indirect
foreign equity which can be raised to any level but
with a condition that management remains in
Indian hands. This is so provided in the
Amendment to License Agreement dated

Page 89 of 424
29.01.2001 (as at Clause (ix) (d) Flag 'X') of License
Agreement modified pursuant to New Telecom
Policy 1999. Hence no objection to indirect foreign
investment to whatsoever level can be taken
especially where DOT does not know the contrary
facts about non-existence of management in Indian
hands.
The third aspect for consideration is that 79.11 per

cent equity of Dishnet DSL Ltd. is held by Sterling
Infotech Ltd. There can be no objection by licensor
to this equity holding. Further M/s Sterling
Infotech Ltd. is also controlling 100 per cent equity
of Aircel Ltd. and Aircel Cellular Ltd. through its
subsidiary Srinivas Computers Ltd. (presently
known as Aircel Televentures Ltd.). It may be
added here that Aircel Televentures Ltd. has sought
sale permission of its 100 per cent equity holding in
Aircel Ltd. to Aircel Digilink India Ltd. whose 100%
equity is further held by Hutchinson East Ltd. who
is also holder of license for Calcutta. The equity of
Calcutta licensee i.e. Hutchinson East Ltd. is further
distributed amongst three companies i.e. (1) Asian
Telecom (2) Essar Teleholdings (3) Ushamartin
Telematics. And further the equity of Ushamartin
Telematics is held by other four companies whose
equity pattern needs no discussion but is some what
depicts cross holding. Any objection to this equity
pattern or of cross holding various companies
cannot be taken by DOT. This for the business
world to manage and not an unusual happening to
have cross holdings.
With regard to complicated nature of equity holding

no objection can be taken by licensor because such
adverse notice is not provided in the License
Agreement. Hence there is no locus standi i.e. legal
standing to object either to indirect foreign equity of
any percentage or to complicated nature of equity
holding of licensee. Moreover after 5 years from the
effective date of License Agreement there is no
restriction against transfer / sale of equity except

Page 90 of 424
that competition cannot be compromised.
The copy of this note is placed on two files i.e. (1) F.

No. 842-325/2000-VAS and (2) F. No. 20-
231/2004-BS.III.
173. Thus, the comments of AS(T) Dr. J. S. Sarma did

not reach the Minister directly, as desired by him and were sent
to Legal Advisor for his opinion thereon. The views of Dr. J. S.
Sarma appears to be administratively correct, whereas the
views of the Legal Advisor are narrow and too legalistic. A
licensor has every right to ask for all information, which it was
asking in other cases also and has right to be cautious when an
existing defaulter applies for a fresh licence. However, the Legal
Advisor was resorting to a very narrow legal interpretation.
Impact and observations in D-2

174. On the aforesaid directions of Secretary (T)
regarding seeking of legal opinion on the report/ comments of
AS (T), a note was also initiated in file D-2 by Sh. A. R.
Devarajan, AD (BS-III), at pages 19/N and 20/N to seek legal
opinion, as the file D-2 was also covered in the note dated
15.09.2004 of Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, as extracted above. The
instant file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal and he marked it to LA (T).
175. However, vide note dated 17.12.2004, recorded on
the right margin by Sh. A. R. Devarajan on the oral instructions
of Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), the file was withdrawn from legal
section.
Requisition of files D-2, D-38 and D-41 by the Minister

Page 91 of 424
176. On the instant file being withdrawn from legal
section, the file was marked to Director (BS-III). Sh. Sukhbir
Singh, Director (BS-III), recorded a note dated 21.12.2004, at
21/N (D-2), to the following effect:
As desired the case files of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. in
which the LOIs for 8 service areas for grant of UAS
licences were approved are placed below. The case
file for change of name of the company is also placed
below.
1. F.No.20-231/2003-BS.III- (D-2)
2. F.No.20-231/2003-BS.III/Pt.- (D-38)
3. F.No.20-225/04-
GenlMts/Dishnet/BS.III-
(D-41)
2. The note of Additional Secretary (T) is placed

at p.77-c to 80/c.
Submitted please.
177. After the note, the file was marked to DDG (BS) Sh.
P. K. Mittal and ultimately the file reached Secretary (T), who
marked the file to the Minister on 24.12.2004. Thus, files D-2,
D-38 and D-41 reached the Minister on 24.12.2004.
It is to be noted that the Minister had asked for a note of
AS(T) to be submitted through Secretary (T) vide order dated
15.09.2004 at 35/N in file D-40. This note should have reached
the Minister independently, but was submitted to the Minister
through the aforesaid note of 21.12.2004 alongwith other files.
There is every possibility of the note escaping the attention of
the Minister.
Pendency of the files with the Minister and return thereof:

Page 92 of 424
Question of haste
178. However, the instant file remained with the office of
the Minister and was returned to the Secretary (T) on
03.03.2005 alongwith other files as ordered by Sh. K. Sanjay
Murthy, PS to the MOC&IT, in the following terms in D-41 at
7/N:
I have been asked to request Secretary (T) to re-
examine if there has been undue haste in processing
the case. The following files are enclosed :-
1. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol.III)- (D-
2)
2. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III- (D-46) (D-
592 main case)
3. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III- (Pt.)- (D-38)
4. F.No.20-225/04-GnlBTS/Dishnet/BS-
III - (D-41)
Thus, the Minister was suspicious of the activities of his

predecessor, perhaps rightly as the questions relating to the
financial capacity of the company were not properly dealt with
when eight LOIs were approved to be issued to Dishnet DSL
Limited in 05.04.2004 in file D-38.
179. Thereafter, Secretary (T) discussed the matter with
MOC&IT on 30.03.2005 and recorded a note at 21/N (D-2),
which is as under:
Discussed with MOC&IT. These files are returned
with the directions that the Dir. should ascertain all
the show cause notices/advisory letters issued to the
above company or companies belonging to the
group and the nature of defaults before any view is
taken. It may be submitted to my successor.
180. Thereafter, from 06.05.2005 till 02.03.2006, 22/N

Page 93 of 424
to 27/N, the file remained under process in the department on
the points raised by the Secretary in note dated 30.03.2005, on
the following four issues:
(1) Request for extension of time of the LOI for MP service
area under UAS by 90 days for signing of the licence
agreement;
(2) Issue of LOI for grant of UAS for UP(E) and UP(W)
service areas to Dishnet DSL Limited;
(3) Request for taking on record change of name of the
company from Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet Wireless
Limited; and
(4) Issue of fresh LOI for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and
Kolkata service areas for Dishnet Wireless Limited for
Unified Access Services.
181. On 28.06.2005, the issue of change of equity by
sister concerns, that is, Aircel Limited and Aircel Cellular
Limited, was also introduced by Sh. P. K. Mittal at 24/N, in the
instant file.
182. Therefore, all six issues were being dealt with in this
file. However, on withdrawal of application for change of
equity, this issue was closed on 14.07.2005 in the instant file.
183. Thereafter, on 10.02.2006, at 27/N, it is recorded
that a policy decision has been submitted regarding grey
market issues. Thereafter, there is no development except
marking of the file here and there on this page itself. It is also
recorded on 02.03.2006 that note sheet of part file No. 20-
231/2004-BSIII pt. is enclosed as 28/N.
184. This note sheet of 02.01.2006, at 28/N, of the

Page 94 of 424
aforesaid part file deals with the issue of LOI for grant of UASL
in Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Kolkata, UP (E)
and UP(W) service areas to Dishnet DSL Limited and
information is sought as per latest UASL guidelines.
185. Thus, the pending applications were to be dealt with
as per the latest guidelines. The company gave some
information and that was processed at 29/N.
Entry of Maxis
186. When the above information was being processed in
note sheet dated 06.03.2006, 30/N, the fact that Maxis
Communication Berhad will be holding about 73.99% of Aircel
Limited was taken on record with the fact that the proposal for
investment is listed before FIPB for approval in its meeting on
07.03.2006. Thereafter, the file remained under process on
account of new development, that is, on account of Maxis
holding 73.99% of the equity and related issues from 30/N to
38/N.
187. Finally, note sheet dated 13.11.2006 was recorded
by Sh. R. K. Gupta, ADG (AS-I) at pages 39/N to 41/N taking on
record all the developments including FIPB approval and the
file was marked upward and the matter was finally approved by
the Minister on 22.11.2006 at 42/N, relating to issue of LOI for
grant of UASL for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Kolkata, UP(E) and
UP(W) service areas and amendment of LOI for Madhya
Pradesh service area.
188. The aforesaid note sheets clearly explain the process
through which the instant file passed before final approval was

Page 95 of 424
granted by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 22.11.2006. The
observations made by different officers at different levels and
time are also clear, more particularly about financial capacity of
the company, that is, Dishnet DSL Limited, and its involvement
in grey market and transfer of ISP licence without permission
from the department, as mentioned at 33/N in detail, is as
under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
(ii) LR has intimated that following are the cases
under process in LR Wing.
(a) Show Cause Notice for imposing penalty

amounting Rs.2,36,88,522 and submitting
additional bank guarantee of Rs.3.20 crore because
of grey market activities by its subscribers. Final
order under issue after according personal hearing
before Member (P).
(b) Show Cause Notice for termination of licence
for violation of clause 10 regarding Transfer of
Licence is under issue. Approval of MOC received
on 28th March, 2005.
(c) 6 nos. of new cases have been reported for
involvement of its subscribers in grey market
recently (on 10th March, 2005). The cases are being
processed.
.....................................................................................
.................................................................................
(iv) VAS has mentioned on Note Sheet No. 26/N
that the extracts of file no.843-325/2000-VAS(Pt)
having remarks of Secretary (T) for information and
further necessary action of BS Cell. In the remarks
Secretary (T) has mentioned that please examine
the matter afresh in the light of notices issued to the
company in some of the ISPs related irregularities.
..................................................................................
................................................

Page 96 of 424
Thus, the record of the company is not very impressive.
Observations in file D-38: File in which eight LOIs were

granted
189. Vide note sheet dated 24.05.2004 at 8/N, Sh. P. K.
Mittal had directed that file, wherein seven applications were
approved be linked up with this file. This file is D-38.
190. Since this file, that is, D-38, was also ordered to be
linked up, it is relevant to extract the required note sheets from
this file also for better understanding of the case, which are as
under:
191. As per D-38, eight applications, 36/C, were received
in DoT on 05.03.2004 and were processed for the first time on
09.03.2004 at 9/N, recommending the issue of licences. DDG
(BS) agreed to the same on 10.03.2004 and marked the file to
DDG (LF).
192. The file reached Director (LF-II), who recorded note
dated 22.03.2004, 10/N, to the following effect:
Pre notes kindly refers.
1. That new UASL licenses will be allotted as per
the financial (entry fee, PBG, FBG, Net worth and
paid up equity) and other conditions of 4th cellular
licensees and with reference to the guidelines issued
for migration, on a continuous and first come first
serve basis, have earlier been clarified by BS branch.
Accordingly, new UAS licenses have been issued
with the approval of Hon'ble MOC&IT in file no.
842-441/2003-VAS (pt).
2. Dishnet DSL, an existing ISP (Category A-All

India) licensee has applied for 8 Unified Access
Service License-2 category B (West Bengal including
A&N and MP) and 6 category C (Assam, Bihar,

Page 97 of 424
Himachal, J&K, NE and Orissa) licenses. They have
indicated certain amount of foreign equity, in the
subscribed equity, for which they will need to
submit documents in accordance with items 9 and
10 of the application proforma.
3. The applicant is an ISP and they are paying

license fee @ Re. 1 per year as stipulated. The two
sister concerns M/s Aircel and M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited are cellular licensees in Tamil Nadu and
Chennai. They are paying quarterly 1 fees regularly.
The FBGs are maintained and regularly reviewed by
CCAs. The PBGs of Aircell Cellular (RPG) is already
due for renewal and they have been intimated for
submission of renewed BG.
4. Since Dishnet is an existing ISP licensee and

its stated sister concerns Aircell Ltd and Aircell
Cellular Limited being cellular licensees, it may
have to be examined whether these licensees have
been discharging the operational obligations to the
satisfaction of the licensor. Secondly, it is presumed
that BS Branch has found the details of experience
and network roll out plan acceptable.
5. On the other hand, it is not stated how much

is the shareholding of the promoter in the
companies Aircel Limited and Aircell Cellular
Limited, but it is possible that the net worth of
Sterling Infotech Ltd have been taken into account
for purpose the cellular licenses of the sister
concerns. Therefore, the requirement of net worth
will need to be examined with reference to these
cellular licenses. In isolation however, the net worth
as disclosed by the company, by self-certification
fulfills the conditions of net worth. On this issue Dir
BS III has clarified that as per present policy the net
worth is to be looked at in isolation and restriction
exist in terms of allotment of license in the same
service area.
6. The format of LOI has been seen by the LA(T)

Page 98 of 424
on earlier occasions.
7. We may obtain the comments on 4& 5 above
8. In addition the following observations are

made. For Assam alone the funding requirement is
shown as Rs 88 crores, thus the total funding
requirement would be substantial for 8 circles. On
the other hand the authorized capital is Rs 75 crore,
the paid up equity being even lesser at Rs. 29.7
crores. The net worth, including that of promoters is
indicated as Rs. 400 crores. As such, the conditions
of net worth and equity for CMTS were prescribed
during tendering process, which were perhaps
included to ensure that operators with capacity to
deliver required quantum and quality of service
comes to the market.
10. In addition, the entire net worth of the

promoter is taken for purpose of net worth under
the existing guidelines. However, it may have to be
explored, while the promoter has a restricted share
holding in the applicant, how appropriate it will be
consider the entire net worth for purpose of grant of
license.
Now that DoT is issuing the access services

licenses on a first come first served basis the above
issues may require examination. These have been
discussed with Dir BS III.
Submitted please.
193. He marked the note to DDG (LF), who agreed to it.

Perusal of the note reveals that operational capability of the
company as well as its financial capacity was questioned in the
very beginning itself. The file was marked the file to DDG (BS),
who, in turn, marked the file to Director (BS-III).
194. Director (BS-III) Sh. Govind Singhal recorded note

Page 99 of 424
dated 23.03.2004, page 12/N, which is as under:
Reference notes on page 10-11/N.
2. It is clarified that M/s Dishnet DSL applicant

company is different from M/s Aircel and Aircel
Cellular Ltd. holding cellular licence in Tamilnadu
and Chennai respectively. With reference to para 4
on p.10/N, it is clarified that tender for 4th cellular
licence clearly stipulated that the bidding company
should have telecom experience. In this respect, the
bidder company becomes applicant company and is
an ISP licensee and therefore, has fulfilled the
conditions. The roll out plans indicated by the
company are as per the terms and conditions of the
licence to be issued. As regards discharging the
operational obligations by the sister concerns viz.
Aircel Ltd. and Aircel Cellular Ltd., it is clarified that
this is neither a condition nor the practice to
examine it at the stage of considering for grant of
licence. Further, condition 3(iii) of the LOI takes
care of the unfulfilled roll out obligations.
3. As already clarified that while considering the

total requirement of networth, the licences held by
the applicant company is to be considered. In this
case, the applicant company is not holding any
Unified Access Service/Basic Service/Cellular
service licence. Accordingly, total required networth
for the 8 licences comes to Rs. 280 crores and as per
the certificate given on the basis of unaudited
results by the Company Secretary, the networth of
the company and its promoter is Rs. 400 crores. The
certificate of the company secretary in respect of
networth and paid up capital is accepted. The same
principle has been followed in respect of licences
granted in 2001 and prior to this case. As regards
observations in para 8 for capability of raising the
funds, it is felt that the same may be left the
Financiers/banks and the company itself as for such
circles (except J&K, NE and Assam), after repeated
bidding, the department failed to invite any

Page 100 of 424
prospective service provider prior to issue of
guidelines for UASL. As regards para 10, it is not as
per the existing guidelines/tender conditions for 4th
cellular.
Submitted please.
195. In due course the file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG

(BS), who agreed to the grant of licences on 23.03.2004 and
marked the file upward. On 24.03.2004, he discussed the
matter with senior officers and asked for a self-contained note.
On 25.03.2004, Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III), recorded
the following self-contained note, page 13/N:
Subject: Issue of LOI for grant of Unified
Access Services Licence for Assam,
Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya
Pradesh, North East, Orissa and
West Bengal including Andamon,
Nicobar service areas to M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd.
Applications have been received from M/s.

Licences for Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, North East,
Orissa and West Bengal including Andamon,
Nicobar service areas. Since all the applications are
similar one of the original application is placed
below for ready reference.

Nadu and Chennai.
3. M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. has applied in the


Page 101 of 424
basic service licence. A processing fee of Rs.15,000/-
per licence application has also been furnished. This
format has been accepted for issuing earlier LOIs for
UASL.

these applications for issue of letter of intent for
grant of UASL. Individual check list in respect of
these eight applications are placed at 37 to 44/c. As
per these check lists, the applications are in order
and LOI can be issued.
5. Licensing Finance raised some queries on N/S

10 and the same have been replied on N/S12.
Thereafter Licensing Finance (LF) had given
consent for issuing of the LOIs on 12/N.

Service Licence (UASL) in respect of Assam, Bihar,
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya
Pradesh, North East, Orissa and West Bengal
Service Areas as per the Draft format of LOIs placed
at 45-76/c and authorizing Director (BSIII) for
signing the Licence Agreement after fulfilling the
conditions stipulated in the LOIs.
Submitted for kind consideration and approval

please.
196. On the same day, Sh. P. K. Mittal agreed to the same

and marked the file upward and in due course the LOIs were
approved to be issued by the then Minister on 05.04.2004.
197. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal, in his statement dated
21.02.2012, at pages 2 and 3, has stated about these licences.
198. From the perusal of the aforesaid record in D-38, it
is clear that questions were being raised about the discharge of

Page 102 of 424
operational obligations by the company to the satisfaction of
the licensor regarding its ISP licence as well as about its
financial capacity to undertake the telecom project from the
very beginning itself, as is clear from note sheet dated
22.03.2004. However, these objections were brushed aside
stating that capacity to raise the fund may be left to the
financiers, banks and the company itself as some circles failed
to attract any prospective service provider and the LOIs were
approved to be issued on 05.04.2004. But this does not appear
to be a valid ground in view of the guidelines and the contents
of the proforma of application for UASL.
199. A perusal of note sheets would show that there were
serious doubts about the capacity of the company to undertake
the telecom projects.
Guidelines and proforma of application for UASL

200. Let me take note of the guidelines and the proforma
for issue of UASL to understand the relevance of the questions
put by various officers.
201. Clauses 8 and 10 of the guidelines dated 25.01.2001
read as under:
8. The promoters of applicant company shall
have a combined net-worth of amount indicated in
Annex-I. The net-worth of only those promoters
shall be counted who have at least 10% equity stake
in the total equity of the company. Here networth
shall mean as the sum total, in Indian Rupees, of
paid up equity capital and free reserves of qualified
promoters. While counting Net-worth the foreign
currency shall be converted into Indian Rupees at
the prevalent rate on the date of the application as

Page 103 of 424
indicated by the Reserve Bank of India.
10. The applicant company shall also submit

business plan along with its funding arrangement
for financing the project in each Circle separately.
202. It is interesting to note that the proforma prescribed

by the guidelines take note of every minute detail.
203. Initially, the applications were being submitted in
the format prescribed for basic services, issued with guidelines
dated 25.01.2001. The format of the application contains
sixteen clauses and the clauses 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are as
under:
7. Promoters/Partners in the Company:
(details of equity holdings)
S. No. Name of Promoter/ Indian/ Equity Networth
Partner Foreign %age
------- ------------------------- ---------- ------- -
-------
------- ------------------------- ---------- ------- -
-------
------- ------------------------- ---------- ------- -
-------
(Total foreign equity participation (s), if any, upto
the extent of 49%, including NRI equity, both
repatriable and non-repatriable, is allowed.
Complete break-up of 100% of equity must be
given.)
8. Paid up capital (proof to be attached)

..................................................................................
................................................................................
12. List of Telecom Service Licence (s) held by the

company and its allies/sister concerns/partners, if
any, and their present status. (Attach separate sheet,
if required)
(i)

Page 104 of 424
-----------------------------------------------------
(ii)
-----------------------------------------------------
(iii)
-----------------------------------------------------
(iv)
-----------------------------------------------------
13. List out experience of Promoters/Partners:

S.No. Name of Promoter/Partner
Experience
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
14. Network Rollout Plan

Year % of Total SDCAs proposed % coverage of uneconomic/
to be covered Remote Area SDCAs
1st ______________________
_________________________
2nd ______________________
_________________________
3rd ______________________
_________________________
4th ______________________
_________________________
5th ______________________
_________________________
6th ______________________
_________________________
7th ______________________
_________________________
15. Details of business plan along with the

funding arrangement for financing the project.
..................................................................................
.....................................................................
204. The proforma of checklist, as available on 37/c

onwards of Dishnet in D-38, also contains the following clauses
2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 13.
CHECKLIST FOR APPLICATION FOR UNIFIED ACCESS
SERVICES LICENSE

Page 105 of 424
Name of the Company: M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
Service Area applied for: West Bengal
S. PARTICULARS STATUS REMARKS
No.

2. Details of equity structure Submitted Available in the
Application
3. Proof of net worth Submitted Annexure-II
4. Proof of paid up capital Submitted Annexure-III

10. Network roll out plan As per As per Annexure-
Annexure-VII VII
11. Details of business plan Submitted Annexure-VIII
along with funding
arrangements

13. List of Telecom Service Submitted Annexure-V
Licenses held by the
company
New Guidelines dated 14.12.2005

205. Thereafter, new guidelines were issued on
14.12.2005, consequent to change of FDI policy and a new
proforma was also issued for filing up applications for Unified
Access Services Licence. Clauses 7, 8, 13 and 14 are as under:
7.(a) Details of Promoters/Partners/ Shareholder in
the Company: The promoters to be indicated
S. No. Name of Promoter/ Indian/ Equity Networth

Partner/ Shareholder Foreign %age
------- ------------------------- ---------- ------- -
-------
(Complete break-up of 100% of equity must be
given. Equity holding upto 5% of the total equity
shared among various shareholder can be clubbed
but Indian and Foreign equity must be separate.)
(b) Equity details
Indian ----------------------------------------
Foreign ----------------------------------------
Total

Page 106 of 424
(Certificate from Company Secretary to be attached)
(c) The applicant is required to disclose the status

of such foreign holding and certify that the foreign
investment is within the ceiling of 74%.
(Certificate from Company Secretary to be attached)
8. Details of the Cellular and Unified access

licence in the name of the applicant company and
Networth required for the Licence
No. of No. of Cellular/ UAS licence No. of Cellular/ UAS

Cellular/UAS in category B service area licence in category C
licence in category service area
A service area
A B C
A * 100=P B* 50=Q C* 30=R
Total = P+Q+R
13. List of Telecom Service Licence (s) held by the

company and its allies/ sister concerns/partners, if
any, and their present status. (Attach separate sheet,
if required)
Type of the Licence Name of the Status Whether

And Service area Company
Operative/surrendered/Terminated
--------------- --------- --------------
--
(Type of the Licence means Basic/ Cellular/ UASL/
Paging/NLD/ILD/IP-II licences etc. details of all
the Licences held by Allies/Sister concerns/
Partners or legal entities with 10% or more common
equities must be shown separately.
14. Details of business plan along with the

funding arrangement for financing the project.
Regarding procedure of issue of LOI and UASL

206. In his statement dated 21.02.2012, PW 8 Sh. P. K.

Page 107 of 424
Mittal, states about the procedure of grant of UAS licences at
pages 1 and 2 as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
While processing the applications, the proposal was
to be initiated by the Asstt. Director and he used to
put up the same to the Director and then it was put
up to me. I used to further submit to DDG
(Licensing Financing) and then it was to be
submitted to Member (Production). The Member
(Production) used to forward to Secretary, DOT
after financial concurrence from Member (Finance).
Thereafter the Secretary, DOT with his
recommendations used to submit the file to the
Minister of Communications and Information
Technology (MOC & IT) for his approval. If at any
stage any shortcomings/ deficiencies noticed in the
proposal, the same was to be highlighted and got
rectified. Without rectification of such deficiencies,
the proposal for issuance of License cannot be
approved. I would like to add here that at every
stage from its initiation it was required to be
ensured that the stipulated terms and conditions
are fulfilled.
Consequent upon approval of the MOC & IT, a
Letter of Intent (LOI) is issued to the applicant to
fulfill certain conditions such as payment of entry
fee, submission of Performance Bank Guarantee
(PBG) and Financial Bank Guarantee (FBG) and no
dues certificate in respect of dues payable to the
DOT for other licenses already issued to the
applicant company and its sister concerns. These
conditions have to be fulfilled within a stipulated
period of 15 Days. On the request of the applicant
company, the extension of one-two months for
fulfilling the required conditions are granted by the
Secretary DOT / MOC & IT. After fulfilling the
required conditions the License Agreement is
executed. Having executed the License Agreement,
the Licensee becomes eligible to apply for the
spectrum eg. 4.4 MHz in Global System Mobile

Page 108 of 424
(GSM) band. Then the Licensee can roll- out
service.
..................................................................................
........................................
207. A bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines and

proforma would reveal that an applicant for a telecom licence
will have to satisfy the licensor about its financial capacity as
well as business plan, that is, how would it fund and execute the
project. It cannot be left entirely to a bare statement of an
applicant company.
208. Thus, the financial capacity of the company to
undertake the project was in doubt from the very beginning. It
was further compounded by the fact that it failed to comply
with LOI for MP service area and also to sign licence
agreements in seven service areas in prescribed time.
Development in D-2
209. Funding aspect was all the more important in the
instant case (D-2) when it was recorded on 29.06.2004 that the
authorized capital of the company is Rs. 75 crore and paid-up
equity/ capital is below Rs. 30 crore and the funding
requirement was shown as over Rs. 2110 crore and a question
was raised as to how funding requirement would be met.
210. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal has stated in his statement
dated 28.11.2011 as to how there were serious issues regarding
the debt equity ratio of the company, sudden increase in the net
worth of the company without any supporting documents, and
as to how the funding requirement of Rs. 2100 crore would be

Page 109 of 424
met keeping the debt equity ratio as 1:1 as indicated by the
company with authorized capital of the company as Rs. 75 crore
and subscribed and paid-up capital below Rs. 30 crore. Some
clarifications were sought from the company. He has also stated
about the doubts raised about the financial capacity of the
company from 05.05.2004 onward when process for issue of
eight LOIs was initiated in D-38.
211. Perusal of the note sheets recorded in the file from
05.05.2004 to 29.06.2004 indicate that the department
entertained serious doubts about the financial capacity of the
company to execute the telecom licences. However, after receipt
of its clarifications, it was suddenly recorded by Sh. P. K. Sinha
on 01.07.2004 as under:
As per the letter of DDSL placed at 69/C, DDSL is
in the process of tying up with banks & FIs for debt
as also would infuse additional equity from other
sources (after increasing the authorized capital) to
maintain the debt equity ratio as 1:1. Since the
funding plans are internal decision of the company
we perhaps may have to accept the statements in the
said letter.
Submitted for consideration please.
212. He marked the file to DDG (LF). Thereafter, DDG

(LF) Sh. H. P. Mishra, who recorded that we may take
statement made by the company on record and process the case
for approval by the competent authority.
213. Thereafter, on these lines a note sheet for approval
dated 08.07.2004 was recorded by Sh. A. R. Devarajan for
grant of licence to Dishnet for UP (E) and UP (W) service areas
and also for extension of time for LOI for Madhya Pradesh.

Page 110 of 424
Everybody concurred with that and thereafter, file was marked
to the Minister on 13.07.2004, brushing aside all objections.
214. From the perusal of the two files, that is, D-38 and
D-2, it is clear that:
(a) Questions were being raised from the very beginning
about the discharge of operational obligations by the
sister concerns of the company regarding earlier licences
to the satisfaction of licensor as the companies were
involved in grey market;
(b) The financial capacity to undertake the telecom projects
was suspect from the very beginning;
(c) The company had not paid licence fee regarding ISP
licence for two years, though it was a small amount;
(d) Extension of time for signing licence agreements for seven
service areas was contrary to guidelines and conditions of
LOI; and
(e) Company failed to comply with the LOI for MP service
area within the prescribed period and was seeking
extension of the same, though there was no guidelines for
extending the same.
215. The perusal of record would reveal that the opinion
of Dr. J. S. Sarma was administratively correct, whereas that of
Legal Advisor was too legalistic.
Issue of Licence to Bharti Cellular (D-46)

216. The application of Bharti Televenture Limited for
LOI in Assam service area was processed at note sheets 14/N to
21/N. The grant of LOI was approved on 23.04.2004 at 14/N.

Page 111 of 424
However, later on, that LOI was withdrawn and the company
filed a fresh application for issue of UASL for Assam service
area. The application was processed and the note sheet dated
31.05.2004, at 21/N, recorded by Sh. Govind Singhal, Director
(BS-III), is the relevant note sheet. Following this note sheet,
the LOI was approved to be issued by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on
22.06.2004. It reads as under:
Subject:
1. Withdrawal of the application for
Licence in Assam Service area by
M/s Bharti Cellular Limited.
2. Issue of LOI for grant of Unified
Access Services Licence for Assam
service area to M/s. Bharti Tele-
ventures Ltd.
Note sheet No. 15 -20/N may kindly be seen.

Brief is as below:
M/s Bharti Cellular Limited applied for the

grant of the Licence in the Assam service area. The
application was processed and approved by Hon'ble
MOC&IT on N/s 14/N.
2. M/s Bharti Cellular limited has requested for

withdrawal of the same application which is placed
at 98/c.
3. M/s. Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd. has submitted

an application for grant of Unified Access Service
Licences for Assam service area. The application in
original is placed 97/c for ready reference.
4. M/s Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd., is the promoter

of various Access service providers holding various
Cellular Licences and Unified Access Licences. Its
Nadu and Chennai.

Page 112 of 424
5. M/s. Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd. has applied in
the format earlier prescribed for making application
for basic service licence. A processing fee of Rs.
6. M/s Bharti has submitted a copy of foreign

agreement. A check has been carried out with
reference to the application for issue of letter of
intent for grant of UASL. Individual checklist in
respect of Assam application is placed at 95/c. As
per checklist, the application is in order and LOI can
be issued.
7. LOI has been modified as suggested by DDG

(LF) on N/s -16.

approval pls for the withdrawal of the application by
the M/s Bharti Cellular Limited and also for issue of
Letter of Intent (LOI) to M/s Bharti Tele-ventures
Ltd. for award of Unified Access Service Licence
(UASL) in respect of Assam Service Area as per the
Draft format of LOI placed at 94/c and authorizing
Director (BS-III) for signing the Licence Agreement
after fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the LOIs.
217. The proposal in the aforesaid note sheet was agreed

to by DDG (BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (LF), Member (P) and
Member (F) and also Secretary (T) on 18.06.2004. The file was
marked to the Minister and he approved it on 22.06.2004.
218. A perusal of the case reveals that no objection was
raised by anyone to the grant of LOI to this company. The only
objection was regarding a copy of a foreign agreement. That
was placed on record by the company as noted in clause 6
above. Thereafter, the proposal was approved by the Minister.

Page 113 of 424
There is no objection from any quarter to the grant of LOI.
219. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal has stated about this in his
statement dated 21.02.2012 at pages 4 and 5. He does not
mention that there were any issues with this application.
Hence, this case cannot be used as an example to question the
questions raised by the Minister in the case of Dishnet DSL as
noted above.
220. The defence has rightly raised the argument that it
is a query-free file and no objection could have been raised by
the Minister even if he wanted to.
Issue of Reliance Infocom (D-46)

221. The issue of grant of LOI to Reliance Infocom
Limited for J&K service area was processed at 24/N in D-46.
222. It is interesting to extract from file D-46, page 24/N,
wherein issue of LOI for grant of UASL for J&K service area to
Reliance Infocom Limited was processed. The note sheet
recorded by Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III), dated
10.08.2004, reads as under:
Subject: Issue of LOI for grant of Unified
Access Services Licence for J&K Service Area
to M/s. Reliance Infocomm Ltd.
History: M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd. has earlier

applied for UASL for J&K Service Area on
29.12.2003. LOI was issued on 12.01.2004. Further
the Company had requested for extension of time, 3
times till 27/5/2004. Company had approached
extension for the 4th time for 6 months which was
not agreed to. The company was advised to apply
afresh.

Page 114 of 424
2. Applications have been received from M/s.
Reliance Infocom Ltd. on 24.6.2004 for grant of
Unified Access Service Licences for J&K service
area. The application in original is placed below for
ready reference.
3. M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd., an Access

service provider holding various Unified Access
Licences, and other licences also.
4. M/s. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. has applied in

the format earlier prescribed for making application
for basic service licence. A processing fee of Rs.

the application for issue of letter of intent for grant
of UASL. Individual check list in respect of J&K
application is placed at 111/c. As per check list, the
application is in order.

approval, for issue of Letter of Intent (LOI) to M/s
Reliance Infocomm Ltd. for award of Unified Access
Service Licence (UASL) in respect of J&K Service
Area as per the Draft format of LOI placed at 120/c
and authorizing Director (BSIII) for signing the
Licence Agreement after fulfilling the conditions
stipulated in the LOIs.
Submitted for kind consideration and approval
as above please.
223. A bare perusal of the note sheet 24/N makes it clear

that there was no objection from any quarter to the grant of
LOI. The Secretary (T) recommended it on 13.08.2004 and the
Minister approved on 20.08.2004.
224. Again, it was a case where no objection was raised

Page 115 of 424
from any quarter and the Minister was also not in a position to
raise any question. Hence, it cannot be used as an instance to
advance the case that the Minister deliberately raised questions
in the case of Dishnet DSL Limited, but not in other cases.
225. The proposal was put up by Sh. Govind Singhal on
10.08.2004 and was agreed to by Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), on
the same day, by Sh. H. P. Mishra, DDG (LF) on 11.08.2004, by
Member (T) on 12.08.2004, and was recommended by
Secretary (T) on 13.08.2004 and was approved by the Minister
on 22.08.2004.
226. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal in his statement dated
21.02.2012 at pages 5 and 6 has stated about this. He does not
say that there was any serious issue with this application.
227. Thus, this file also does not advance the case of the
prosecution as it was also a query-free file.
Regarding delay
228. PW 15 Sh. Govind Singhal in his statement dated
03.09.2013, at page 5, states as under:
.....................................................................................
................................................................................
On being asked, I state that BS section had
recommended for the issuance of LOI for UP(E),
UP(W), Punjab, Haryana, Kolkata and Kerala and
extension of time limit of LOI by 90 days for
Madhya Pradesh in respect of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
(new name Dishnet Wireless Ltd.). The legal opinion
dated 11.01.2005 of Sh. O.P. Nahar, LA was very
clear and was in favour of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
This legal opinion was also placed in VAS cell file
no.842-325/2000-VAS. The legal opinion which was
placed in VAS file was made available to the office of

Page 116 of 424
MoC&IT. The approval was delayed due to the
instructions conveyed by Sh. Nripendra Misra, the
then Secretary(T) on 30.03.2005 in BS section file
no. 20-231/ 2003- BS-III (Vol.III) (D-2). These
instructions had linked the issuance of UASL to
show cause notices/advisory letters issued to the
company. Sh. B. Shiva Ramakrishnan, the then
Member(P) had also passed an instruction on
08.04.2005 in file no.20-231/2004-BS-III.
...................................................................................
..............................................................
Regarding the events recorded in D-2, note of Minister and

legal opinion
229. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), has narrated
about the noting in file D-2, in his statement dated 28.11.2011
from pages 1 to 17. Regarding the return of file from the office
of Minister, he states as under on pages 12 to 16:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................On
being asked I state that the said file was received in
the O/o Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC &IT
on 13.07.2004 itself.
In spite of the unanimous recommendation from the
dealing officers to the Secretary (T) for issuance of
LOI for award of UASLs for UP (E) and UP (W) and
extension of LOI for MP circles, Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then, MOC & IT instead of according
approval, raised objections and sought clarification
through his PS, Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy on 26-08-
2004 (17-N) which are reproduced herein below:-
I have been directed to seek the below
clarifications:
a) The financial/ equity between M/s.
Dishnet DSL Ltd. and its sister concerns holding

Page 117 of 424
licence elsewhere, particularly in Tamil Nadu and
Chennai.
b) To please verify the status of the
newspaper reports regarding sale of M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd. or any of its sister concerns to any other
company.
c) To also verify whether M/s. Dishnet DSL
Ltd. or any of its sister concerns granted licences in
licensee/ entity.
certain licence conditions entailing specific penalty
being imposed on it. The legal implications to this
case may please be examined and reported
This file was received back after 44 days from the
office of MOC & IT. Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, PS
marked the file to Secretary Sh. Nripendra Misra
who in turn marked the file to Member (P) Sh. B.
Sivaramakrishna on the same day i.e. 26-08-2004
and this note was marked to dealing officer Sh. A.R.
Devrajan on 27-08-2004 duly routed through
myself and Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III). I
recall that Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy when he signed the
aforesaid note dated 26-08-2004 on behalf of MOC
& IT, told me that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran the then
MOC & IT was very furious with the officers of the
DOT for recommending the case of M/s Dishnet
DSL for grant of UASL for UP (E) and UP (W) and
extension of LOI for MP circles and wanted to
initiate action against such DOT officials.
In compliance to the aforesaid instructions of the
MOC & IT, Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III)
issued a letter dated 08-09-2004 to M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. requesting to intimate the details such as
(i) Financial / equity between M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
and its sister concerns holding License elsewhere
specially in Tamilnadu and Chennai (ii) any sale of
the company out of its sister concern which held

Page 118 of 424
Licenses in other Service Area. (iii) Whether any
violation of term & conditions had occurred and
consequently incurred penalties by the company or
its sister concerns (at page 19-C in file no. 20-
231/2004-BS-III). Simultaneously Sh. Singhal also
sent UO notes to Sr. DDG (VAS), Wireless Advisor,
DDG (LF) and DDG (LR) requesting to provide the
aforesaid information available with them, so that
the matter could be submitted to MOC & IT. (at page
no. 16).
With regard to the queries raised by the Minister, I
would like to clarify that the issue regarding selling
of License granted to its sister concern was in the
context of newspaper reports indicating that M/s
Aircel had sold its equity to ESSAR (erstwhile
Hutch, now known as Vodafone). As regards the
violation of License conditions are concerned, it was
with reference to sale of broadband business to
VSNL and misuse of internet connection by
subscriber of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. for gray market
calls whereby long distance call were converted into
local calls resulting loss to the exchequer. It is worth
while to mention that no such queries were raised in
respect of M/s Reliance and Bharti for granting
LOIs for UASL during the same period. Moreover,
no such queries were raised for granting UASLs for
seven circles to the same company during the stint
of earlier Minister i.e. Mr. Arun Shourie. As such
these queries raised are not on sound footing which
appear to be on frivolous / out of context grounds.
While the information was being collected for
giving reply to the aforesaid queries of the Minister,
another note was received from Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran the then MOC & IT through his PS, Sh. K.
Sanjay Murthy on 15-09-2004 which is placed at 11-
C in file no. 20-231/2004-BS-III (D-3) (original in
D-40, at 35/N). As per this note the said PS to MOC
& IT conveyed to Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Misra
which is reproduced below:-

Page 119 of 424
mergers and acquisitions, licensing, FDI and FII
Note submitted:-
1. F. No. 842-21/2001-VAS (Vol. III)(it contains
the application for change of equity in M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd.)
2. F. No. 842-325/2000-VAS (it contains the
application for change of equity in M/s Aircel Ltd.)
3. F. No. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I) (it contains
GoM on telecom matters i.e. D-591 in charge-sheet
of RC 45(A)/2009-DLI)
4. F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III (it contains the
application of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. for UASL for
UP(E), UP(W) and application for extension of LOI
for MP)
AS (T) may prepare the note and submit the same

through Secretary (T). The above mentioned files
are placed below
Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy marked this note to Secretary
(T) i.e. Sh. Nripendra Misra on 15.09.2004. On this
Sh. Misra recorded his observations dated 15-09-
2004 which is reproduced herein below:-
My recommendation are available on the file. AS
(T) pl comply with the order of MOC & IT and
submit to MOC & IT for superior orders
The original of the above note-sheets are available
in file No. 842-325/2000-VAS which has now been
shown to me.
I recall that Sh. Nripendra Misra mentioned to me
that he had already given his recommendation for
granting necessary approval by the Minister for
various proposals including grant of UASLs to M/s

Page 120 of 424
Dishnet DSL Ltd for UP (E) and UP (W) and equity
restructuring for M/s Aircel and Aircel Cellular Ltd.
in Tamilnadu and Chennai. He further mentioned
that he was upset with these remarks as it amounted
to scrutinizing the recommendation of superior
officers by junior officers in the same department.
Secretary being Head of the Office has the full
responsibility to make recommendation to the
Minister. I would like to add that Dr. J.S. Sarma, the
then Additional Secretary to whom these files were
marked by the PS to the Minister, was not at all
concerned with the process of grant of UASL.
Dr. J.S. Sharma submitted the detailed note on 30-
11-2004 which is placed at 12-C to 13-C in file no.
842-325/2000-VAS (Photocopy of the same is
available in file No. 20-231/2004-BS-III). The
comments of Dr. J.S. Sarma on three issues in
nutshell are as under:-
1. M/s Aircel Ltd:- ..In file no. 842-
325/2000-VAS, it has been recommended to allow
change in the equity structure thereby change in
the ownership. However, the equity structure of the
new management is so complex that it is difficult to
believe that management control will remain with
Indian shareholders. Perhaps, Aircel Digilinks
India Ltd. may have to simplify its equity structure
so that direct and indirect FDI do not cross the
prescribed limits. Till this is done, the request of the
company may be kept in abeyance.
2. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd:- ..The company
has further applied for transfer of 100% shares
held by Srinivas Computers Ltd. to Aircel Digilinks
India Ltd., a Hutch Group company. This proposal
is not recommended on the grounds that promoters
of the new management also hold substantial
equity in another company Hutchison Essar South
Ltd. who also hold the license for same service in
the same service area i.e. Chennai.
3. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd:- ..As per the

Page 121 of 424
information available, there are five vigilance
cases against the company with regard to
provision of Internet Service and DOT and imposed
penalties total amounting to about Rs. 2.27 crore.
The company has not paid the penalties and filed
cases in TDSAT.
Before granting the UASL Licenses to Dishnet,
we may await for the decision of TDSAT on the
issue of vigilance cases and penalties imposed by
DOT on this company
Dr. J.S. Sarma, Additional Secretary submitted his
note dated 30.11.2004 to Secretary, DOT. On this
Sh. Nripendra Misra, Secretary directed me to put
up the legal status on the comments of Additional
Secretary (T). I would like to mention that with the
comments of AS (T) Dr. J.S. Sarma, the process of
grant of UASL to Dishnet DSL for UP (E) and UP
(W) and extension of LOI for MP was further
hampered for uncalled grounds. However being the
comments of the Sr. Officer I could not raise my
observations. Dr. J.S. Sarma, Additional Secretary
was relieved, hereafter, and repatriated to State
Cadre.
Regarding the case of Essar Spacetel (D-44)

230. This issue was dealt with in file D-44. PW 8 Sh. P. K.
Mittal has narrated the events in this file in his statements
dated 28.05.2012 and 30.05.2012. Amongst other things, he
has stated on page 2 of his statement dated 30.05.2012 as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Sh. B. Sivaramakrishanan, Member (P) sought an
appointment with Secretary (T) for discussion and
the appointment was received for 22.07.2005 at
05:30 PM. Accordingly, a discussion took place in
the chamber of Dr. J.S. Sarma, Secretary (T) on

Page 122 of 424
22.07.2005 which was attended by Sh. B.
Sivaramakrishnan, Member (P), Sh. R.N.
Prabhakar, Advisor (P) and myself. In the said
meeting, Dr. J.S. Sarma, Secretary (T) desired to
have the details of all show cause notices/advisory
letters issued to sister concerns of applicant
company and nature of default.
On being asked I state that it was already on record
that the sister concern of the applicant company was
in default for SLD and its network was used for grey
market telephony by its subscriber.
However, in view of direction given by Dr. J.S.
Sarma, Secretary (T) in the meeting held on
22.07.2005, I requested DDG (VAS) to indicate all
show cause notices/advisory letters issued to sister
concern of the applicant company. In this way the
application for UASL of M/s Essar Spacetel Pvt. Ltd.
was linked to violations by its sister concerns in
another licenses, before granting LOI for the license.
...................................................................................
....................................................
231. He further states in his statement dated 16.07.2012

at page 2 as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that the guidelines did not
provide for linking of any show cause notice or
advisory issued to the applicant company or its
sister concern or its associates from the process of
granting any further UASL in other services areas or
processing any request such as change of name of
that company. Accordingly this was never linked up
from the process of processing the application for
grant of UASL for any other licence such as CMTS,
Basic, NLD, ILD etc.
...................................................................................
.................................................
232. It is the case of the prosecution that the queries

Page 123 of 424
were raised in the case of Spacetel by the Minister so as to
sound to be even handed in all cases. However, the case of
Dishnet DSL is entirely different as it was being questioned on
several counts while allegations against Essar Spacetel related
only to involvement in grey market. Moreover, there is no harm
in putting such a defaulting licencee to higher scrutiny when it
asks for further licence.
233. Perusal of the aforesaid material reveals that the
cases of Bharti Cellular and Reliance Infocom also do not serve
the cause of the prosecution as both of them were query-free
files, whereas the case of the Dishnet DSL was under question
from the very beginning particularly regarding its financial
capacity to undertake the telecom projects.
234. Sh. P. K. Mittal himself admits in his statement as
extracted above dated 21.02.2012, that if at any stage any
shortcomings are noticed in the proposal the same were to be
highlighted and got rectified. He further states that without
rectification of deficiencies, the proposal for issuance of licence
cannot be approved. Contrary to this, the business plan of
Dishnet DSL was not examined but it was left at the sweet will
of the company. The company has to explain its business plan
and financial worth to the Licensor and it must feel satisfied
about the financial capacity of the company to undertake the
projects. But these factors were not properly examined in the
case of Dishnet DSL as noted above, in the very beginning itself
in file D-38 and thereafter also.
235. As far as the case of notices, advisory letters issued
to sister concerns are concerned, the same are also required to

Page 124 of 424
be examined, otherwise what is the use of asking their details in
the application proforma. These issues may not receive deeper
legal consideration but at least the proposal of the company
must receive some serious scrutiny as to its capacity to
undertake the telecom projects. Granting fresh licences to an
existing licencee, who is a defaulter in some respects, may dent
the image of the Licensor in the public eyes. The illegalities
committed by the sister concerns of the applicant company
cannot be totally ignored, though they may not warrant refusal
of licence to the company. Totally ignoring them may bring bad
name to the DoT. Those violations are detailed below.
Sale of ISP licence without permission of DoT: Conduct of the

Minister
236. Furthermore, as per file D-29, Dishnet Wireless
Limited was an ISP licencee with service area all India. It sold
its ISP licence to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited without
seeking prior permission from the DoT and this amounted to a
substantive violation.
237. This shows Dishnet Wireless Limited in very poor
light.
238. Furthermore, a proposal was put by the department
on 01.02.2005 at 3/N (D-29) narrating the facts to show cause
the company. The two companies, that is, Dishnet Wireless
Limited and M/s Track Online Net India (P) Limited had sold
their broadband business to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited,
another ISP licencee, without permission of the DoT and this
amounts to violation of licence agreements. Accordingly, a

Page 125 of 424
proposal was put up in para 3 as under:
In view of the above, it is proposed to issue show
cause termination notice to Dishnet Wireless
Limited, Track Online India (P) Limited and M/s
Videsh Sanchal Nigam Limited for default under
clause 10.1 of Schedule C part II of ISP licence
agreement for violation of clause 10 (as amended) of
the licence agreement as per the drafts placed
below.
239. This proposal was initiated on 01.02.2005 and

reached the Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 10.02.2005. On
10.02.2005 itself he recorded Pls discuss. Thereafter, the
matter was discussed and was approved by the Minister on
24.03.2005 and the file was marked to the Secretary on the
same day. This shows that the Minister was not very active in
clearing the file as he sat on this file also for 42 days, even when
action was to be taken against the company.
A show cause notice was issued to the company finally on
10.06.2005. This shows that the department was not very
efficient either in granting licence or in taking action for
violation of licence.
240. Again on receipt of reply from Dishnet and VSNL
and the same were considered by the department for a long
time and finally on 17.01.2006, a note was put up by DDG (LR)
that the explanation given by the companies may be accepted
and the show cause notices may be withdrawn. This was agreed
to by all officials including the Secretary on 26.01.2006 and the
file was marked to the Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. However,
the file was returned on 14.05.2006 with the remarks MOC&IT
could not see.

Page 126 of 424
241. Again this shows that the Minister was not very
keen in performing his duties as he sat on this file for about
four months. The file was again processed and was marked to
the Minister on 15.06.2006 at 23/N (D-29). It was finally
approved by the Minister on 05.07.2006, that is, the Minister
again sat on the file for 20 days.
Allegations against the company of involvement in grey market

242. In file D-63, at 4/c, Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
had approved a policy for taking action against ISP indulging in
grey market activities on 14.07.2004.
243. In this regard, at page 69/C (D-2), there is a list of
defaults committed by Dishnet. Six cases of misuse of internet
lease line were reported against the company during the period
March 2002 to May 2004 and a show cause notice for
imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,36,88,522/- was issued to the
company. Then there was allegation of sale of broadband ISP
business by it to VSNL. Then, 26 cases were reported against it
for misuse of their internet lease line.
244. Proceedings were started against the company for
termination of its ISP licences and imposition of penalty. The
recovery of loss from the company was approved by the
Minister on 20.08.2004 at 20/N (D-28).
However, later on an opportunity of hearing was decided
to be given to the company and a show cause notice was
required to be issued before imposing the penalty. The show
cause notice was approved by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on
17.12.2004 at 22/N (D-28). This shows the company in very

Page 127 of 424
poor light. A government department cannot and should not sit
idle taking recourse to strict legal interpretations when a
defaulter of one licence, applies for another one. It must at least
put it to higher scrutiny or else take steps to amend the
guidelines to prevent such defaulter from securing further
licences.
Change of partner without permission of DoT

245. Even otherwise, earlier also the company Aircel
Limited came under adverse notice in 2000 also when it sought
approval for change of equity consequent to replacement of
10% equity partner M/s Century Telephone Enterprises Inc.,
USA, foreign partner, by another foreign partner namely
Cellunet India Limited, Mauritius. This was done without prior
approval of DoT and the then deputy Legal Advisor Sh. V. K.
Bhatia, recorded at 6/N (D-40), inter alia, as under, in para 6:
6. It is intriguing that while condition 10 of the
licencee agreement stipulates prior written consent
of the licensor for any change in the composition of
the licence, in this case, as per the papers made
available to legal cell, the licencee is approaching
the licensor after having got the necessary
agreement. Prima-facie, the condition of the licence
agreement appears to have been not complied with
by the licence.
246. Though subsequently this was allowed by recording

that let the company avail some flexibility allowed by the
Cabinet in its meeting held on 08.08.2000 without giving any
valid reason.
247. In view of the above discussion as well as the

Page 128 of 424
detailed facts recorded and extracted above, almost all of which
are self explanatory, I am satisfied that the questions put by the
Minister can, by no stretch of imagination, be called frivolous.
More so, when the applicant company's credentials suffer from
various deficiencies.
**********
VIII. Delay in grant of approval to (a) change of name

from RPG Cellular Services Limited to Aircel
Cellular Limited; (b) to approve the purchase of
20.76% shareholding of foreign partner namely
M/s Siva Cellular Holdings Limited in Aircel
Televentures Limited by Aircel Televentures Limited
to make it 100% Indian company; (c) taking on
record the name change from Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures
Limited (D-30).
&
II. Delay in Approval for change in equity of Aircel
Limited and taking on record name change of
Srinivas Computers Limited in Tamil Nadu service
area (D- 40)

Advocate/ Spl. PP, that Aircel Cellular Limited was having a
telecom licence for Chennai service area and Aircel Limited was
having a licence for Tamil Nadu service area. It is submitted
that Aircel Cellular Limited applied for change of name from
RPG Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited and for
approval for purchase of 20.76% shareholding of Aircel Cellular
Limited by Aircel Televentures Limited, formerly Srinivas
Computers Limited, from Siva Cellular Holding Limited,
Mauritius, formerly Airtouch International Limited, Mauritius,

Page 129 of 424
and also for taking on record change of name from Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited in Chennai
service area. The officials recommended the same unanimously
but Sh. Dayanidhi Maran did not approve the same by putting
frivolous questions. It is further submitted that Aircel Limited
applied for approval of change in the equity structure on sale of
its shares held by Aircel Televentures Limited to Aircel Digilink
Limited and also for change of name of Srinivas Computers
Limited to Aircel Limited in Tamil Nadu service area, but the
same was also not approved by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran by putting
frivolous questions. My attention has been invited to the
questions put by the Minister to emphasize that there is no
merit in those questions. My attention has been invited to the
various note sheets in the file as well as statements of witnesses
to emphasize that the questions were meaningless, out of
context and totally frivolous, showing dishonest intention of Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran
249. On the other hand, learned Sr. Advocates for the
defence have submitted that the questions put by the Minister
were quite relevant, to the point and necessitated by the facts
on the file. It is their case that the questions were needed to be
asked and the Minister asked them rightly.
250. These issues pertain to Chennai and Tamil Nadu
service areas.
251. Both shall be discussed together as the approval for
change in equity structure consequent to sale/ transfer of
shares of Aircel Limited and Aircel Cellular Limited to Aircel
Digilink Limited is common in both the service areas.

Page 130 of 424
Issues relating to Chennai service area (D-30)
252. The issues relating to Chennai service area, are as
follows:
(a) change of name from RPG Cellular Services Limited to
Aircel Cellular Limited;
(b) to approve the purchase of 20.76% shareholding of foreign
partner namely M/s Siva Cellular Holdings Limited in Aircel
Limited by Aircel Televentures Limited to make it 100% Indian
company; and
(c) taking on record the name change from Srinivas Computers
Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited.
253. These issues were dealt with in file D-30.
254. The licence for CMTS in Chennai service area was
signed by RPG Cellular Services Limited on 30.11.1994.
255. Subsequently, in 2004, Srinivas Computers Limited
purchased 68.84% equity shares from from RPG Cellular
Investment Holding (P) Limited and 10.40% equity from
Cellfone Limited, Mauritius, thus acquiring 79.24% of the
equity of the licencee company. The remaining equity of
20.76% was held by Airtouch International, Mauritius.
The sale of 68.84% shares held by RPG Cellular
Investment Holding (P) Limited and 10.40% shares held by
Cellfone Limited, Mauritius, in RPG Cellular Services Limited
to Srinivas Computers Limited was approved by DoT on
18.12.2003, 11/N (D-30).
256. Thus, in the eyes of DoT, the licencee company
formally came under the control of Sh. C. Sivasankaran on

Page 131 of 424
18.12.2003.
257. Vide letter dated 26.02.2004, 16/c (D-30), Aircel
Cellular Limited informed DoT that the name of the company
RPG Cellular Services Limited had been changed to Aircel
Cellular Limited, effective from 23.01.2004, and prayed that it
may be taken on record. This letter was processed at 12/N (D-
30) and a note sheet dated 12.03.2004 was recorded by Sh. S.
C. Chaudhary, ADG (VAS-I), in the following terms:
PUC (16/C) is a letter dated 3.3.04 for change in
the name of the licensee company for CMTS
Chennai Metro Service Area from M/s RPG Cellular
Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited.
2. The company in its letter has stated that name

of the company has been changed from M/s RPG
Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited
and have requested to take this on record. The
licensee has enclosed the copy of amended Fresh
Certificate of Incorporation consequent to the
change of name.
3. The above change of name of the company is

to be taken on record by carrying out suitable
modifications to this effect in the License
Agreement.
4. Legal Advisor in the case of change of name of

a company had opined that the change of name for
the company can be equated with the name of a
natural person and once notified the new name
continues. After change of name, the old entity
continues and enters into the new name. The
continuity of the same entity permits all rights,
privileges and liabilities (extract from file no. 311-
58/95-VAS is placed at 17/C).
5. It may please be noted that in case of change

of name all the BGs against the said License also

Page 132 of 424
need to be amended with the new name.
6. We may not have any objection to the change

in name of the company from M/s RPG Cellular
Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited in view
of earlier legal advise subject to the condition that
the company shall provide modified Bank
Guarantees / Fresh Bank Guarantees in lieu of old
BGs for the said License.
7. Accordingly a draft letter is put up for

approval please. (18/C).
DFA please.
258. It was agreed to by various officers in the hierarchy
and was formally approved by the Secretary (T) on 17.03.2004,
12/N, and the DoT informed the company about it vide letter
dated 19.03.2004, 18/c, asking it to comply with the necessary
formalities like furnishing of amended bank guarantees etc.
259. In response to this letter, the company vide letter
dated 22.06.2004, 24/c, wrote to the DoT that it has complied
with the necessary formalities regarding furnishing of fresh
bank guarantees etc., incorporating the new/ changed name.
Accordingly, a formal amendment in the licence agreement
dated 20.10.1995 was required to be issued by the DoT.
260. Thereafter, Aircel Televentures Limited wrote
letters dated 21.06.2004 and 22.06.2004, 25/c & 26/c, to DoT
informing it that name of Srinivas Computers Limited has been
changed to Aircel Televentures Limited w.e.f 28.04.2004. It
was also intimated that Aircel Televentures Limited hold 100%
of Aircel Limited, operating CMTS licence in Tamil Nadu
service area and it also holds 79.24% in Aircel Cellular Limited,
holding licence in Chennai metro service area. It was requested

Page 133 of 424
to take the changed name on record. Both service areas, that is,
Tamil Nadu and Chennai metro, are mentioned.
261. Further, vide letter dated 21.06.2004, 27/c, Aircel
Cellular Limited also informed the DoT that 20.76% of its
shares were held by Siva Cellular Holdings Limited (SCHL),
formerly Airtouch International (Mauritius) Limited have now
been purchased by ATVL and it now held 100% equity share
capital of ACL. It requested DoT to take it on record.
262. Furthermore, vide letter dated 28.06.2004, 28/c,
Aircel Cellular Limited informed DoT that at present Aircel
Televentures Limited holds its 100% shareholding. It further
informed that Aircel Televentures Limited (ATVL) wishes to
transfer its 100% equity to Aircel Digilink Limited (ADIL). For
this it sought the approval of DoT.
263. These four issues were processed in D-30 at 13/N in
the note sheet recorded by Sh. P. V. S. R. C. Murthy, AD (VAS-
III) on 08.07.2004 to the following effect:
Subject: (i) Change of name of M/s RPG
Cellular Services Limited to Aircel
Cellular Limited
(ii) Change of name of M/s Srinivas
Computers Limited (promoters of
M/s RPG Cellular Services Limited
& M/s Aircel Limited) to Aircel
Televentures Limited
(iii) Change in equity structure of M/s
Aircel Cellular Limited
PUC-I at P.24/C is a letter from M/s Aircel

Cellular Limited requesting issue of formal
amendment to Licence Agreement No. 842-23/93-
TM dated 20.10.1995 for Chennai Metro Service
Area, incorporating changed name. The company

Page 134 of 424
has confirmed that it has furnished Bank
Guarantees in accordance with DOT letter dated 18th
March 2004 (P.18/C). Earlier, change of name of
M/s RPG Cellular Services Limited to M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited was permitted vide P.18/C subject
to furnishing of fresh Bank Guarantees in the
changed name i.e. M/s Aircel Cellular Limited.
2. Since the company has complied the

requirement as conveyed to it vide P.18/C, a formal
amendment to Licence Agreement No. 842-23/93-
TM dated 20.10.1995 for Chennai Metro Service
Area, incorporating changed name i.e. M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited is required to be issued.
Accordingly, a draft amendment order is put up
below at P.30/C for consideration please.
3. PUC-II & III at P.25/C & P.26/C are letters

from M/s Aircel Televentures Limited (promoters of
M/s Aircel Cellular Limited formerly RPG Cellular
Services Limited & M/s Aircel Limited) informing
change of its name from M/s Srinivas Computers
Limited. The company has enclosed resolution of its
Board and fresh certificate of incorporation from
Registrar of Companies.
4. As per our records, the equity structure of M/s

Aircel Cellular Limited is as follows:
Shareholders' Indian/ No. of shares Total paid- % holding

Name Foreign held up capital
Srinivas Indian 79.24%
Computers Ltd
Airtouch Foreign 20.76%
International
(Mauritius) Ltd.
Total 49,000,000 490,000,00 100%
0
5. In view of the above, we may take on record

the changed name as conveyed by M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited since this a case of change of
name of a promoter. With this change, the revised

Page 135 of 424
equity structure of M/s Aircell Cellular Limited will
be as below:

Aircel Indian 79.24%
Televentures Ltd
Airtouch Foreign 20.76%
International
(Mauritius) Ltd.
Total 49,000,000 490,000,00 100%
0
6. PUC-IV at P.27/C is a letter from M/s Aircel

Cellular Limited informing purchase of its 20.76%
shares by Aircel Televentures Limited from M/s Siva
Cellular Holdings Limited [formerly Airtouch
International (Mauritius) Limited]. Since, this
transfer of shares is from a foreign promoter to an
Indian promoter, the company has enclosed the
approval of RBI for this transaction. The company
has also enclosed the copy of Certificate of
Incorporation on change of Name of its foreign
promoter from Airtouch International (Mauritius)
Limited to Siva Cellular Holdings Limited. With this
transaction the revised equity structure of the
company M/s Aircel Celular Ltd would be as below:
Shareholder's Indian/ No. of shares Total paid- %

Name Foreign held up capital holding
Aircel Televentures Indian 49,000,000 490,000,00 100%
Limited (ATVL) 0
7. PUC-V at P.28/C is a letter from M/s Aircel

Cellular Limited, who is holding a CMTS Licence in
Chennai Metro Telecom Circle Service Area, seeking
approval for change in equity structure consequent
upon sale/ transfer of shares to M/s Aircel Digilink
India Limited (ADIL).
...................................................................................
.................................................................................
10. Equity structure after proposed sale/ transfer
of shares as intimated by the company M/s Aircel

Page 136 of 424
Cellular Limited will be as below:

Aircel Digilink Indian 490,000,00 490,000,00 100%
India Limited 0 0
(ADIL)
(from pre-page)
...................................................................................
.................................................................................
12. In Chennai Metro service area, the other
CMTS/ UAS licensees are:
Sl. No. Licensee Company Type of Licenses

1. Hutchison Essar South Ltd. CMTS
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. CMTS
3. Bharti Cellular Ltd. UASL
4. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. UASL
5. Tata Teleservices Limited UASL
12.1 Shareholding patterns of these Licensees are

placed at P.31/C to P.35/C
12.2 The present equity structure of ADIL is as

below:
Shareholders' Indian/ No. of Paid-up %

Name Foreign shares Equity Holdin
Capital (Rs.) g
Hutchison Indian 10,10,89,995 101,08,99,950 99.99
Telecom East
Limited
Sandip Das & Indian 1 10 -
Hutchison
Telecom East
Limited
Sankara Indian 1 10 -
Narayanan &
Hutchison
Telecom East
Limited

Page 137 of 424
Rajiv Sawhney & Indian 1 10 -
Hutchison
Telecom East
Limited
Neha Sharma & Indian 1 10 -
Hutchison
Telecom East
Limited
Sundeep Kathuria Indian 1 10 -
& Hutchison East
Limited
Swisscom Foreign 1 10 -
TOTAL 10,11,00,00 101,10,00,00 100.00
0 0
12.3. From the above and P.31/C to P.35/C, it is

observed that though M/s Hutchison Essar South
Ltd. (HESL), which is an associate company of M/s
Aircel Digilink India Limited, is already operating in
Chennai Metro Service Area, there is no common
share holder having 10% or more equity in HESL &
ADIL and any other company in the same service
area.
13. PUC-VI at P.29/C is a letter dated 30th June

2004 from M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited
confirming no dues payable by ADIL to DOT
towards license fees and WPC fees for Haryana,
Rajasthan and UP (East) service areas. However, we
may confirm the same from LF Cell.
14. In view of the above, from the licensing point

of view as per the present policy, the proposal for
transfer of 100% equity of ATVL to ADIL seems to be
in order. However, comments of BS Cell, PIP Cell
and LF Cell may please be sought in the matter
before processing the case further.
264. The arrangement of the issues in the note speaks for

itself. The issue of transfer of equity, which is the most serious

Page 138 of 424
issue, has been listed in the last. Similarly, the issue of purchase
of 20.76% shares from Siva Cellular Holding Limited, which is
also a bit controversial has been listed in the middle. It appears
that this arrangement has been done so that the serious issues
escape the scrutiny/ attention of senior officers/ Minister.
265. Thereafter, the file was marked upward and
everybody agreed with the four proposals upto the level of DDG
(LF).
266. However, Sr. DDG vide note dated 28.07.2004
asked for a consolidated note to be put up before the competent
authority. Accordingly on 29.07.2004, Sh. A. S. Verma,
Director (VAS-II), put up a consolidated note at 19/N
recommending the proposal to the following effect:
Cellular Limited.
The case of change of name of M/s RPG

Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited,
Change of name of M/s Srinivas Computers Limited
(promoters of M/s RPG Cellular Services Limited &
M/s Aircel Limited) to Aircel Televentures Limited
and Change in equity structure of M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited has been examined by VAS Cell,
PIP Cell, BS Cell and LF Cell. Notes at 13/N
onwards may kindly be seen. There appears to be no
problem with the proposed transaction of equity.
Also, as per noting of LF Cell, there is no any

Page 139 of 424
outstanding dues against the company.
2. Equity structure after proposed sale/ transfer

of shares as intimated by the company will be as
below.

Aircel Digilink Indian 490,000,00 490,000,00 100%
India Limited 0 0
(ADIL)
3. In view of the notings from 13/N, the case is

submitted for approval of
(i) Amendment to the Licence Agreement No.
842-23/93-TM dated 20.10.1995 for Chennai
Metro Service Area, incorporating changed
name i.e. M/s Aircel Cellular Limited as per
draft amendment order at P.30/C;
(ii) To take on record the changed name of M/s
Srinivas Computers Limited (promoters of
M/s RPG Cellular Services Limited & M/s Aircel
Limited) to Aircel Televentures Limited;
(iii) The proposed change of equity structure as
indicated in para 2 above.
Submitted please.
267. It may be noted that here the issue of purchase of

20.76% shares by Aircel Televentures Limited is missing.
268. This proposal was agreed to by Sr. DDG (VAS) and
Member (P) and the file was marked to Secretary (T) on
03.08.2004.
269. However, on 06.08.2004 it was recorded by Sr.
DDG (VAS) that matter was discussed with Secretary (T) on
05.08.2004 where DDG (BS) was also present. He called for
further equity structure of the various units involved and
marked the file to Director (VAS-II). Thereafter, certain

Page 140 of 424
clarifications were sought from the company.
270. Thereafter, a note was put up on 23.08.2004, page
20/N, by Sh. A. S. Verma, Director (VAS-II), recommending
change of name of RPG Cellular Services Limited to Aircel
Celluar Service Limited and change of name of Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televenture Limited but
questioning the change in the equity structure of Aircel Cellular
Limited as it would violate substantial equity clause. The note is
to the following effect:
Cellular Limited.
The case of change of name of M/s RPG

Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited
was approved by Chairman (TC) on 17.03.2004
subject to the condition that the company shall
provide modified/ fresh Bank Guarantees in lieu of
old BGs for the said Licence. Notings in this regard
at 12/N may please be seen. The company has
fulfilled the above condition and therefore it is
proposed to issue formal amendment to Licence
Agreement incorporating the changed name (Aircel
Cellular Limited in place of RPG Cellular Services
Ltd.). Accordingly, a draft amendment (P.30/C) may
kindly be approved.
2. Change of name of M/s Srinivas Computers

Limited (promoters of M/s RPG Cellular Services
Limited & M/s Aircel Limited) to Aircel

Page 141 of 424
Televentures Limited is a case of name change of a
promoter of the Licensee company. The required
certificate from Registrar of Companies indicating
the changed name has been furnished by the
company. We have to take this on our record against
the Licensee Company's promoter(s). Approval may
please be given to take on record the above stated
changed name.
3. Change in equity structure of M/s Aircel

Cellular Limited has been re-examined in the light
of discussions of Sr. DDG (VAS), DDG (BS) and
Secretary (T) on 5th August 2004 after obtaining the
equity structure of various companies involved. The
equity structure of various companies involved was
called for vide letter at P.37/C. The same has been
supplied by these companies and are placed below
at P.39/C to P.42/C. From the perusal of the equity
structure of these companies, it has been observed
that there is no common shareholding having 10%
or more equity in HESL & ADIL and any other
company in the same service area if we look at the
equity structure of the licensee companies.
However, on further scrutiny of the equity structure
of the promoter(s) of the Licensee Company, it has
been observed that there are substantial stakes of
M/s Essar Teleholdings Limited in the companies
M/s Hutchison Telecom East Limited (33.52%) and
M/s Hutchison Essar Telecom Limited (49.03%).
M/s Hutchison Telecom East Limited is a promoter
of M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited, which is the
proposed buyer of 100% stakes of Aircel Cellular
Limited, having 99.99% stake. M/s Hutchison Essar
Telecom Limited is a promoter of M/s Hutchison
Essar South Limited, one of the Licensee in Chennai
Metro Service area, having 50.815% stake.
4. In view of the above, the case needs to be

examined specifically from the angle of company
laws and the CMTS licence agreement clause 1.4 (ii)
wherein it has been mentioned that No single
company/ legal person, either directly or through

Page 142 of 424
its associates, shall have substantial equity holding
in more than one licensee company in the same
service area for the same service. 'Substantial
equity' herein will mean an 'an equity of 10% or
more'. A promoter company cannot have stakes in
more than one licensee company for the same
service area.
(from pre-page)
5. Comments of PIP Cell is required in the above

matter (para 4 above) indicating whether the
present proposal of transfer of 100% equity of M/s
Aircel Cellular Limited from M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited to M/s Aircel Digilink India
Limited is violative of condition 1.4(ii) of CMTS
Licence Agreement?
271. Thus, the Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra

thwarted the illegal sale of Aircel Cellular Limited to ADIL.
272. Thereafter, on 27.08.2004 Sh. N. P. Singh, Director
(IP) recorded the following note on 22/N & 23/N:
Kindly refer to note from page 19/N ante.
VAS cell has referred this file for comments of

PIP Cell in respect of para 4 of their note on page
20/N indicating whether the present proposal of
transfer of 100% equity of M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited from M/s Aircel Televentures Limited to
M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd. is violative of
condition 1.4 (ii) of CMTS License Agreement.
On perusal of equity structure of Aircel

Cellular Ltd and M/s Hutchison Essar South Ltd.,
(details placed at Flag 'X' and Flag 'Y' respectively),
both holding licence for operating cellular mobile
telephone service in Chennai, it is seen that these
companies have common promoter/ ultimate
beneficiary having more than 10% equity holding in
both the licensee companies. M/s Hutchison

Page 143 of 424
Telecom Hong Kong through its various direct and
indirect subsidiaries like Asian Telecommunication
Investment (Mauritius) Ltd, Al-Amin (Mauritius),
Mobilvest (Mauritius), Prime Metal (Mauritius),
Euro-Pacific (Mauritius) etc. is holding over 55% in
both the companies, with complex equity
structuring but ensuring that FDI policy is not
violated. Similarly, Essar Group through Essar
Teleholding and Essar Shipping is also holding more
than 10% equity in both the companies. In addition
to these two groups, Kotak Mahindra is also having
their interest in both the companies, though there
pro-rata share capital may be less than 10%.
The relevant clause 1.4(ii) of CMTS License

Agreement is reproduced as under:-
No single company/legal person,
either directly or through its associates, shall
have substantial equity holding in more than one
Licensee Company in the same service area
for the same service. 'Substantial equity' herein
will mean 'an equity of 10% or more'. A promoter
company cannot have stakes in more than
one Licensee Company for the same service area.
The aforesaid clause was introduced with an

objective to ensure that competition is maintained
for the ultimate benefit of the consumers of the
service and initially when only two licensees were
granted for providing CMTS in a service area.
Subsequently, after NTP 99, BSNL was allowed to
provide CMTS service and fourth license was also
issued (to M/s Hutchison Essar South Ltd) for
Chennai. In addition to the above, Reliance
Infocomm and Tata Teleservices have also been
granted Unified Access Service License. Therefore,
at present there are in total six licensee companies
who can provide mobile telephone service in
Chennai service area.
DoT has also issued guidelines for merger of

licenses in a service area with inter-alia permits

Page 144 of 424
merger of licenses subject to condition that there are
atleast three operators in that service area for that
service consequent upon such mergers. UASL is also
counted for cellular services while deciding the
number of operators in a given service area.
From the above, it may kindly be seen that so

far as clause 1.4 (ii) of the License Agreement is
concerned, there is a violation as both the promoters
i.e. Hutchison Telecom, Hong Kong and Essar
Group directly or through associates (subsidiaries)
have more than 10% equity in both Aircel Cellular
Ltd and Hutchison Essar South Ltd, both holding
CMTS license for Chennai. However, keeping in
view of the latest prevailing guidelines, which
ensures competition with the presence of at least
three operators in a service area for a service, the
proposal could be considered provided that the
promoters of both the companies give an
undertaking that both the entities i.e. Aircel Cellular
Ltd. and Hutchison Essar South Ltd. would be
merged after following due procedures under the
Companies Act in a reasonable time frame.
Perhaps there is a need to amend clause 1.4 (ii)
of the License Agreement in line with the present
policy of the government on ensuring competition (a
minimum of three operators in a service area for a
service) as allowed under the guidelines of merger of
licenses.
Submitted pl.
273. The file was marked to Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, Sr.

DDG (VAS). Sr. DDG (VAS) recorded the following note on
27.08.2004, 24/N-25/N (D-30):
Reference notes at prep-pages:
(a) The case of change of name of M/s RPG
Cellular Service Limited to Aircel Cellular
Limited was approved by Secretary (T) on
17.03.2004 (12/N) subject to the condition

Page 145 of 424
that the company shall provide modified/
fresh Bank Guarantees in lieu of old BGs for the said
Licence. The company furnished the
modified/ fresh Bank Guarantees on 02.04.2004 in
lieu of old BGs for the said Licence and informed
this cell on 22.06.2004 (24/C). A formal
amendment to Licence agreement
incorporating the changed name is required to
be issued as per draft amendment (P.30/C).
The same may please be approved.
(b) Change of name of M/s Srinivas Computers

Limited, one of the promoter(s) of M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited, to M/s Aircel Televentures
Limited, which is to be taken on record as the
same has been approved by the Registrar of
Companies on 28.04.2004 as per fresh
certificate of incorporation issued by him
(25/C Annexure II). This may also be
approved.
(c) M/s Srinivas Computers Limited, Chennai

have purchased 20.76% (total) shareholding of
foreign partner M/s Siva Cellular Holdings
Ltd. [Formerly Airtouch Internal (Mauritius) Ltd.]
with the approval of Reserve Bank of India
issued on 07.04.2004 (27/C Annexure I). The
company has also enclosed the copy of
Certificate of Incorporation of change of Name
of its foreign promoter from Airtouch
International (Mauritius) Limited to Siva
Cellular Holdings Limited. With this
transaction the revised equity structure of the
company M/s Aircell Cellular Ltd. would be as
below:
Shareholders Indian/ No. of shares Total paid- % holding


Page 146 of 424
Aircel Indian 490,000,00 490,000,00 100%
Televentures 0 0
Limited (ATVL)
[Formerly M/s
Srinivas
Computers
Limited {(b)
above}]
As per licence conditions [43/C para (viii)],

the company is supposed to take prior
approval of Licensor whenever any existing
partner acquires foreign partner's
shareholding. While the company has
informed the licensor on 21.06.2004 (27/C)
and have requested to take a note of it. As
the company has taken RBI approval and after
purchase of foreign share holding, 100%
holding will be with Aircel Televentures Ltd.
(formerly M/s Srinivas Computers Limited),
we may approve the above transaction with a
warning to the company that they must follow
the terms and conditions of licence agreement.
accordingly, draft letter placed at 44/C may
please be approved.
(d) Aircel Cellular Limited (formerly RPG Cellular

Services Ltd.) have applied for subsequent
change of equity structure on proposed
acquisition of 100% stakes of the company
from M/s Aircel Televentures Limited (ATVL)
by M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (28/C
dated 28.06.2004). This has been examined in
detail with respect to clause 9 of amendment
at 43/C relating to equity in more than one
licensee company in the same service area for
same service. It has been observed that there
is a substantial stake of one its promoters
namely, Essar Teleholdings Limited in M/s
Hutchison Essar South Limited (49.03%) and
M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (33.52%).
DDG (PIP) have examined it from the foreign
holding aspect also (22/N & 23/N) and have
stated that there is a violation of licence

Page 147 of 424
conditions.
Thus, the proposed acquisition of equity by

M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited would be
violative of clause 9 of amendment of the
licence agreement (43/C) relating to equity in
more than one licensee company in the same
service area for same service. Therefore, the
change of equity structure of Aircel Cellular
Limited from Aircel Televentures Ltd. to Aircel
Digilink India Ltd. cannot be permitted.
Accordingly a reply to M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited intimating that their request of
change of equity structure cannot be acceded to
is proposed to be sent as per draft placed below
at 45/C.
(Full details of the case are at 13/N onwards)
274. Here again, the issue of purchase of 20.76% shares

by Aircel Televentures Limited was introduced and it was
recorded by the Sr. DDG that it was done without approval of
DoT and a warning be given to the company.
275. After recording the note, the file was marked to
Member (P) who recorded the note dated 31.08.2004 at 26/N
to the following effect:
Ref. Notes on pre-pages.
2. The equity structure of M/s Hutchison Essar

South Limited is at 41/c. This is one of the cellular
companies operating in Chennai metro service area.
3. The equity structure of M/s Aircel Digilink

India Limited is at 42/c and the company has
sought permission for acquiring 100% stake of M/s
Aircel Cellular Limited from its promoter M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited. M/s Aircel Cellular Limited is
another cellular operator for Chennai metro service

Page 148 of 424
area.
4. From the holdings of M/s Hutchison Essar

South Limited and M/s Aircel Cellular Limited, it is
noticeable that M/s Essar Teleholdings Limited has
49.03% holdings in M/s Hutchison Essar Telecom
Limited which would make it to 25% of weighted
holding in M/s Hutchison Essar South Limited and
33.52% holdings in M/s Aircel Cellular Limited.
5. Therefore, it is not possible to support the

current proposal for change of equity structure, as it
will amount to violation Clause 9 of amendment of
the licence agreement as 'indicated in the note at
25/N.
6. We may, hence, agree to all the suggestions of

the VAS Wing given at 24/N and 25/N (a,b,c&d).
Marking of the file to the Minister and return thereof

276. After recording the note the file was marked to
Secretary (T) on the same day.
Secretary (T) discussed the matter with Sr. DDG (VAS),
DDG (BS) and DDG (PIP) and on 06.09.2004 marked the file
to the Minister for approval of para 5 of the note of Member
(P).
277. It may be noted that Member (P) vide para 6 of his
note recommended four proposals as contained in the note of
Sr. DDG (VAS) at points a, b, c, and d, pages 24/N and 25/N.
However, the Secretary (T) discussed the matter with Member
(P), Sr. DDG (VAS), DDG (BS) and DDG (PIP) and
recommended only para 5 for approval to the Minister. The
para 5 pertains to rejection of proposal for change in equity
structure of Aircel Cellular Limited. The Secretary did not

Page 149 of 424
recommend three other proposals.
278. However, vide order dated 15.09.2004 (49/c), the
file was returned from the office of Minister as per direction of
the Minister recorded by Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy in D-40 at 35/N,
which reads as under:

Note submitted:-
(i) F. No. 842-21/2001-VAS (Vol. III)

(ii) F. No. 842-325/2000-VAS
(iii) F. No. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I)
(iv) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III

279. This fact was noted in the instant file at 26/N on

14.12.2004 and the file was marked to ADG (VAS-I).
280. Thereafter, ADG (VAS-I), recorded note dated
17.12.2004, 27/N, which reads as under:
Reference notes on pre-page
'A' The case for permitting change of name by
amending licence agreement was put up for
approval and a draft letter for the same is placed at
30/C.
The same may kindly be approved.
'B' The case of change of equity structure was

Page 150 of 424
examined and approval was sought and it was
proposed to intimate the company as per draft letter
at 44/c. The same may also be kindly approved.
'C' With regard to change of equity structure
consequent upon 100% acquisition by Aircel
Digilink India Ltd the case was examined in detail
and it was recommended that it is in violations of
clause 9 of amendment dated 25.09.2001 of the
licence agreement, as such this change was not to be
permitted and accordingly the co. will be informed
as per draft letter at 45/c. The same may kindly be
approved.
Submitted please.
281. He marked the file to Director (VAS-II). Director

(VAS-II), recorded a note of the same date at 28/N, which reads
as under:
Ref. notes at pre-pages:
This file was put up for approval of proposals
contained in para marked 'A', 'B' & 'C' at 27/N. This
file alongwith other files were referred to AS(T) for
examination of inter-related issues regarding
merger and acquisition. The remarks of AS(T) is
available at 49/C, wherein he has mentioned status
of this case and no further remarks has been given.
In view of the above, it is proposed that
proposals contained in para marked 'A', 'B' & 'C' at
27/N alongwith draft letters at 30/c, 44/c and 45/c
may kindly be approved.
Submitted please.
282. Thus, the file was again processed at 27/N and 28/N
taking note of the report of Additional Secretary (T) at 28/N.
283. On 11.01.2005, Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, Sr. DDG (VAS),
recorded the following note at 29/N:
Subject: Change in name & Equity structure of M/s
RPG Cellular Services Ltd., Chennai.

Page 151 of 424
M/s RPG Cellular Services Ltd., a Cellular Mobile
licensee of Chennai Telecom Service area had
applied for following changes in their cellular mobile
license:
(a) Change of name of the company from M/s

RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to Aircel Cellular Ltd.
(16/C) and it was approved by the competent
authority on 17.3.2004 (12/N). The company was
informed that your request for change of name has
been provisionally approved and kindly submit
modified Bank Guarantee / Fresh Guarantee. Final
amendment shall be issued on receipt of modified
Bank Guarantee (18/C). The company informed on
22.6.04 that they have submitted the revised Bank
Guarantees on 5.4.2004 (24/C). Accordingly, the
draft amendment letter (30/C & para 'a' at 24/N)
was put up for approval.
(b) Purchase of 20.76% shareholding of foreign

partners, M/s Siva Cellular Holdings Ltd. by M/s
Srinivas Computers Ltd. The approval from Reserve
Bank of India has been given on 7.4.2004 (enclosure
with 27/C). With this purchase, the 100% shares of
M/s RPG Cellular Limited (name changed to Aircel
Cellular Ltd.) get acquired by M/s Srinivas
Computers Ltd. (Para 'C' at 24/N). The company
informed this on 21.6.04 (27/C).
(c) Change of name of the promoter, M/s Srinivas

Computers Limited to M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd.
issued by the Registrar of Companies Tamilnadu,
Chennai on 28.4.04 (enclosure with 25/c) (para b
at 24/N) and company intimated for this change by
letter dated 21/22.6.2004 (25/C & 26/C).
(d) The company have applied for transfer of

100% equity structure from M/s Aircel Televentures
Ltd. to M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd. (28/C & para
'd' at 24/N).

Page 152 of 424
The above cases were examined and proposal was
put up for accepting the proposals mentioned at (a)
to (c) above and rejecting the proposal at (d) above
as per details at P. 24/N and 25/N. In regard to
proposal at 'b' above, it was felt that prior approval
of the licensor is required for any change in equity
structure of the company even after lock-in period of
five years as per amendment letter no. 842-
47/2000-VAS/Vol.IV dt. 29.1.2001 para (viii). The
copy of the relevant amendment is placed at 43/C.
However, in a similar case of M/s Escotel Mobile
Communications Ltd. legal advice was sought and as
per legal advice (copy at 51/C), no prior permission
is required for change in equity structure after the
lock-in period of five years. As such the proposal at
'b' above can be taken on record.
In regard to this whole case, certain information was

desired by the PS to Hon'ble MOC&IT office and AS
(T) was asked to examine these aspects (49/C). AS
(T) has given its report and it is placed as enclosure
to 49/C. In regard to this particular case, AS (T) has
given the brief details of the case in Item 2 and these
are as per details submitted by VAS Cell. No new
issue has been stated by him. In view of this, the
case is put up again with the remarks that the
proposals at 'a' to 'c' above can be taken on record
and accordingly draft letters at 30/C, 52/C are put
up for approval. The proposal at 'd' above cannot be
accepted and accordingly draft letter placed at 53/c
may be approved.
284. Thereafter, Member (P) recorded note dated

13.01.2005, 30/N, to the following effect:
The case concerns four portions.
The first portion is regarding change of name

of the company from M/s. RPG Cellular Services
Ltd. to Aircel Cellular Ltd. This was agreed to by the
competent authority and the draft amendment was

Page 153 of 424
put up for approval as per (a) of P.29/N.
2. The second portion is regarding approval of

share holding of foreign partners, i.e. purchase of
equity share holding of 20.76% of M/s. Siva Cellular
holding Ltd. by M/s. Srinivas Computers Ltd. and
the same has already been approved by Reserve
Bank of India as cited at (b) of p.29/N. (In fact only
information is required to be submitted to us as it is
beyond lock in period).
3. The third portion is regarding change of name

of the promoter M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. to
M/s. Aircel Televentures Ltd. issued by the Registrar
of Companies which was intimated to us on
22.6.2004 as per (c) of p.29/N.
4. The fourth portion is regarding transfer of
100% equity structure from M/s. Aircel Televentures
Ltd. to M/s. Aircel Digilink India Ltd. cited at (d) on
p.29/N.
5. The proposal as regards 4 above had come

back from Hon'ble MOC&IT suggesting for
reexamination of the same along with note at
p.49/c. Subsequently it was seen that there are no
specific further inputs from AS(T).
6. As the things stand now, the proposals as

items 1,2,3 above are required to be approved by
Chairman (TC) as the same had not been accorded
vide 24/N-26/N.
7. As regards our proposal of not supporting the

change of equity structure at item(4), the same had
been forwarded by Chairman(TC) to Hon'ble
MOC&IT and this is, perhaps, required to be
resubmitted to MOC&IT for final approval pl.
285. After recording the note, the file was marked to

Secretary (T) who asked for confirmation and approval of para
6 and 7 of the note of Member (P) and marked the file to the

Page 154 of 424
Minister on 14.01.2005.
286. However, the file was again returned from the office
of Minister vide order dated 03.03.2005 recorded by Sh. K.
Sanjay Murthy at 31/N, to the following effect:
File Nos. 842-325/2000-VAS (D-40) and 842-
21/2001-VAS (D-30) are returned as reports on
mergers and acquisitions are awaited.
287. It is the case of the prosecution that this note is

totally false as no report on merger and acquisition was
awaited. Sh. P. K. Mittal has also so stated in his statement.
However, vide order dated 15.09.2004 in D-40, Minister had
asked for a note of AS(T) on the issue mentioned in the note as
already extracted. However, this note was not directly and
independently sent to the Minister, but was sent as a part of
other voluminous record. In such a situation, there is every
possibility of the note escaping the attention of the Minister
and the Minister recording that reports on merger and
acquisition are still awaited. I do not find anything mala fide in
this.
Withdrawal of application for change of equity structure

288. In the meanwhile company wrote a letter dated
07.03.2005 (54/c) withdrawing the application for change of
equity structure on transfer of equity of Aircel Cellular Limited
held by Aircel Televenture Limited to Aircel Digilink India
Limited. In the light of this development, the file was processed
again and various note sheets were recorded and clarifications
were sought. The proposal was recommended at all levels and

Page 155 of 424
following note sheet dated 03.11.2005 was recorded by Sh. A. K.
Dhar, ADG (VAS-I) to the following effect at 38 & 39/N:
Subject: Change of name & Equity
structure of M/s RPG Cellular
Services Limited and change of name
of their promoter M/s Srinivas
Computers Ltd.
M/s. RPG Cellular Services Ltd., a Cellular Mobile

Telephone Service (CMTS) licensee of Chennai
Telecom Service area had applied for following
changes:
(i) Change of name of the company from M/s.

RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to Aircel Cellular
Ltd. (16/C) and it was approved by the
competent authority on 17.03.2004 (12/N).
The company was informed that the request
for change of name has been provisionally
approved. The company was asked to submit
modified Bank Guarantee/ Fresh Guarantee in
the new name of the company as per
requirement of the Licence Agreement. it was
also stated that Final amendment shall be
issued on receipt of modified Bank Guarantee
(18/C). The company informed on 22.06.2004
that they have submitted the revised Bank
Guarantees on 05.04.2004 (24/C).
Accordingly, the draft amendment letter (30/C
& para 'a' at 24/N) was put up for approval.
(ii)Purchase of 20.76% shareholding of foreign

partners M/s. Siva Cellular Holdings Ltd. by
M/s. Srinivas Computers Ltd. The company
obtained necessary approval from Reserve
Bank of India on 07.04.2004 (enclosures with
27/C). With this purchase, the 100% shares of
M/s. RPG Cellular Limited (name changed to
Aircel Cellular Ltd.) gets acquired by M/s.
Srinivas Computers Ltd. (Para 'c' at 24/N).
The company informed this on 21.06.2004 (27/C).

Page 156 of 424
(iii) Change of name of the promoter, M/s.
Srinivas Computers Limited to M/s. Aircel
Televentures Ltd. issued by the Registrar of
Companies Tamilnadu, Chennai on
28.04.2004 (enclosure with 25/C) (para 'b' at
24/N) and company intimated for this change by
letter dated 21/22.06.2004 (25/C & 26/C).
The above cases were examined and proposal was

put up for accepting the proposals mentioned at (i)
to (iii) above as per details at 13/N onwards.
In addition to the above, the company had also

requested for transfer of its entire 100% equity to
M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (28/C). This case
was also examined along-with above mentioned
cases (notes from 13/N onward may kindly be seen).
However, subsequently the company withdrew its
application for transfer of its entire 100% equity to
M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (54/C, 32/N).
(from pre-page)
In view of above, the proposals (i) to (iii) above for
taking on record the changed name of M/s RPG
Cellular Services Limited to M/s Aircel Cellular
Limited, Change in shareholding of the company
thereby 100% stake held by M/s Srinivas Computers
Ltd., change of name of the promoter [of M/s Aircel
Cellular Limited (Formerly M/s RPG Cellular
Services Limited)] M/s. Srinivas Computers Ltd. to
M/s Aircel Televentures Limited and DFAs 30/C,
52/C may kindly be approved.
289. The file was marked upward and was approved by

the Secretary on 10.11.2005.
290. Regarding the proceedings conducted in file D-30,
about the aforesaid issues, PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal has narrated
the events in detail in his statement dated 20.04.2012. It is

Page 157 of 424
relevant to extract his statement from pages 4 onwards, which
is as under:
From perusal of the above referred shareholding

pattern of M/s ADIL and M/s HESL, on the face of
it, there was no common shareholding of more than
10% in M/s HESL and M/s ADIL.
On being asked I state that Sh. A. S. Verma, the then
Director (VAS-II) vide 19/N recommended for
proposed change of equity structure of M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. on 29.07.2004 and marked the file to
Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, the then Sr. DDG (VAS) who
also recommended the same and marked the file to
Member (P) on 01.08.2004. Sh. B. V.
Shivaramakrishnan, the then Member (P) also
concurred with the said recommendation and
signed the note-sheet on 03.08.2004 and sent the
file to Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T).
On being asked I state that thereafter a discussion
took place on 05.08.2004 in the Chamber of Sh.
Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T) which was
attended by Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, the then Sr. DDG
(VAS) and myself. As per the instruction of the then
Secretary (T), a letter was sent to the following
companies seeking equity structure of the
companies and their promoters:-
(i) M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.
(ii) M/s Hutchison Essar South Ltd. and
(iii) M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd.
...................................................................................
...............................................................................
The case was re-examined in the context of the
detailed structure of these companies and it was
noted by Sh. A.S. Verma the then Director (VAS-II)
that M/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. is having 33.52%
in M/s Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. and 49.03% in

Page 158 of 424
M/s Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. M/s Hutchison
Telecom East Ltd. is a promoter of M/s ADIL which
a proposed buyer of ACL, a licensee in Chennai
Metro Circle area. M/s Hutchison Essar Telecom
Ltd. is a promoter of M/s Hutchison Essar South
Ltd. another licensee in Chennai Metro Circle area.
He submitted the case for further examination
specifically from substantial equity point of view
and marked the file to DDG (PIP) on 23.08.2004.
Sh. N. P. Singh, the then Director (IP) examined the
case and put up a note on 27.08.2004 vide 22-23/N
of the said file. He noted that so far as clause 1.4 (II)
the License Agreement is concerned, there is a
violation as both the promoters i.e. M/s Hutchison
Telecom, Hong Kong and M/s Essar Group directly
or through Associates (Subsidiaries) have more than
10% equity in both Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s
HESL, both CMTS licensee after the acquisition.
......................................................................................
................................................................................
Therefore, the change of equity structure of ACL
from Aircel Televentures Ltd. to ADIL can not be
permitted. He marked the file to Member (P) Sh. B.
V. Shivaramakrishnan. Sh. B. V.
Shivaramakrishnan, the then Member (P) noted on
31.08.2004 that it is not possible to support the
current proposal for change of equity structure as it
will amount to violation of clause 9 of amendment
of the License Agreement and marked the file to
Secretary (T). Sh. Nripendra Misra the then
Secretary (T) directed to have a discussion on
06.09.2004 and to be attended by Member (P), Sr.
DDG (VAS), DDG (VS) and DDG (PIP). Sh.
Nripendra Misra marked the file to MoC&IT on
06.09.2004 for approving the proposal that it is not
possible to support the current proposal for change
of equity structure as it will amount to violation of
clause 9 of amendment of the License Agreement.
The said file was received along with other file from
the office of MoC&IT vide a note, copy of which is
placed at 419/C of the said file. As per the directions

Page 159 of 424
of MoC&IT, as communicated by his PS Sh. K.
Sanjaymurthy dated 15.09.2004, it was desired that
AST may prepare a note and submit the same to
Secretary (T) on the cases in the following file:-
1. 842-21/2001/VAS (Vol. III)
2. 842-325/2000-VAS- the file being referred
above.
3. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I)
4. 20-231/2003-BS-III
The Secretary observed on the above note as under:-
My recommendations are available on the file. AST
please comply with the orders of MoC&IT and
submit it to MoC&IT for superior orders.
Thus, Additional Secretary (T) submitted a report
dated 30.11.2004 which is available at 420/C to
422/C. He also mentioned in his report that his
proposal is not recommended on the ground that
promoters of new management also hold substantial
equity in another company HESL who also hold the
license for the same service area for the same
service. Sh. R. N. Prabhakar processed the case
again on 11.01.2005 vide 29/N along with three
other proposals relating to change of name of
promoters, purchase of 20.76% shares of foreign
partners and change of name of company from RPG
Cellular Services Ltd. to Aircel Cellular Ltd. He
submitted the case to Member (Production) who
noted on 13.01.2005 (inadvertently mentioned as
13.01.2004) that our proposal of note supporting the
change of equity has been forwarded by Chairman
(TC) to Honble MoC&IT and this is, perhaps
required to be resubmitted to MoC&IT for final
approval. He also submitted the case for formal
approval of Chairman (TC) for three above
mentioned items. Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then
Chairman (TC) marked the file to MoC&IT on
14.01.2004 for confirmation and approval of
proposal submitted by Member (Production). The

Page 160 of 424
said file was returned from the office of MoC&IT by
Sh. K. Sanjaymurthy, PS to MoC&IT on 03.03.2005
vide note at 31/N of the said file stating that this file
is returned as reports on merger and acquisition are
awaited.
On being asked I state that, no report on merger and
acquisition was awaited. The report on the subject
was already submitted by Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then
AS(T).
On 07.03.2005, Sh. V. Srinivasan, the then Director
for Aircel Cellular Ltd. submitted a letter to Director
(VAS) withdrawing their application for
shareholding with immediate effect. It was stated
that till date they had not received approval from
DoT and the receipt of approval from DoT was an
important requisite for consummation of the
proposed transaction, Aircel Televentures Ltd. and
Aircel Digilink India Ltd. have now terminated the
Purchase Agreement. On being asked I clarified that
since the applicant had withdrawn the application
for the change of share holding pattern the case for
the same was not processed further.
On being asked I state that M/s Aircel Ltd. (having
CMTS license for ROTM) and M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd. (having CMTS license for Chennai Metro) were
the 100% subsidiary of M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd.
M/s ADIL had submitted the following two
applications:-
1. Application dated 28.06.2004 for approval for
change of equity in Aircel Cellular Ltd.
2. Application dated 28.06.2004 for approval for
change of equity in Aircel Ltd.
...................................................................................
.......................................
291. PW 10 Sh. R. N. Prabhakar has also stated about the

Page 161 of 424
movement of the two files, that is, D-30 and D-40, in his
statement 26.12.2011, in which he has not stated anything
specific except narrating the note sheets. However, in his
statement dated 29.08.2013 he has narrated entire sequence of
events as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
In fact, M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. had requested for
approval for change of equity in Aircel Cellular Ltd.
M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd. (ADIL) was the
proposed equity holder. The said request was
processed by DoT officials and the same is available
in the note sheet. Sh. A.S. Verma, the then
Director(VAS-II) vide 19/N recommended for
proposed change of equity structure of M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. on 29.07.2004 and marked the file to
me. I also concurred with the recommendation of
Sh. A.S. Verma and marked the file to Member(P)
on 01.08.2004 who in turn marked the file to
Secretary(T) on 03.08.2004.
A discussion took place on 05.08.2004 in the
chamber of Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then
Secretary(T) which was attended by Sh. V.
Sivaramakrishnan, the then Member(P), Sh. P.K.
Mittal, the then DDG(BS) and myself. During
discussion, Sh. N.Misra, Secretary(T) directed to
seek the equity structure of the following companies
and their promoters:
1. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.,
2. M/s Hutchison Essar South Ltd. and
3. M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd.
Accordingly, a letter dated 11.08.2004 which is
available at 450/C of the above referred file, was
sent under the signature of Sh. A.S. Verma, the then
Director(VAS-II). The replies were received and the
case was re-examined in the context of the detailed
equity structure of this company. Sh. A.S. Verma
examined the case and put up a note on 23.08.2004
which was marked to DDG(PIP).

Page 162 of 424
Sh. N.P. Singh, the then Director(IP)
examined the case and put up a note on 27.08.2004
vide 22-23/N of the said file and marked it to Sh.
Vijay Kumar, the then DDG(PIP) who signed the
note sheet on 27.08.2004 and marked the file to me.
I thoroughly examined the proposal and prepared a
note vide 24-25/N. I found that the proposed
acquisition of the equity by M/s ADIL would be
violating of clause 9 of amendment of the Licence
Agreement relating to equity in more than one
licencing company in the same service area for the
same service. Therefore, the change of equity
structure of M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. from Aircel
Televentures Ltd. to ADIL cannot be permitted. I
marked the file to Member(P) who on 31.08.2004
noted that it was not possible to support the current
proposal for change of equity structure as it will
amount to violation of clause 9 of amendment of the
Licence Agreement and marked the file to
Secretary(T). Sh. Nripendra Misra, Secretary(T)
directed to have a discussion with Mebmber(P), Sr.
DDG(VAS), DDG(BS) and DDG(PIP) and
accordingly a discussion took place on 06.09.2004.
Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary(T) marked
the file to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT
on 06.09.2004 for approving the proposal that it is
not possible to support the current proposal for
change of equity structure as it will amount to
valuation of clause 9 of amendment of the Licence
Agreement. The file was received in the office of
MoC&IT on 06.09.2004 itself. The approval as
recommended by the then Secretary(T) was not
granted. In fact, the above referred file alongwith
other files were sent back to Secretary(T) by Sh. K.
Sanjay Murthy, the then PS to MoC&IT on
15.09.2004 stating that AS(T) may prepare a note
and submit the same through Secretary(T).
Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary(T)
marked the file to Dr. J.S. Sarma, AS(T) on
15.09.2004 itself. Sh. J.S. Sarma, the then AS(T)
offered his comments on 30.11.2004 and marked the
file to Secretary(T) who directed Sh. P.K. Mittal, the

Page 163 of 424
then DDG(BS) to put up the legal status on the
comments of AS(T) on 03.12.2004. The DDG(BS)
discussed the case with Legal Advisor, DoT on
08.12.2004. And LA desired a Self Contained Note
to be prepared for his advice. The DDG(BS) sent the
file to me on 10.12.2004 and I marked the same to
Director(VAS-II) on 14.12.2004 for preparing a Self
Contained Note as desired by LA.
A copy of the note sheet through which the
above referred file was sent to AS(T) is also placed in
the above referred file at 419/C to 423/C. Sh. A.S.
Verma, the then Director(VAS-II) marked the file to
ADG(VAS-I) who prepared a note dated 17.12.2004
and marked the file to Director(VAS-II). Sh. A.S.
Verma, the then Director(VAS-II) recommended as
under on 17.12.2004 and marked the file to me:
(a) To approve the change of name from
RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to Aircel Cellular Ltd.,
(b) To approve the purchase of 20.76% share
holding of foreign partner namely M/s Siva Cellular
Holdings Ltd. by M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. and
1. The transfer of 100% equity structure from
M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd. to M/s Aircel Digilink
India Ltd. may not be approved.
I also examined the matter and recommended

as under on 11.01.2005:
(a) To approve the change of name from
RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to Aircel Cellular Ltd.
(Aircel Cellular Ltd. was having CMTS Licence in
Chennai Metro Service Area),
(b) To approve the purchase of 20.76% share
holding of foreign partner namely M/s Siva Cellular
Holdings Ltd.(formerly Airtouch International
(Mauritius) Ltd.) in Aircel Televentures Ltd. by
Aircel Televentures Ltd. to make it 100% Indian
Company and
(c) Change of name of M/s Srinivas Computers
Ltd. to M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd.
(i) The transfer of 100% equity structure from
M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd. to M/s Aircel Digilink
India Ltd. may not be approved.

Page 164 of 424
On being asked, it is clarified that M/s RPG
Cellular Services Ltd. was having CMTS Licence in
Chennai Metro Service Area. ROC, Chennai had
approved the change of name from RPG Cellular
Services Ltd. to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. The
Licencee made a request vide letter dated
26.02.2004(available at 519/C) for taking on record
the change of name from RPG Cellular Services Ltd.
to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. was made .
The share holding pattern of M/s Aircel Cellur
Ltd. was as under:
(i) 79.24% equity was held by Srinivas Computers
Ltd.(Indian Company),
(ii) 20.76% equity was held by Airtouch
International (Mauritius) Ltd.(foreign company).
The Licencee made a request vide letter dated
21.06.2004(available at 487/C) for taking on record
purchase of above referred 20.76% foreign equity by
M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd.(formerly Srinivas
Computers Ltd.) after obtaining approval from
Reserve Bank of India.
M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd. vide its letter
dated 21.06.2004 (available at 493/C) requested for
taking on record the name change from Srinivas
Computers Ltd. to Aircel Televentures Ltd.
I marked the file to Member(P) on 11.01.2005.
The Member(P) then marked the file to
Chairman(TC) on 13.01.2005(inadvertently typed as
13.01.2004). Sh. Nripendra Misra, Chairman(TC)
then sent the file to MoC&IT on 14.01.2005 for
approval of the above four(a to d) recommendations.
On being asked, I state that the approval was
not granted and the file was returned on 03.03.2005
by Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, PS to MoC&IT to
Secretary(T) with the remark that reports on
mergers and acquisition are awaited.
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. vide its letter dated
07.03.2005(available at 414/C) informed the DoT
that they are withdrawing the application for change
of share holding pattern with immediate effect. This
development was brought to the notice of Sh.
Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary(T).

Page 165 of 424
On being asked, I state that meanwhile the
legal opinion dated 11.01.2005 was already received
in another file in which the transfer of 100% equity
of M/s Aircel Ltd. for Tamil Nadu service area was
being processed.
ADG(VAS) again put up a note dated
25.04.2005 (inadvertently mentioned as
25.04.2004) to Director(VAS-II) recommending for
approval of the above referred three
recommendations. Sh. A.S. Verma, the then
Director(VAS-II) concurred with the
recommendation and marked the file for approval to
DDG(VAS) on 24.05.2005. Here it is pertinent to
state that by this time I was promoted to the rank of
Advisor(P) and Sh. P.K. Mittal was having the
charge of VAS cell as DDG(VAS).
Sh. P.K. Mittal enquired about merger and
acquisition and sought specific comment on that
from Director(VAS-II) who marked the file to
AD(VAS-I). AD(VAS-I) put up a note on 30.08.2005
mentioning that the company vide letter dated
17.03.2005 has withdrawn the application for
merger and acquisition of that company from Aircel
Televentures Ltd. to ADIL. I perused the said note
dated 30.08.2005 and there is no mention of a
report awaited on merger and acquisition. AD(VAS-
I) also recommended for approval of three
recommendations i.e. to take on record the change
of name from M/s RPG Cellular Services Ltd. to M/s
Aircel Cellular Ltd. to grant approval for purchase of
20.76% share holding of foreign partner(M/s Siva
Cellular Holdings Ltd.) by M/s Srinivas Computers
Ltd. and to take on record the change of name of the
promoter namely M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. to
ATVL. The file was marked to Director(VAS) who
concurred with the recommendation and marked
the file to DDG(VAS) who in turn marked it to me. I
endorsed the recommendation and marked the file
to Member(P) and Secretary(T) for approval.
By this time, Dr. J.S. Sarma had joind DoT as
Secretary(T) who raised certain queries with regard
to the file on 20.09.2005 which was complied with

Page 166 of 424
and the file was again put up to him by me on
01.10.2005. Dr. J.S. Sarma, Secretary(T) desired a
discussion with me and after having discussion
directed to prepare a brief consolidated note which
was complied with and the file was again put up to
him through me on 09.11.2005. Dr. J.S. Sarma,
Secretary(T) approved the above referred three
recommendations on 10.11.2005.
292. PW 14 Sh. B. Siva Ramakrishnan, Member (P), and

PW 78 Sh. A. S. Verma, Director (VAS-II), have also stated
about this file in their statements dated 28.10.2013 and
27.04.2012 respectively, but have not said anything specific
except narrating the note sheets.
293. It is interesting to note as to what Sh. C.
Sivasankaran, PW 34, has to say about the sale of Aircel
Limited, a licencee in Tamil Nadu service area, and Aircel
Cellular Limited, a licencee in Chennai service area, to Aircel
Digilink India Limited. He states in his statement dated
23.03.2012, pages 3 to 5 as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked, I state that at this time, the stage
was set in India for a revolution in mobile
telephony. With Siva Groups success in Chennai
and RoTN circles, we felt confident to ride the
revolution in mobile telephony and were planning
for a pan India presence. Consequently, M/s
Dishnet DSL Limited applied on 05.03.2004 to
Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi
(DoT) for grant of UASLs in respect of eight service
areas namely, Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,
North East, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir, West Bengal
and Madhya Pradesh telecom circles. The Letters of
Intent (LOI) in respect of these eight telecom circles
were issued by DoT on 06.04.2004. Further, the

Page 167 of 424
UASLs in respect of above seven telecom circles
except Madhya Pradesh telecom circle were issued
on 12.05.2004. Thus, DOT issued licenses for all the
said seven circles within two months of our applying
for the same. As regards Madhya Pradesh circle,
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. had requested DoT for
extension of time of 90 days to comply the
requirements of the LOI including arranging
required bank guarantee and entry fee. On
21.04.2004, M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. applied to DoT
for grant of UASLs for two more telecom circles, viz.
UP East and UP West.
On being asked I state that having applied for all the
licenses, the Siva Group was conscious of arranging
adequate finance to roll out and operationalize the
new circles. Siva Group had estimated a total
investment of about Rs. 2,100 crores for this
purpose, which was planned to be serviced by a
combination of debt and equity in the ratio of 1:1. At
this juncture sometime in June 2004, I decided to
divest the holdings of Siva Group in M/s Aircel Ltd.
and M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. in order to raise funds
to roll-out the new circles.
On being asked I state that I directed Sh. V
Srinivasan the Chief Executive Officer of Dishnet
DSL Ltd., to search for prospective buyers for the
telecom business in Chennai and RoTN circles.
Meanwhile, Sh. V Srinivasan informed me that
Hutchison Essar group (now known as Vodafone
Essar group) controlled by Lika Shing of Hutchison
Whampoa, Hong Kong, had contacted him and they
had expressed their interest to acquire 100% stake
of both M/s Aircel Ltd. and M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.
I then made the decision to sell 100% stake of both
M/s Aircel Ltd and M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. to
Hutchison Essar group and asked the Siva Group
team to negotiate and close the transaction with
Hutchison Essar Group. I was subsequently
informed by Sh. V Srinivasan that on 19th June
2004, an agreement was executed between ATVL
and M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd. (ADIL), a
Hutchison Essar group company in which the said

Page 168 of 424
buyer had agreed to pay a total consideration of Rs.
1,200 crores to ATVL to buy 100% of Aircel Ltd. and
Aircel Cellular Ltd. Sh. V Srinivasan also informed
that M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited had made a
down payment of Rs. 100 crores on the same date as
per the terms of the said agreement.
On being asked I state that Sh. V Srinivasan had also
informed me that the proposed sale mentioned
above necessitated the approval of DoT for change
of equity in M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s Aircel
Ltd. for which necessary applications were already
submitted in this regard to the DoT. He had also
informed that the entire team of seller and buyer
i.e. ATVL and ADIL were rigorously pursuing the
matter with DoT in order to obtain the necessary
approval so that the divestment could be completed
but the approval was however not forthcoming.
Sometime during the months of November 2004
and December 2004, Sh. V Srinivasan informed me
that he had a meeting in Mumbai with Mr. Asim
Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer of Hutchison Essar
group, with regard to the pending deal. Sh. V
Srinivasan informed that during that meeting, Mr.
Asim Ghosh had told him the following:
that he along with Mr. Ravi Kant Ruia,
shareholder of Hutchison Essar group, had met with
Shri. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT,
that during the said meeting Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran had advised Mr. Asim Ghosh and Mr. Ravi
Kant Ruia not to approach the MOC&IT seeking
approval for buying Aircel Ltd. and Aircel Cellular
Ltd.
that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran also told them you
come to me for any approvals but not for this, forget
this, only over my dead body will I give this
approval.
On being asked I state that upon hearing what had
transpired during the meeting between Mr. Asim
Ghosh and Mr. Ravi Kant Ruia with Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT, I was shocked. It was
already more than 6 months since the agreements

Page 169 of 424
for sale of Aircel Ltd and Aircel Cellular Ltd. were
executed but we were unable to complete the deal. I
decided to wait for some more time in hope of
getting the approval but the approvals never came.
and finally having apprehensions in getting the
approval of the minister after being aware of such
remarks, I instructed Sh. V. Srinivasan to terminate
the deal with ADIL. Sh. V. Srinivasan subsequently
informed me that ATVL and ADIL had executed
agreements to terminate the deal for sale of Aircel
Ltd and Aircel Cellular Ltd to ADIL and that ATVL
had also repaid the down payment of Rs. 100 crores
taken, to ADIL.
On being asked I state that, it is apparent that I was
forced to terminate the deal as the application to
DoT by Aircel Ltd. and Aircel Cellular Ltd. for
change in equity structure was not forthcoming for
more than 8 months, especially after I learned about
the real intentions of Shri. Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT, from Sh. V Srinivasan as told to him
by Shri Asim Ghosh of Hutchison Essar Group, the
prospective buyer.
...................................................................................
.....................................
294. On page 11, he further states:

....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that as I have submitted right
in the beginning, in line with sound business policy
adopted by any business house, Siva Group was
always intending to bolster the finances of the
telecom business by debt as well as equity and was
looking for equity investors. After it became clear
that the DoT under Shri Dayanidhi Maran is not
going to approve the request for change in
shareholding in Aircel Ltd. for the proposed deal to
sell 100% of Aircel Ltd. and Aircel Cellular Ltd. to
ADIL, we had no choice but to rescind the sale
agreement entered into with ADIL in March 2005.
...................................................................................

Page 170 of 424
.........................................
295. Perusal of the file reveals that the processing of four

issues started on 08.07.2004 at 13/N to 16/N in D-30.
Thereafter, the processing of these four issues continued till
06.09.2005, when the Secretary (T) marked the file to MOC&IT
for approval of para 5 of the note of Member (P) dated
31.08.2004 (D-30), already extracted above, which pertained to
rejection of change of equity structure of Aircel Cellular Limited
on transfer of its 100% stake to Aircel Digilink India Limited.
The remaining three issues were not marked to the Minister. So
what was recommended to the Minister was rejection of
transfer of equity to ADIL.
296. However, this file was returned alongwith other files
vide order dated 15.09.2004, at 35/N in D-40, already
extracted above, copy of which is available at 49/C of D-30.
Thus, the Minister did not approve the rejection of sale or
transfer of equity to ADIL. The grievance of Sh. C. Sivasankara,
as noted above, is that the Minister was not approving the sale/
transfer of equity of Aircel Cellular Limited, held by Aircel
Televentures Limited, to ADIL. However, the department was
recommending its rejection and rather the Minister was not
approving it. The statement of Sh. C. Sivasankaran is thus,
totally contrary to record. It is enough to knock out the
prosecution case.
297. As per directions contained at 35/N in D-40, note of
Additional Secretary (T) was obtained and in that light the file
was processed again from 27/N onwards. On 14.01.2005,

Page 171 of 424
Secretary (T) marked the file to the Minister for confirmation
and approval of para 6 and 7 of the note of Member (P) dated
13.01.2005, already extracted. It may be noted that para 6
pertained to the three items regarding change of name of
company from RPG Cellular Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited,
purchase of 20.76% shareholding of foreign partner and change
of name of promoter Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel
Televentures Limited and para 7 pertained to change of equity
structure of Aircel Cellular Limited. The prayer was for
approval of three issues and rejection of the fourth issue, that
is, change of equity structure.
298. However, the file was returned by the Minister
again on 03.03.2005 vide order at 31/N on the ground that
reports on mergers and acquisitions are awaited. The case of
the prosecution is that the file was returned dishonestly by the
Minister as no reports on mergers and acquisitions was
awaited. Sh. P. K. Mittal and Sh. R. N. Prabhakar also say that
no such reports were awaited. Sh. R. N. Prabhakar further says
that when Sh. P. K. Mittal asked for a comment on 25.05.2005
at 35/N regarding report on merger and acquisition, AD (VAS-
I), put up a note dated 30.08.2005, in which no such report is
mentioned. What is the truth of this statement?
299. However, when the file (D-30) was processed again
at 24/N by ADG (VAS-I), he did not mention anything about
comments of Dr. J. S. Sarma. However, Director (VAS-I), noted
in this note sheet at 28/N, inter alia, that this file alongwith
other files was referred to AS (T) for examination for inter-
related issues regarding merger and acquisition. He further

Page 172 of 424
records that the remarks of AS(T) is available at 49/c wherein
he has mentioned status of the case and no further remarks
have been given. Thereafter, Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, Sr. DDG
(VAS), recorded his note at 29/N, and in the last paragraph he
records that in regard to this particular case, AS (T) has given
the brief details of the case in item 2 and these are as per details
submitted VAS cell and no new issue has been submitted by
him. Similarly, Member (P) also recorded in para 5 that there
was no specific input from AS(T).
300. As noted earlier, the report/ comments of Dr. J. S.
Sarma were not put to the Minister in the form of report as
directed by him, but were made part of the voluminous file, in
which multiple issues were being processed. A fleeting
reference was made in the note sheets of the comments of Dr. J.
S. Sarma. When the Minister had specifically asked for the
comments, the comments should have gone to the Minister in
original and not as part of some other record. The Minister was
thus, right in recording that report on merger and acquisition is
awaited.
301. Not only this, the department was pushing for
illegal transfer of Aircel Cellular Limited to Aircel Digilink
Limited and it stopped only with the intervention of Secretary
(T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra. The company also came in adverse
notice for purchasing 20.6% shares of foreign partner Siva
Cellular Holding Limited, formerly Airtouch International
Mauritius Limited, without permission of the department and
the Sr. DDG Sh. R. N. Prabhakar advised to warn the company
for this, but this was not followed on account of suspect legal

Page 173 of 424
advice.
***********
Issues relating to Tamil Nadu service area

302. Let me now take the two issues relating to Tamil
Nadu service area, that is, approval for change in equity of
Aircel Limited and taking on record name change of Srinivas
Computers Limited. The issues were dealt with in file D-40.
303. Aircel Limited, earlier known as Srinivas Cellcom
Limited, was granted a CMTS licence for Tamil Nadu service
area on 22.05.1998. The Aircel Limited was held 51% by
Srinivas Computers Limited and 10% shares were held by
Cellunet of India Limited and 39% were held by Asia Tech
(Mauritius) Limited, both foreign companies. The 49% shares
of these two companies were purchased by Srinivas Computers
Limited, the Indian shareholder and this was approved by the
DoT on 06.03.2002 at 15/N (D-40). Thus, the 100%
shareholding of Aircel Limited was to be held by Srinivas
Computers Limited.
304. Aircel Limited wrote a letter dated 28.06.2004 (D-
40, page 22/c) to DoT seeking approval for change in equity
structure consequent to sale/ transfer of shares to Aircel
Digilink India Limited for Tamil Nadu service area. This letter
was processed in file D-40 at 23/N and the following note sheet
dated 08.07.2004 was recorded by Sh. C. J. Kaujalgi, Asstt.
Director (VAS-I):
Subject: Change in equity structure of M/s Aircel
Limited.
PUC at P. 22/C is a request from M/s Aircel Limited, who

Page 174 of 424
is holding a CMTS Licence in Tamilnadu Telecom Circle
Service Area, seeking approval for change in equity
structure consequent up on sale / transfer of shares to
M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (ADIL).
2. As per our records, the equity structure of M/s

Aircel Limited is as follows: P 12/c & P 21/c may be
seen.
Shareholders' Indian / No. of shares Total paid-up %

Name Foreign held capital holding
Aircel Indian 1800,000,000 18,000,000,000 100%
Televentures
Limited
(ATVL)
*Formerly Srinivas Computers Ltd. name change

being processed.
...................................................................................
...............................................................................
5. Equity structure after proposed sale / transfer

below.

Aircel Indian 1800,000,000 18,000,000,00 100%
Digilink India 0
Limited
(ADIL)
...................................................................................
...............................................................................
7. In Tamilnadu service area, the other CMTS /

UAS licensees are:
Sl. No. Licensee Company Type of Licence

1 BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. CMTS
2 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. CMTS
3 Bharti Cellular Ltd. UASL

Page 175 of 424
4 Reliance Infocomm Ltd. UASL
5 Tata Teleservices Limited UASL
7.1 Shareholding pattern of these Licensees are

placed at P. 23/C to P. 27/C.
7.2 The present equity structure of ADIL is as

below:
Sharehold Indian / No. of Shares Paid-up %

er(s) Foreign Equity Capital Holdin
Name (Rs.) g
Telecom
East
Limited
Sandip Das Indian 1 10 -
& Hutchison
Telecom
East
Limited
Narayanan
& Hutchison
Telecom
East
Limited
Rajiv Indian 1 10 -
Sawhney &
Hutchison
Telecom
East
Limited
Neha Indian 1 10 -
Sharma &
Hutchison
Telecom
East
Limited
Sundeep Indian 1 10 -
Kathuria &
Hutchison
Telecom
East
Limited
Swisscom Foreign 10,000 1,00,000 0.01

Page 176 of 424
Total 10,11,00,000 101,10,00,00 100.00
0
7.3 From the above and P. 23/C to P. 27/C, it may

be seen that there is no any common share holder
having 10% or more equity in two companies in the
same service area.
8. In view of the above, from the licensing point
of view, the proposal for transfer of 100% equity of
ATVL to ADIL seems to be in order. However,
comments of BS Cell, PIP Cell and LF Cell may
please by sought in the matter before processing the
case further.
305. Thereafter, certain other note sheets were recorded

during the processing of the file pertaining to no dues and
tripartite agreement signed between DoT, Aircel and IDBI. In
the process, everything was found to be in order and note
sheets after note sheets were recorded from 23/N to 28/N till
23.08.2004 recommending approval of the proposal and the
file was marked to Sr. DDG (VAS). However, on 25.08.2004,
Sr. DDG (VAS) asked for a consolidated note as per discussion
on the matter.
Issue of name change

306. However, on 25.08.2004, a new issue regarding
change of name of Srinivas Computers Limited (Promoter of
Aircel Limited) to Aircel Televentures Limited was also added
to the file. For dealing with the two issues, that is, change of
name of Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures
Limited and for change in equity structure of Aircel Limited, a
fresh note sheet was recorded on 25.08.2004 by Sh. A. S.

Page 177 of 424
Verma, Director (VAS-II) at 31/N to 33/N to the following
effect:
Subject: (i) Change of name of M/s Srinivas
Computers Limited (promoter M/s
Aircel Limited) to Aircel
(ii) Change in equity structure of M/s
Aircel Limited.
PUC at P. 21/C is a letter from M/s Aircel

Televentures Limited informing change of its name
from M/s Srinivas Computers Limited. M/s
Srinivas Computers Limited is the promoter of M/s
Aircel Limited, who is a CMTS Licensee in
Tamilnadu Telecom Circle Service Area, and as per
our records (P. 12/C) holds 100% equity of the
licensee company. The company has requested to
take note of the changed name and has enclosed
copy of resolution of its Board and fresh certificate
of incorporation from Registrar of Companies. The
original letter is placed in File No. 842-21/2001-VAS
(Vol. III).
2. The change of name of a promoter has no

bearing on the CMTS Licence Agreement and there
appears to be no problem in taking on record the
changed name in view of Board resolution and fresh
certificate of incorporation from Registrar of
Companies as submitted by the company.
Therefore, it is proposed that approval may kindly
be accorded for taking on record the changed name
of M/s Srinivas Computers Limited as M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited.
3. PUC at P. 22/C is a request from M/s Aircel

Limited, who is holding a CMTS Licence in
Tamilnadu Telecom Circle Service Area, seeking
approval for change in equity structure consequent
up on sale / transfer of its equity to M/s Aircel
Digilink India Limited (ADIL).

Page 178 of 424
4. As per our records (P. 12/C), the equity
structure of M/s Aircel Limited is as follows:

Srinivas Indian 1800,000,00 18,000,000,00 100%
Computers 0 0
Limited
5. If we take on record the changed name of M/s

Srinivas Computers Limited as M/s Aircel
Televentures Limited as proposed in para 2 above,
the equity structure of M/s Aircel Limited would be
as follows.
Shareholders' Indian No. of shares Total paid-up %

Name / held capital holding
Foreign
Aircel Indian 1800,000,00 18,000,000,00 100%
Televentures 0 0
Limited
(ATVL)
..................................................................................
................................................................................
8. Equity structure after proposed sale / transfer

below.
Shareholders' Indian No. of shares Total paid-up %

Name / held capital holding
Foreign
Aircel Digilink Indian 1800,000,00 18,000,000,00 100%
India Limited 0 0
(ADIL)
...................................................................................
...............................................................................
10. In Tamilnadu service area, the other CMTS /
UAS licensees are:

Page 179 of 424
Sl. No. Licensee Company Type of
Licence
1 BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. (23/c) CMTS
2 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (24/c) CMTS
3 Bharti Cellular Ltd. (25/c) UASL
4 Reliance Infocomm Ltd. (26/c) UASL
5 Tata Teleservices Limited (27/c) UASL
10.1 Shareholding pattern of these Licensees are

placed at P. 23/C to P. 27/C.
10.2 The present equity structure of ADIL is as below:
Sharehold Indian / No. of Paid-up %

er(s) Foreign Shares Equity Holdin
Name Capital (Rs.) g
Telecom
East Limited
Sandip Das Indian 1 10 -
& Hutchison
Telecom
East Limited
Narayanan
& Hutchison
Telecom
East Limited
Rajiv Indian 1 10 -
Sawhney &
Hutchison
Telecom
East Limited
Neha Indian 1 10 -
Sharma &
Hutchison
Telecom
East Limited
Sundeep Indian 1 10 -
Kathuria &
Hutchison
Telecom
East Limited
Swisscom Foreign 10,000 1,00,000 0.01

Page 180 of 424
Total 10,11,00,00 101,10,00,00 100.00
0 0
10.3 From the above and P. 23/C to P. 27/C, it may

be seen that there is no any common share holder
having 10% or more equity in two companies in the
same service area.
11. The case of change in equity structure of M/s

Aircel Limited has been re-examined in the light of
discussions of Sr. DDG (VAS), DDG (BS) and
Secretary (T) on 5th August 2004 in the similar case
of M/s Aircel Cellular Limited. The equity structure
of various companies involved was called for vide
letter at P. 33/C. The same has been supplied by
these companies and the copies are placed below at
P. 34/C to P. 37/C. From the perusal of the detailed
equity structure of ADIL vis-a-vis other operators
listed in para 10 at 30/N also, it has been observed
that either we look at the equity structure of the
licensee companies or the equity structure of their
promoter(s), there is no common shareholding
having 10% or more equity in any two companies in
the same service area for CMTS / UASL. In view of
the above and notes at 21/N onwards, there appears
to be no problem with the proposed transaction of
equity.
12. Final equity structure after proposed sale /

transfer of shares as intimated by the company will
be as below.

Aircel Indian 1800,000,00 18,000,000,00 100%
Digilink India 0 0
Limited
(ADIL)
13. Change of equity structure as proposed by the

company and mentioned in para 12 above may
kindly be approved.

Page 181 of 424
14. Submitted for approval of proposal in para 2
at 29/N and para 13 above.
307. The file was marked upward and reached Secretary

(T), as mentioned below.
Re-examination of the issue in the light of Aircel Cellular case

308. It is clear from this note sheet, particularly para 11,
that the issue was re-examined in the light of discussion with
the Secretary (T) in view of the development in the related case
of M/s Aircel Cellular Limited for Chennai service area being
processed in D-30.
309. Thereafter, file reached Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, Sr.
DDG (VAS), who also recorded the note dated 26.08.2004 at
34/N recommending both the proposals.
310. After recording the note he marked the file to
Member (P). Member (P) agreed with the same on 27.08.2004
and marked the file to the Secretary (T), who also agreed to the
proposal on 27.08.2004 itself and marked the file to the
Minister.
Reaching of the file to the Minister and return thereof

311. However, the Minister returned the instant file (D-
40) along with other files vide order dated 15.09.2004, 35/N,
recorded by his Private Secretary Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy to the
following effect:

Page 182 of 424
Note submitted:-
(i) F. No. 842-21/2001-VAS (Vol. III)

(ii) F. No. 842-325/2000-VAS
(iii) F. No. 808-26/2003-VAS (Vol. I)
(iv) F. No. 20-231/2003-BS-III

312. The file was marked to Secretary (T) who recorded

his note dated 15.09.2004 to the following effect and marked
the file to Addl. Secretary (T) at 35/N:
My recommendations are available on the file. AS
(T) pl. comply with the orders of MOC&IT and
submit it to MOC&IT for superior orders.
Report of Dr. J. S. Sarma

313. In terms of the order dated 15.09.2004 recorded by
the Minister, Dr. J. S. Sarma, Addl. Secretary (T) gave his
report dated 30.11.2004, as already noted above.
Legal opinion on the report of Dr. J. S. Sarma

314. However, Secretary (T) asked for legal status on the
comments of AS (T) vide order dated 03.12.2004, 38/N (D-40).
Thereafter, the file was processed at 39/N to 41/N (D-40) and
sent to LA (T) on 18.12.2004. LA (T) Sh. O. P. Nahar gave his

Page 183 of 424
legal opinion on 11.01.2005 (42-43/N, D-40) as already noted
above.
Re-processing of the file in the light of legal opinion and return

from the office of Minister
315. After receipt of legal opinion, the file was processed
again recommending the approval of two issues and the
proposal was approved upto the level of Secretary. Secretary (T)
marked the file to the Minister on 24.01.2005.
316. However, the file was again returned by the
Minister on 03.03.2005, vide note of Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, PS
to MOC&IT, at 47/N, by recording as under:
File Nos. 842-325/2000-VAS and 842-21/2001-
VAS are returned as reports on mergers and
acquisitions are awaited.
317. As earlier noted above, the note of Dr. J. S. Sarma

was not put to the Minister directly and independently and it
might have escaped the attention of the Minister. Hence, the
Minister was right in recording that reports on mergers and
acquisitions are awaited. Furthermore, Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy
has stated in his statement dated 05.12.2011 that this note was
not received in the office of Minister. This further fortifies the
stand of the Minister.
Withdrawal of application for transfer of equity

318. The file was processed again in the light of letter
dated 07.03.2005, 41/C, written by Aircel Limited for
withdrawal of the application for transfer of its equity to Aircel

Page 184 of 424
Digilink India Limited in Tamil Nadu service area. Accordingly,
the file was recommended to be returned to the VAS cell and
the file was marked to Secretary (T) on 21.03.2005, 48/N.
319. However, on 30.03.2005 Secretary (T) recorded a
note as under at 48/N:
Pl. link it with the main file. The file has been recd
from MOC&IT office on 03.03.2005. Pl. examine
the matter afresh also in the light of notes issued to
the company in some of the ISP related
irregularities.
320. He marked the file downward to Advisor (P). The

file reached Sr. DDG (VAS), who recorded on 31.03.2005 that
action will be taken as per the directions of Secretary (T), 49/N.
Issue of name change

321. Now, after the withdrawal of application for transfer
of equity, the only issue regarding change of name of promoters
of Aircel Limited from Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel
Televentures Limited survived and this issue was processed at
50/N and 51/N. The first note on 50/N was recorded on
25.04.2005, but the file was marked downward till 25.05.2005.
Thereafter, there is no movement in the file, without assigning
any reason.
322. However, suddenly, on 03.11.2005 a note was put
up by Sh. A. K. Dhar, ADG (VAS-I). The note reads as under:
Subject: Change of name of promoter of
M/s Aircel Limited from M/s Srinivas
Computers Ltd. to M/s Aircel Televentures
Ltd.
M/s Aircel Televentures Ltd. promoter of M/s Aircel

Page 185 of 424
Limited, a Cellular Mobile Telephone Service
(CMTS) licensee of Tamilnadu Telecom Circle
Service area had applied for following changes:
Change of name of the promoter, M/s

Srinivas Computers Limited to M/s
Aircel Televentures Ltd. issued by the
Registrar of Companies Tamilnadu,
Chennai on 28.04.2004 and company
intimated for this change by letter dated
21/22.06.2004 (21/C).
In addition to the above, the company had also

requested for transfer of its entire 100% equity to
M/s Aircel Digilink India Limited (22/C). This case
was also examined along-with above mentioned
case (21/N onwards may kindly be seen). However,
subsequently the company withdrew its application
for transfer of its entire 100% equity to M/s Aircel
Digilink India Limited (41/C, 46/N).
In view of above, the proposal of change of name of

the promoter [of M/s Aircel Limited] M/s Srinivas
Computers Ltd. to M/s Aircel Televentures Limited
and DFA 42/C may kindly be approved.
323. This was agreed to by other officials also and was

approved by Secretary (T) on 10.11.2005.
324. Perusal of the note sheet dated 25.08.2004, para 11,
reveals that this issue was linked up with the issue of transfer of
equity of Aircel Cellular Limited to Aircel Digilink India Limited
in Chennai service area. The Additional Secretary had noted
that Aircel Digilink India Limited had a complex equity
structure. He further noted that due to this complex equity
structure the management control may not remain with Indian
hands. He recommended that company be asked to simplify its

Page 186 of 424
equity structure.
325. If the department does not understand the equity
structure of a company, it is fully within its right to ask the
company to simplify it or at least explain it to the department to
ensure that it conforms to the rules and guidelines. There can
be no quarrel with this proposition. I find this position being
explained by the companies in all the files and the department
insisting on it repeatedly. This is clear at least from perusal of
files D-4 and D-41, where details of equity structures of the
company were repeatedly sought. As such, it cannot be said that
these observations of the Additional Secretary were out of
context aimed at delaying the matter.
326. Furthermore, when the company withdrew its
application for transfer of equity to Aircel Digilink India
Limited as noted at 48/N, thereafter, the issue became very
simple and was approved by the Secretary on 10.11.2005. After
withdrawal of the applications, the first note sheet is dated
25.04.2005 at 50/N. Thereafter, the file was marked upward
and downward till 25.05.2005.
327. Suddenly, the file was taken up by Sh. A. K. Dhar,
ADG, on 03.11.2005 and a note sheet for approval of change of
name of promoter Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel
Televentures Limited was recorded. There is no explanation in
the file as to why the file remained pending from 25.05.2005 till
03.11.2005. Sh. A. K. Dhar has not been examined as a witness.
There is no material on the file to attribute this delay to the
Minister or Secretary.
328. Thus, the delay in grant of approval for Tamil Nadu

Page 187 of 424
service area was due to the fact that the issue got linked with
the Chennai service area and also the fact that the equity
structure of Aircel Digilink India Limited and its promoters was
not clear to the department. In this regard, I find that the
observations of Dr. J. S. Sarma in his report were
administratively correct, whereas the opinion of Legal Advisor
is suspect and is too legalistic. Not only this, his observation
about the indirect foreign equity is contrary to the FDI policy,
where he states that there is no restriction against indirect
foreign equity which can be raised at any level. A licensor has
every right to ask for clarification regarding equity structure of
a licencee company and its promoters and as noted above, the
DoT was repeatedly doing it in many cases. There can be
nothing wrong in this. This is all the more so when behaviour of
the company is not normal and repeatedly invited adverse
notice for its activities.
329. Thus, the file was returned by the Minister correctly
as it got linked with D-30, wherein issue of Chennai service
areas was being dealt with. Thus, in the two files there is
nothing wrong in Minister asking the question when the
company was selling one licence in violation of competition
clause and the department was pushing for it, though later on
the Secretary (T) prevented it. The sale of two licences in
Chennai service area and Tamil Nadu service area was the main
issue and the remaining other issues were petty in nature.
Moreover, as per statement of Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, the note of
Dr. J. S. Sarma never reached the office of the Minister. The act
of the Minister, thus, cannot be termed to be mala fide, though

Page 188 of 424
he may be dilatory in the performance of his duties.
*********
III. Change of name from Dishnet DSL Limited to

Dishnet Wireless Limited (D-41).
Advocate/ Spl. PP, for the CBI that even a matter as small as
name of change was not approved by the Minister in the regular
course of his duties. He deliberately delayed it to harass the
company with the objective to force the exit of companies of
Siva group out of telecom business. He has very eloquently
argued that this shows the deep conspiratorial mind of accused
Dayanidhi Maran, who was not willing to do even the smallest
of the job of the company.
331. On the other hand, the case of the defence is that
the Minister had no role in it and the instant file was linked to
the other file by the officials.
332. Both parties have extensively read out the file(s) as
well as the relevant statements at the bar to emphasize their
respective point of view.
333. In order to appreciate the facts correctly, let me take
note of the note sheets recorded in the file and the relevant
statements.
334. Dishnet DSL Limited, which was having UAS
licences in seven service areas, wrote to DoT vide letter
21.07.2004 for taking on record change in the name of the
company from Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet Wireless

Page 189 of 424
Limited. The company also recorded in the letter that it
confirms that there is no change in the shareholding and equity
pattern continues to be unchanged and it was given in the letter
in tabular manner, indicating no change in the shareholder's
name and their holdings, percentage-wise.
335. This issue was processed in file D-41 and the first
note sheet was recorded by Sh. A. R. Devarajan, AD (BS-III), on
23.07.2004, to the following effect:
PUC is a letter dated 21.07.2004 from M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd. at 1/c.
M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. have changed their

name of the company to M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
and approval from the Registrar of companies is
placed at 2/c. As per para 1.5 of the general
conditions in Unified Access Service License, it is
stated as Change in name of the Licensee company
shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions
under the Indian Companies Act 1956
Because M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. has submitted

a fresh Certified copy of the Registrar of Companies,
therefore the change in name from M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd to M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd., may be
approved to be taken on record.
Draft to M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. is placed at 3/c.
Submitted for perusal and approval as above

please.
336. In this process, the file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal, who

asked for details of licences and also asked for putting up
amendment to licence agreement vide his note dated
26.07.2004 at 1/N.
337. On the same date, that is, on 26.07.2004, Sh.

Page 190 of 424
Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III), recorded a note to the
following effect:
PUC is a letter dated 21.07.2004 from M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd. at 1/c.

and approval from the Registrar of Companies is
stated as Change in name of the Licensee Company
Because M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. has submitted

a Fresh Certified copy of the Registrar of
Companies, therefore the change in name from M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., may
be approved to be taken on record.
Draft to M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. is placed at

3/c.

please.
338. Thereafter, in the course of processing Sh. P. K.

Mittal sought detail of equity of partners and promoters directly
or indirectly vide note dated 06.08.2004, 2/N.
339. Thereafter, certain information was sought from the
company and company submitted the desired information and
again a note dated 24.08.2004 was recorded by Sh. Govind
Singhal, Director (BS-III), 4/N, to the following effect:
As per the direction on N/s 1, the desired
information was called for from M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited.
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited has submitted the

Page 191 of 424
information, which are placed at 7/c. The % interest
of each promoter/ Partner has been submitted in
the statement.
and approval from the Registrar of Companies is
state as Change in name of the Licensee Company
Because M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. has submitted

a Fresh Certified copy of the Registrar of
Companies, therefore the change in name from M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., may
be approved to be taken on record.
Draft to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. is placed at 3/c.

please.
340. And the file was marked to Sh. P. K. Mittal, who

recorded Please link with other file. As per statement of Sh.
P. K. Mittal dated 01.12.2011, page 12, this file was D-38 in
which seven licences were initially given.
341. The perusal of the file this far shows that when the
file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal, on 26.07.2004, he asked for details
of licences and also asked for amendment to licence agreement.
The file was reprocessed and when it reached him, he, on
06.08.2004, again asked for details of equity of promoters and
partners directly or indirectly. The file was reprocessed after
seeking information from the company and when the file
reached him, he again asked for linking of the file with other

Page 192 of 424
file. I may note that in the processing of the file this far, there
was no interference from any other authority, but at every
stage, Sh. P. K. Mittal is putting something new, though the
proposals are submitted for approval by Sh. A. R. Devarajan
and Sh. Govind Singhal.
342. Thereon, the file was linked to other file (D-38) on
the initiative of Sh. P. K. Mittal as noted above. The name
change was recommended by all officials, including Secretary
(T) on 01.10.2004 and he marked the file to the Minister.
However, in his statement dated 01.12.2011, he blames this
linking on the Minister.
Marking of the file to the Minister and return thereof

343. The file reached the Minister on 01.10.2004 itself.
However, the same was returned by the office of Minister on
07.10.2004 with the following directions at page 6/N and the
file was marked to the Secretary (T):
I am directed to convey the following:
The issues pertaining to this case are similar to

the issues being examined for preparation of a
consolidated note bringing out the inter-related
issues between mergers and acquisitions, licensing,
FDI and FII investment in holding companies and
their sister concerns. The issues arising from this
case may also be incorporated in the consolidated
note being prepared.
344. The PS of the Minister marked the file to Secretary

(T), but he was on tour and the file was marked to Additional
Secretary (T). Additional Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma again

Page 193 of 424
marked the file to the Secretary (T)/ MOC&IT on 30.11.2004,
recording that General note was placed in file No. 842-
21/2000/VAS (Vol.III), referring to his report dated
30.11.2004. However, as per statement of Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy
dated 05.12.2011, page 7, this was not received in the office of
the Minister.
345. I may note that the report of Dr. J. S. Sarma has
already been referred to above. It is not clear from the perusal
of the file as to when the file reached the office of the Minister.
346. However, the file was again returned by the office of
Minister on 03.03.2005 with the following directions:
I have been asked to request Secretary (T) to re-
examine if there has been undue haste in processing
the case. The following files are enclosed :-
1. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol.III)- (D-
2)
2. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III- (D-46)
3. F.No.20-231/2003-BS-III (Pt.)- (D-38)
4. F.No.20-225/04-GnlBTS/Dishnet/BS-
III
347. The file was marked to Secretary (T). However,

thereafter, there is no movement recorded in the file for a long
time. Though the Minister had asked for examining if there was
undue haste in processing the case, but there are no remarks on
the file either of the Secretary or any other officer regarding
undue haste in processing the files mentioned in note dated
03.03.2005, referred to above.
348. It may be noted that the agreement for sale of 100%
equity of Aircel Televentures Limited to Maxis group was
executed on 26.12.2005 and was to be effective from

Page 194 of 424
30.12.2005.
349. However, without making any comment on the
issue of haste, all of a sudden a note sheet dated 29.06.2006
was recorded by Sh. S. A. Malik, AD (BS-III), to the following
effect:
Subject: Name change by M/s. Dishnet DSL
Limited
1. PUC was a letter dated 21.7.2004 from M/s.

Dishnet DSL Ltd. at 1/c. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. have
changed their name of the company to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. Fresh Certificate of Incorporation of
the Registrar of Companies is placed at 2/c.
2. M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. was issued UAS

licences for Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, North
East, West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar & Himachal
Pradesh service areas. M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. has
also applied for grant of UAS Licences in respect of
Madhya Pradesh, UP(East) & UP(West).
3. As per Para 1.5 of the general conditions in

Unified Access Service Licence, it is state as Change
in name of the Licensee Company shall be permitted
in accordance with the provisions under the Indian
Companies Act 1956.
4. This issue of change of name is long pending

because it got linked with issue of new UAS Licences
where an overall view on the interrelated issues
between merge and acquisition, licensing, FDI and
FII investment in holding companies and their sister
companies was to be taken. On 05.06.2006, AS (T)
returned back all the linked files for further
necessary action.
5. As directed the case is reprocessed again. At

the time of Licence, share holding pattern of M/s.
Dishnet DSL Limited was as follows:

Page 195 of 424
Sl. Name of Promoter/ shareholders Indian/ Percent of Net worth
No Foreign Equity held (Crores of
. Rupees)
1. M/s Sterling Infotech ltd. Indian 79.11 220
2. M/s Siva Limited, Bermuda Foreig 9.71 -
n
3. M/s Westgrove Foreig 6.71 -
International Holding n
Limited, Mauritius
4. M/s IQ Investments Foreig 4.22 -
Limited, Mauritius n
5. Individuals Indian 0.25 -
6. Meanwhile, the share holding pattern of M/s.

Dishnet Wireless Limited kept on changing and the
company intimated it vide letter dated 27.07.2005,
05.01.2006 19.01.2006 and 22.05.2006. The case
was processed in File No. 20-.225/2004-
Dishnet/BS-III(Pt.). Original file is linked herewith.
7. As per the letter dated 22.05.2006, M/s.

Dishnet Wireless Limited has submitted revised
equity structure and affidavit confirming the Indian
and Foreign equity in Dishnet Wireless Limited as
well as the copy of the FIPB Approval of Aircel
Limited which is holding company of M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited as per the details below:
(A) Details of share holding pattern of M/s.

Dishnet Wireless Limited:
S. Name of the Shareholder Category No. of % to

No. shares held share
holding
1. Mr. R. Chinnakkannan Resident Indian 1 ---
2. Mr. A. Subramanian Resident Indian 1 ---
3. Mr. K. V. P. Baskaran Resident Indian 1 ---
4. Aircel Limited Indian Company 29,798,124 100.00
5. Senthil Trade and Indian Company 1 ---
Business Links Private
Limited
6. Hi-tech Housing Indian Company 1 ---
Projects Private Limited

Page 196 of 424
7. Karthik Shelters Private Indian Company 1 ---
Limited
TOTAL 29,798,130 100.00
(B) Details of Indian/ Foreign Equity held in M/s.

Dishnet Wireless Limited
Equity Percentage
Indian 26.01%
Foreign-Direct -
Foreign-Indirect 73.99%
Total Equity 100.00%
8. In view of above facts, draft for taking on

record of the change in name in respect of the UASL
licences issued for Jammu and Kashmir, Assam,
North East, West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar & Himachal
Pradesh service areas and pending applications for
grant of UASL in respect of Madhya Pradesh,
UP(East) & UP(West), is placed at 80/C for kind
consideration and approval please.
350. The file was marked to all concerned upward and

was approved by Secretary (T) on 30.06.2006.
351. Now the question is: When the Secretary (T) himself
was competent to approve it, why did he mark the file to the
Minister in the first instance? There is nothing on the file or in
any statement to suggest that the Minister had asked for the
file. When the file went to the Minister, it was returned by Sh.
K. Sanjay Murthy, PS to the Minister, linking it with other
issues, of course, as per the directions of the Minister.
352. In file D-2, the issues relating to financial capacity
of the company and its involvement in grey market was
involved. The violation of clause 1.4(iii) of licence agreement is
related to merger and acquisition. In files D-30 and D-40 issue

Page 197 of 424
related to violation of this clause was involved. Once the file
reached the Minister, it got linked up with these files, not on the
initiative of the Minister, but on the initiative of Sh. P. K. Mittal
vide note dated 27.08.2004 at 4/N.
353. After the issue of change of equity structure was not
there on account of withdrawal of applications by Aircel
Cellular Limited vide its application dated 07.03.2005 (54/C,
D-30), the issue of violation of merger and acquisition no
longer survived and thereafter the file was again put up by Sh.
S. A. Malik, AD (BS-III), vide note dated 26.09.2005, giving all
the details and requesting for approval of taking of change of
name of the company on record. The same was approved by the
Secretary (T) on 30.06.2006.
354. The note dated 29.06.2006 was recorded by Sh. S.
A. Malik, AD (BS-III). The note does not mention that it was
recorded either at the initiative of the Minister or the then
Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma. There is no indication in the file
as to where it was from 03.03.2005 to 29.06.2006. Sh. S. A.
Malik has not been examined as a witness.
355. However, PW 15 Sh. Govind Singhal states in his
statement dated 25.09.2013 that this file was with Sh.
Yashwant Bhave till 05.06.2006. However, Sh. Yashwant Bhave
does not say so and his statement is only about file D-4. He
repeatedly refers to this file alone.
356. While dealing with this file the Minister suspected
that licences were granted to the company in haste and asked
the Secretary to examine it. However, there is no report of any
such examination by anyone.

Page 198 of 424
357. Let me take note of relevant statements in this
regard.
25.09.2013 narrates the events relating to this file, as under:
I am as above. Now I have been shown one original
file of DoT bearing no. 20-225/04-Genl-
Mts/Dishnet/BS-III and state that Sh. D.V.S. Rajan,
Authorised Signatory of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
submitted a letter dated 21.07.2004 addressed to
me i.e. Director (BS-III), DoT, New Delhi stating
that the name of company has changed from
Dishnet DSL Ltd. to Dishnet Wireless Ltd. An
attested photo copy of fresh certificate of
incorporation consequent on change of name dated
02.06.2004 issued by Registrar of Companies,
Chennai was also enclosed with the said letter dated
21.07.2004. I marked the said letter to A.R.
Devarajan, the then AD (BS-III) who put up the said
letter in the above referred file on 23.07.2004
recommending for approval for taking on record the
name change. He marked the file to me. I in turn
marked the file to Sh. P.K. Mittal, the then DDG
(BS) who sought the details of licences issued in the
name of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. On 26.07.2004, I put
up a draft letter addressed to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
conveying that the change of name of M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. has been
noted and taken on record in respect of 7 licences
viz. West Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,
J&K, North-East and Orissa and marked the file to
DDG (BS) Sh. P.K. Mittal for approval who in turn
marked the file to Member (P) on 28.07.2004.
Member (P) also concurred with the
recommendation and signed the notesheet on
28.07.2004 and the file was sent to Sh. N.Misra, the
then Secretary (T) who sought a discussion with Sh.
P.K. Mittal, DDG (BS).
Sh. P.K. Mittal, DDG(BS) marked the file to
me on 06.08.2004 after noting as under:
Discussed on 05.08.2004. Let us have details

Page 199 of 424
of equity of partners & promoters directly or
indirectly.
I sent a letter dated 11.08.2004 to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. seeking the details of promoter,
shareholders or any legal entity of area of
shareholders/promoters which are related directly
or indirectly and also the type of each equity
whether it is foreign, Indian, financial institutions
and non-financial institutions. A copy of the said
letter is available in the above referred file. Here it is
clarified that in the said letter, it is inadvertently
mentioned that with reference to your letter dated
21.08.2004. It should have been 21.07.2004 in
place of 21.08.2004.
The reply was received from M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd. and I again put up the file to Sh. P.K. Mittal,
DDG (BS) on 24.08.2004 recommending for
approval for taking on record the name change.
However, on perusal of the file, I find that the said
reply is not available in the above referred file.
On 27.08.2004, Sh. P.K. Mittal directed me as

under:
Pl link with other file.
On being asked, I state that file no, 20-
231/2003-BS-III (D-38) was the other file which
was referred to by Sh. P.K. Mittal. On being asked, I
state that the said file contained the approval of
competent authority for issuance of LOI to M/s
Service Licence in respect of 8 service areas.
On being asked, I state that Sh. A.R. Devajaran, AD,
BS-III placed the file no. 20-231/2003-BS-III in file
no. 20-225/04-Genl Mts./Dishnet/BS-III and put
up the same to me for approval for taking on record
the name change. I marked the file to Sh. P.K.
Mittal, DDG(BS) on 27.09.2004 who concurred
with the recommendation and marked the file to Sh.
H.P. Mishra, DDG(LF) who also signed the
notesheet and sent the file to Sh. Shiva
Ramakrishnan, Member (P). Member (P) also
concurred and signed the notesheet on 01.10.2004

Page 200 of 424
and sent the file to Sh. N. Misra, Secretary (T). Sh.
Nripendra Misra also concurred with the proposal
and sent the file to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MoC&IT for approval on 01.10.2004. The approval
was not granted and the file was sent to Dr. J.S.
Sarma, the then AS (T) by Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy, the
then PS to MoC&IT on 07.10.2004 stating that the
issues pertaining to this case are similar to the
issues being examined for preparation of a
consolidated note bringing out the inter-related
issues between mergers and acquisitions, licensing,
FDI, FII investment in holding companies and their
sister concerns.
On being asked, I state that Dr. J.S. Sarma, the
then AS (T) was directed by the then MoC&IT to
prepare a consolidated note on the subject. This
direction was conveyed by PS to MoC&IT to
Secretary (T) on 15.09.2004 in another file bearing
no. 842-325/2000-VAS.
Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then AS (T) offered his
comments on 30.11.2004 in DoT file no. 842-
325/2000-VAS and sent this file i.e. 20-225/04-
Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III to Secretary (T).
On being asked, I state that the file i.e.20-
225/04-Genl. Mts/Dishnet/BS-III was again called
by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT and the
same alongwith other files were made available to
MoC&IT on 24.12.2004 (21/N of file no. 20-
231/2003-BS-III (Vol.III)). Again this file i.e. 20-
225/04-Genl. Mts./Dishnet/BS-III alongwith other
files were sent back to Sh. P.K. Mittal, DDG(BS) by
Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T) on
30.03.2005. It was then submitted to Dr. J.S.
Sarma, the then Secretary (T) on 24.08.2005 (vide
7/N of file no. 20-231/2005-BS-III) for seeking
guidelines. Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T)
marked the file to Sh. Yashwant Bhave, the then
Additional Secretary (T) on 15.09.2005 and the file
i.e. 20-225/04-Genl Mts/ Dishnet/BS-III alongwith
other files remained pending with Sh. Yashwant
Bhave, the then AS (T) till 05.06.2006.
On being asked, I state that Sh. S.A. Malik, AD

Page 201 of 424
(BS-III) then initiated a note on 29.06.2006
recommending for taking on record the change in
name which was concurred by Sh. R.K. Gupta, ADG
(BS-III), by me, by Sh. P.K. Mittal, DDG (BS) and by
Sh. A.K. Sawhney, Member (P). The file was sent to
Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T) on
30.06.2006 and the approval was granted on the
same date by Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then Secretary
(T).
359. Sh. Govind Singhal does not attribute any motive to

anyone as far as delay in name change is concerned. He has just
narrated the facts as they occur on the file.
360. Sh. P. K. Mittal in his statement dated 01.12.2011 at
pages 11 and 12, regarding name change, states as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Now, I have been one original file of DoT bearing
No. 20-225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III (MR. II,
Memo 47, Sl. No. 2) and state that Sh. D.V.S. Rajan,
authorized signatory of M/s Dishnet DSL applied for
change in name of the company from M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. on 21-07-
2004 (vide 84-C of file no. 20-225/04/Genl
Mts/Dishnet/BS-III). Copy of fresh certificate of
incorporation consequent to change of name issued
by Vasantha Kumar Ail, Assistant Registrar of
Companies, Tamilnadu, Chennai was also
submitted. Sh. A.R. Devrajan, Assistant Director
(BS-III) (vide 1-N in file no. 20-225/04/Genl
Mts/Dishnet/BS-III) submitted a note
recommending to take change name from M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. to be
approved to be taken on record. Shri A. R. Devrajan,
AD (BS-III) also put-up a draft letter addressed to
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited informing that the change
of name of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. has been noted and taken on
record for the 7 licences.

Page 202 of 424
He marked the file to Sh. Govind Singhal, Director
(BS-III) who marked it to me on 26-07-2004. I
directed, Sh. Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III) on
the same day i.e. 26-07-2004 that details of Licenses
to be provided and to be put-up as amendment to
license agreement (Vide 1-N of file no. 20-
225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III) Sh. Govind
Singhal, Director (BS-III) submitted the case for
approving to take on record the change in name of
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
(vide 2-N in file no. 20-225/04/Genl
Mts/Dishnet/BS-III) on 26-07-2004. I
recommended the same for approval on 28-07-2004
and marked the file to Member (P) Sh. B.
Sivaramakrishna. He marked the file on the same
day i.e. 28-07-2004 to Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra
Misra. Secretary (T). On 28.07.2004 Sh. Nripendra
Misra directed me to discuss. Matter was discussed
with him on 05-08-2004 and as per direction,
details of equity of partner and promoters directly
and indirectly were called for on 11-08-2004 by Sh.
Govind Singhal, Director (BS-II) (vide 81-C in file
no. 20-225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III). Case was
again processed on 24-08-2004 by Sh. Govind
Singhal, Director (BS-III) recommending to take on
record change of name. I asked him to link with
other file on 27-08-2004 (vide 4-N). The other file
no. 20-231/2003-BS-III which was under process
was received and linked by Sh. A.R. Devrajan,
Assistant Director (BS-III) on 24-09-2004 (vide 5-N
in file no. 20-225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III).
This is the file where original licences for 7 circle
area were approved.
Sh. Govind Singhal marked the file to me on 27-09-
2004 recommending to take on record change in
name to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. I marked the file on the same day i.e.
27-09-2004 to DDG (LF) Sh. H.P. Mishra after
putting my signature as a token of concurrence with
the proposal. Sh. H.P. Mishra marked the file to
Member (P), Sh B. Sivaramakrishna on 30-09-2004
after putting his signature as a token of concurrence

Page 203 of 424
with the proposal, Member (P) marked the file to
Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Misra on 01-10-2004
who marked it to MOC & IT on the same day i.e. 01-
10-2004 after putting his signature in token of
having concurred with the proposal, although
previously such cases were being approved by
Secretary (T) himself. The said file was sent to Shri
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC & IT on
01.10.2004. The approval for name change was not
granted.
The file was marked to Additional Secretary, Dr. J.S.
Sarma on 07-10-2004 (vide 6-N of file no. 20-
225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III) by Sh. K. Sanjay
Murthy, PS to MOC & IT on the direction of MOC &
IT Sh. Dayanidhi Maran stating that The issues
pertaining to this case are similar to the issues
being examined for preparation of a consolidated
note bringing out the interrelated issues between
mergers and acquisitions, licensing, FDI and FII
concerns. The issues arising from this case may
also be incorporated in the consolidated note being
prepared
I would like to state that with these direction the

request for taking change of name from M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. on record
was linked to other issues regarding extension of
LOI for MP circle by 90 days and grant of new LOIs
for UASL for UP (E) and UP (W).
...................................................................................
........................................................
361. He further states at page 14 in his statement

01.12.2011 as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................On
being asked it is clarified that the issue of taking
change of name on record is not at all connected to

Page 204 of 424
FDI policy, merger and acquisition policy etc. In
spite of this, it was connected with these issues as
envisaged from the note dated 07-10-2004 of PS
MOC & IT Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy on the direction of
MOC & IT Sh. Dayanidhi Maran (vide 6-N on file no.
20-225/04/Genl Mts/Dishnet/BS-III). Thus it took
approximately two years to take name change on
record. On being asked I clarify that there are no
such instances in respect of other Service Provider
which took such a long time for taking the name
change on record.
362. Thus, Sh. P. K. Mittal states that the question of

approval of name change was not connected with the question
of merger etc., but he himself linked the instant file with D-38,
in which eight LOIs were approved and in which Minister
suspected haste in grant of LOIs and UAS licences.
363. PW 2 Sh. Nripendra Mishra, the then Secretary (T),
has stated in his statement dated 23.08.2013 at page 2 as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Now I have been shown one original file of DoT
bearing no.842-21/01-VAS(Vol.-III MR-II Memo 46
Sl. No.1) and state that Sh. R.N. Prabhakar, Sr.
DDG(VAS) vide 29/N of the file had recommended
for approval of the following:
(i) To take on record the change of name of the
company from M/s RPG Cellular Ltd. to M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd.
(ii) To take on record the shareholding of foreign
partners i.e. purchase of equity shareholding of
20.76% of M/s Siva Cellular Holding Ltd. by M/s
Srinivas Computers Ltd.
(iii) To take on record the change of name of the
promoter M/s Srinivas Computers Ltd. M/s Aircel
Televentures Ltd.

Page 205 of 424
Sh. R.N. Prabhakar had also recommended that
transfer of 100% equity structure from M/s Aircel
Televentures Ltd. to M/s Aircel Digilink India Ltd.
may not be approved. He marked the file to Member
(Production) on 11.01.2005 who in turn marked the
file to me on 13.01.2005(inadvertently typed as
13.01.2004).
On being asked, I state that I was competent to
accord approval for the above mentioned 3
recommendations. Yet I sent the file to Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT for
confirmation and approval of the above stated 4
proposals on 14.01.2005.
The file was sent back to me by Sh. K. Sanjay
Murthy, PS to MoC&IT on 03.03.2005 stating that
reports on merger and acquisition are awaited. The
recommendations were not acceded to at that point
of time by the then MoC&IT.
364. Though the statement of Sh. Nripendra Mishra does

not pertain to this file, but it is indicative of the fact that
Secretary (T) was competent to grant approval for change of
name of the company. Perusal of the file D-30 reveals that he
has done so in case of RPG Cellular Services Limited at 12/N
when he approved the same on 17.03.2004.
365. None of the three witnesses have explained as to
why the file was sent to the Minister when the Secretary himself
was competent to accord approval for name change. There is no
evidence that the Minister had himself asked for the file or that
he had created an atmosphere in the Ministry where the
officials below him were rendered totally ineffective in the
discharge of their official functions. There is a contradictory
version as to where the file was from 03.03.2005 to

Page 206 of 424
29.06.2006, as the file is silent on this point, but Sh. Govind
Singhal states that file was with Sh. Yashwant Bhave till
05.06.2006, though Sh. Yashwant Bhave has not been
examined on this point.
In such a situation, one is left with no material to say,
even prima facie, that the delay in the instant file could be
attributed to the Minister alone, that too for mala fide reasons.
More so, it was Sh. P. K. Mittal who linked the instant file to file
D-38. More so, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran was suspecting haste in
the matters of Siva group. This suspicion is indicative of the fact
that he did not suffer from any guilty intention but was
suspicious of the actions of his predecessor and wanted them to
be examined in all details.
366. Once the earlier promoter/ management was not
there, many of the issues did not survive and subsequent
approval cannot be called a smooth approval, but it is an
approval in the natural course. There is no material on the file
to call the approval on 30.06.2006 to be so smooth as to arouse
suspicion as the agreement for sale, as noted above, was to be
effective from 30.12.2005, but the approval was given on
30.06.2006 by the Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma.
IV. Grant of UASL in Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and

Kolkata service areas (D-4)
367. It is submitted by Sh. Anand Grover that the
company had applied for four UAS licence on 01.03.2005.
However, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran deliberately delayed them also
on the pretext of linking them to show cause notices issued to

Page 207 of 424
the company relating to violation of ISP licence. It is repeatedly
submitted by him that the Minister was determined not to grant
any regulatory approval to the company including issuance of
fresh LOIs.
368. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel have
submitted that the file never reached the Minister and he had
no role at all either in the processing of this file or in its alleged
delay.
369. Learned counsel for both the parties have read out
the file as well as the statements at the bar extensively to
support their point of view.
370. Let me examine the issue in detail.
371. Dishnet Wireless Limited had applied for UAS
licences in Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata vide
application dated 01.03.2005. These applications were
processed in D-4 vide note dated 09.03.2005, recorded by Sh.
A. R. Devarajan, AD (BS-III) to the following effect:
Subject: Issue of LOI for grant of Unified Access
Services License for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala
and Kolkata service areas to M/s. Dishnet
Wireless Ltd.
M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited has applied

for grant of new UASL for Punjab, Haryana,
Kerala and Kolkata service areas, all the four (4)
original applications are placed below for ready
reference.
2. M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited has applied in

the format earlier prescribed for making
application for basic service licence. A
processing fee of Rs. 15,000 for each licence
application has been furnished and has been

Page 208 of 424
sent to LF section.
3. A preliminary check has been carried out with

reference to these applications for issue of
letter of intent for grant of licence. The check
list in respect of the four (4) applications are
placed at 29/c to 32/c. As per this check list,
the applications are in order and LOI can be
issued.
4. M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited is the new

name of M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd.
5. The company has declared its networth and

the Promoters networth as follows.
i) Audited networth as 367.09 Cr

on 31.03.2004
(ii) Unaudited increase in 88.24 Cr
earnings
Total 455.34 Cr
Unaudited Networth of
the Promoter as on 31st
January 2005 182.89 Cr
So total networth of the Applicant and

Promoter is 638.23 crores. From the number
of Licences issued (and pending issue) in the
name of M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd., and the
present applications for 4 licences from M/s.
Dishnet Wireless Ltd.. the prescribed networth
works out to 630 crores. The declared
networth satisfies the requirement. (See
calculation in Check List). LF section may
see the above point please.
6. In view of the above, we may grant UASL to

M/s. Dishnet Wireless Limited for the above
said FOUR service areas and the Draft format
of LOI is placed at 33/c to 44/c for approval
please.

Page 209 of 424
Submitted please.
372. The file was marked to Sh. P. K. Mittal, who posed

the following question: Is shareholding pattern directly or
indirectly provided? on 10.03.2005 and marked the file to
Director (BS-III).
373. Thereafter, reply was sought from the company and
on information being supplied by it, it was recorded by Sh.
Govind Singhal on 17.03.2005
M/s Dishnet has submitted the details of equity
pattern directly and indirectly. The same is placed in
the file.
The same may be checked whether it meets
out the latest FDI policy decision or not so that the
case may be processed.
374. After recording this note, he marked the file to DDG

(BS), who recorded on 18.03.2005 as under:
May also see for advice.
And marked the file to Sr. DDG (VAS). Sr. DDG (VAS)
recorded on the same date as under:
Case to be processed as per guidelines in this regard.
375. After noting this, he marked the file again to DDG
(BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal, who recorded on 21.03.2005 as under:
Is non-resident individual same as non-resident
Indian? Please clarify.
376. He marked the file to DDG (PIP), who recorded to

the following effect:
'Individual', cannot be substituted for 'Indian'
377. He again marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh. P. K.

Page 210 of 424
Mittal, who recorded as under:
Please ask clarification
378. On recording this, Sh. P. K. Mittal marked the file to
Director (BS-III). In response to this, a letter was written to the
company and clarification was sought from it on 23.03.2005
and on receipt of response of the company, Sh. Govind Singhal
recorded the following note sheet dated 29.03.2005, page N/S
3:
M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited has clarified that
all the Resident Individuals and the Non-
Resident Individual mentioned in their replies
are Indian Citizens Only.
The above clarification was sought as per
decision on N/S-2 marked 'A'.
The case is being submitted to check that
whether the applicant meet out the latest FDI
policy for allotment of licence or not?
46/c, 49/c and 50/c may be referred.
379. On recording this note, he marked the file to DDG

(BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal, who, in turn, marked the file to DDG
(PIP), who recorded the following note on 30.03.2005 at N/S 3
asking for a committee to examine the issue:
Latest FDI policy is yet to be notified, however, a
copy of the relevant portion of conditions proposed
& appd by Cabinet while enhancing FDI from 49%
to 74% was sent to BS Cell also. The details can be
examined by the Committee of DDG (PIP), DDG
(BS) & Sr. DDG (VAS). The direct & indirect equity
structure may be placed before the Committee pl.
380. He again marked the file to Sh. P. K. Mittal, who, in

turn, marked the file to Director (BS-III). Thereafter, a date for

Page 211 of 424
the meeting of DDG (PIP), DDG (BS) and Sr. DDG (VAS) was
fixed on 29.04.2005.
381. Accordingly, a meeting was held and a note sheet
was recorded on 04.08.2005 by Sh. Govind Singhal to the
following effect:
The minutes of the above meeting were sent to
DDG (PIP) for signature, but the same has not come
to this office. An draft copy of the minutes is placed
with the file for signature pls.
382. The file was marked to Director (BS). Thereafter, in

due course the file reached DDG (BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG
(PIP) and DDG (VAS), who all appended their signatures. The
signature of DDG (VAS) bears the date of 09.08.2005. He again
marked the file to DDG (PIP), who appended his signature on
11.08.2005 itself and again marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh. P.
K. Mittal on the same date. Sh. P. K. Mittal appended his
signatures on 11.08.2005 and marked the file to Director (BS-
III).
383. Thereafter, there is no movement in the file on the
issue of four licences in Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata
service areas.
The file falls silent on this issue on the aforesaid date of
11.08.2005.
384. However, in his statement dated 08.10.2012, page
2, PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal states as under:
On being asked I state that at that point the revised
FDI policy was under approval of the cabinet but not
notified. So any action at that point of time which is
not in conformity of the upcoming guidelines, was
not desirable. Therefore, it was directed to ask

Page 212 of 424
shareholding pattern of the applicant company in
terms of direct and indirect holding. M/s Dishnet
submitted the details of the equity pattern which
was put up by Sh. Govind Singhal on 17.03.2005 to
me. I marked the file to Sh. Prabhakar, Sr. DDG
(VAS) for advice. He directed the case to be
processed as per the prevailing guidelines. On being
asked I further state that the equity holding
submitted by M/s Dishnet DSL Wireless Ltd. has
indicated status as the resident individuals with
economic interest of approximately 68% so it was
essential to know whether individual is same as
Indian so as to treat the equity accordingly. I sought
the clarification from Sh. Vijay Kumar, the then
DDG (PIP). He clarified that individual cannot be
substituted for Indian on 21.03.2005 vide notes on
2/N. Accordingly, a clarification was sought from
M/s Dishnet. M/s Dishnet replied that all the
resident individuals and non resident individuals
mentioned in their replies are Indian citizens only.
Case was further submitted to check whether the
applicant meet out the latest FDI policy for
allotment of licence or not as during that period
cabinet was also approved the FDI policy which was
in the knowledge of the department but although
not notified. Sh. Vijay Kumar the then DDG (PIP)
suggested that the details can be examined by the
Committee of DDG (PIP), DDG (BS) and Sr. DDG
(VAS) vide his note dated 30.03.2005 on NS-III on
the said file.
At the same time in another file i.e. DoT file bearing
No.20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol.III) marked as D-589,
Sh. Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T)
discussed with Honble MoC&IT and directed that
Discussed with MoC&IT. These files are returned
with the directions that the div. should ascertain all
the show cause notices/advisory letters issued to
the above company or companies belonging to the
The above orders cannot be applied to a particular

Page 213 of 424
case but has to be applied to the company as a
whole and all other pending applications to ensure
level playing field and similar treatment for all the
applications.
Hence, the application for the above referred four
service areas got linked with the show cause notices
issued to the companies. This issue was resolved in
May, 2006 when delinking was approved by the
then MoC&IT.
On being asked I state that the original file bearing
No.20-231/2005-BS-III containing the applications
for the above referred four services areas was never
put up before the then MoC&IT.
385. He was examined again on this point as PW 8 on

this point on 01.12.2011, page 10, and states as under:
Now, I have been shown one original file of DoT
bearing No. 20-231/2005-BS-III and state that M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had applied for grant of new
UASL for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata
service areas. The said applications were process
and checked by Shri A.R. Devarajan who put up a
note on 09.03.2005 recommending for issue of LOI
in favour of M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited for the
said four service areas. He marked the file to Shri
Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III) who signed the
note-sheet on 09.03.2005 and marked it to me. I
noted as under:-
Is share holding pattern directly or indirectly
provided.
I marked the file to Shri Govind Singhal, Director
(BS-III) on 10.03.2005. Accordingly, a letter was
sent to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited requesting to
provide the said information on 11.03.2005. The
reply of M/s Dishnet DSL Limited was received
which is placed at 35/C. The said reply was
ambiguous. Hence, one another letter was M/s
Dishnet DSL Limited on 23.03.2005 under the

Page 214 of 424
signature of Shri Govind Singhal, Director (BS-III).
It was asked to clarify whether this Resident
Individual is Indian citizen or any other entity. Also
Non-Resident Individual may be clarified. We
received a clarification on 28.03.2005 which is
placed at 42/C stating that the Resident-Individual
and Non-resident Individual are Indian citizen only.
A Cabinet Decision was taken which was yet to be
notified regarding change in foreign equity pattern
in Telecom Sector. Accordingly, a meeting was held
on 29.04.2005 with the concerned section with DDG
(PIP), DDG (VAS) and myself. Minutes of the
meeting are placed at 15/C. However, I would like
to clarify that during the intervening period
direction of the then MoC & IT Shri Dayanidhi
Maran was received linking Show Cause Notices and
Advisories to the grant of UASL. It was conveyed
through Shri Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary
(T) in file No. 20-231/2003-BS-III (Vol. III) at
21/N.
386. However, the aforesaid direction was passed by Sh.

Nripendra Mishra, Secretary (T), on 30.03.2005 in file D-2. Sh.
Nripendra Mishra in his statement dated 23.08.2013 states as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Now I have been shown a copy of DoT file bearing
no.20-231/2003-BS-III(Vol.-III) Marked as D-589,
I state that on 30.03.2005, I had a discussion with
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT in the
matter of grant of UASL for UP(E) and UP(W) and
grant of extension of time limit for 90 days for
signing LOI for MP circle in respect of M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. As I stated earlier, the legal opinion dated
11.01.2005 of Sh. O.P. Nahar, Legal Advisor was
already on record and the same was made available
to the then MoC&IT in the above referred file of
VAS. The directions given by the Minister on the

Page 215 of 424
following files alongwith file no.20-231/2003-BS-
III(Vol.III) was that the div. should ascertain all the
show cause notice/advisory letters issued to the
taken. This was recorded by me on 30.03.2005 and
was further stated by me that it should be put up to
my successor.
1. F. No.20-231/2003-BS-III
2. F. No.20-231-2003-BS-III/Pt,
3. F.No.20-225-04-Genl.Mts./Dishnet/BS-III
On question about the information sought by the
Minister, it was clarified that these information were
not considered necessary at the time of making
recommendation for grant of licence.
...................................................................................
..............................................
387. The four applications were processed for the first

time on 09.03.2005, as noted above. As already noted, Sh.
Govind Singhal had recorded a note on 29.03.2005 at N/3 and
had marked the file to Sh. P. K. Mittal on 30.03.2005. Sh. P. K.
Mittal marked the file on the same day to DDG (PIP), who had
recorded a note as already extracted above regarding FDI
policy. After recording this note, he had marked the file on the
same day to Sh. P. K. Mittal, who appended his signatures on
31.03.2005 and marked the file to Director (BS-III). Thereafter,
the processing of file continued till 11.08.2005, whereafter the
file fell silent as there are no further entries in the file on this
issue.
388. Sh. P. K. Mittal states that the processing of the file
stopped as it got linked with other files on account of the note
of Sh. Nripendra Mishra recorded in file D-2 on 30.03.2005.
However, if this was true, the processing of file should have

Page 216 of 424
been stopped on 30.03.2005 itself or at least on the very next
day, that is, on 31.03.2005, on which date also Sh. P. K. Mittal
appended his signature on the file and marked the file to
Director (BS-III).
389. As such, the statement of Sh. P. K. Mittal that the
processing of the file stopped due to the note dated 30.03.2005
of Sh. Nripendra Mishra is entirely contrary to the record. He
himself says that this file never reached the Minister. As per
record, this file also never reached the Secretary (T). Sh.
Nripendra Mishra does not say anything about this file in his
four statements. Accordingly, this delay cannot be attributed to
the Minister.
390. A bare perusal of note sheets reveals as to what type
of insignificant questions were being asked from the company
and the file was kept pending by the officials at their own end
from 09.03.2005 to 11.08.2005. There is no intervention in the
processing of file either from Secretary Dr. J. S. Sarma or the
Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. As noted in the statement of Sh.
P. K. Mittal, the file was pending due to FDI policy to be
announced by the Government and perusal of the file also
indicates this. However, in his oral statements his shifts the
blame to the directions of Sh. Nripendra Mishra, dated
30.03.2005. The pendency of the file due to FDI policy is also
reinforced by the noting at 28/N, dated 02.01.2006 in D-2,
wherein information was asked from the company as per latest
UASL Guidelines.
391. As earlier noted above, if it was so, the processing of
file should have been stopped on 30.03.2005 itself or at least

Page 217 of 424
the very next day, but the processing of file continued till
11.08.2005 at 4/N. The delay on this count is not attributable to
the accused persons at all.
It is clear that the statement of Sh. P. K. Mittal attributing
delay to the note dated 30.03.2005 of Sh. Nripendra Mishra is
contrary to record. Hence, this delay cannot be attributed to the
Minister or Dr. J. S. Sarma.
392. Accordingly, this circumstance cannot be read
against the accused at all.
***************
V. Delay in allocation of start-up spectrum in Bihar
service area to Dishnet (D-35)
Advocate/ Spl. PP, that Dishnet applied for allocation of
spectrum in Bihar service area vide letter dated 24.05.2004.
This was being processed and Wireless Advisor and Member
(T) recommended allocation of spectrum to it and the file
reached Dr. J. S. Sarma on 17.06.2005. It is submitted that
instead of approving the file, he asked for another connected
file and for a consolidated note. It is further submitted that
when the file was submitted again through a consolidated note
and it reached Dr. J. S. Sarma on 26.07.2005, he again did not
approve the file and asked a frivolous question as to the stage of
network planning of the company and sent the file back. It is
further submitted that he also orally instructed WA Sh. P. K.
Garg to put up the file only when he asked for it. It is submitted
by him that these actions on the part of Dr. J. S. Sarma show

Page 218 of 424
that he deliberately delayed the allocation of spectrum to
Dishnet DSL Limited in Bihar service area in order to constrict
its business environment. He has read out the relevant parts of
the file as well as relevant statements at the bar to emphasize
his point of view that the queries put were irrelevant and
frivolous and Dr. J. S. Sarma deliberately delayed the allocation
of spectrum.
394. On the other hand, learned defence counsel have
submitted that the queries put by Dr. J. S. Sarma were relevant
and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as frivolous. It
is further submitted that the oral statement of Wireless Advisor
Sh. P. K. Garg is of no value even prima facie as the same is
contrary to record and he himself was responsible for delaying
the file. It is submitted that when Dr. J. S. Sarma was giving
directions in writing, there was no occasion for him to give oral
directions to Wireless Advisor. The relevant note sheets and
statements have been read out at the bar.
395. Let me take note of the relevant note sheets as
recorded in the file.
396. On getting UAS licences, Dishnet applied for
allocation of frequency in all seven service areas, including
Bihar.
397. The request of Dishnet DSL Limited for allocation of
spectrum in the seven service areas, that is, Bihar, Orissa, West
Bengal, HP, Assam, North-East and J&K, was being dealt with
in D-68 (Main case), which file is referred to by the witnesses in
their statements, but is not part of record of the instant case as
per the list of documents attached to the charge sheet.

Page 219 of 424
398. Thus, the request of Dishnet DSL Limited for
allocation of spectrum in Bihar service area was also dealt with
in this file (D-68), when a proposal was put up on 07.02.2005
for allocation of spectrum to this company in 16 districts of
Bihar service area. The proposal was agreed to up to the level of
Secretary, who marked the file to MOC&IT on 08.02.2005.
However, the file was returned on 28.06.2005 with the
observation that this was discussed and position was asked
with respect to the other districts of Bihar. It appears from the
file that though the Secretary marked the file to the MOC&IT,
but it was returned under the signature of Dr. J. S. Sarma.
Thereafter, there is no movement in the file in this regard,
except discussion about the query raised by AS(T) Sh. Yashwant
Bhave on 17.10.2005 at 8/N in file D-4, already extracted. This
discussion continued till 02.11.2005 at 25/N. The note sheets in
both the files, that is, D-68 and D-4, are similar.
399. However, the request for allotment of spectrum in
Bihar service area was also being dealt with in file D-35 vide
letter dated 24.05.2004, page 96. This was processed vide note
dated 26.05.2004, recorded by Sh. M. C. Pandey, Engineer. As
such, this file was also opened on the same subject for
assignment of spectrum to Dishnet.
400. Incidentally, one more file D-6 was opened on
16.07.2004 on the request of Dishnet for frequency allocation
in Assam and North-East service areas. Not only this, one more
file D-34 was opened on 03.03.2006 for allocation of initial
spectrum to Dishnet DSL Limited in HP service area.

Page 220 of 424
Coordination of spectrum for Bihar service area
401. In due course, DoT wrote letters to JCES for
earmarking of the spectrum in the seven service areas. Perusal
of file D-35 reveals that the coordination of spectrum for Bihar
service area to Dishnet was received in DoT and was taken on
record on 09.06.2005 vide note sheet recorded as under at 7/N:
S. Nos. 12I & 13I
S. No. 14 (R) (copy of letter from M/s Dishnet to
WA)
S. No 15 (R)
PUC is received from M/s JCES regarding co-
ordination of spectrum in 1800 MHz Band for Bihar
state district wise. As the request for spectrum in
Bihar for various districts in 1800 MHz is already
pending for M/s Dishnet, placed on S.No. 14 (R).
We may consider their request.
Submitted please.
402. Thereafter, the file was marked upward and file

reached Joint Wireless Advisor on 10.06.2005, who asked for a
self-contained note and marked the file to Deputy Wireless
Advisor.
403. In response to that, Sh. B. Gunasekar, Deputy
Wireless Advisor, recorded a note date 10.06.2005 at 8/N as
under:
Case relates to earmarking of GSM Spectrum in
1800 MHz to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. in 37 districts
of Bihar telecom service area. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
had earlier requested for 6.2 MHz bandwidth in 900
MHz band for rollout of UASL service in Bihar
telecom service area. The case was taken up with
JCES, Ministry of Defence for release of 4.4+4.4
MHz spectrum in 900 MHz band out of remaining
4.8+4.8 MHz held by them.
2. JCES, Ministry of Defence have clarified that no

Page 221 of 424
further spectrum in 900 MHz band can be released
by them, as the remaining 4.8+4.8 MHz spectrum
in this band is being used by them.
3. JCES was requested to coordinate spectrum in
1800 MHz band. M/s Dishnet DSL also requested to
earmark GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz band to roll
out and launch UASL service to meet license
obligations.
4. JCES have now coordinated spectrum in 1800
MHz band for 37 districts in Bihar telecom service
area. In 6 districts (Gaya, Jehanabad, Lakhisarai,
Muzaffarpur, Samastipur and Vaisali) out of 37
districts, spectrum will be confirmed after trials. For
the remaining 18 districts of Bihar, the case is
already under submission. With this coordination,
we may earmark 4.4+4.4 MHz in all 37 districts of
Bihar. However districts of Jharkhand, which is also
part of Bihar telecom service area are not covered in
the coordination.
Draft earmarking letter is placed below for
consideration please.
404. He marked the file upward to Joint Wireless

Advisor, Wireless Advisor and Member (T). They all agreed to
the aforesaid note and Member (T) marked the file to Special
Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma on 17.06.2005. The file reached
Special Secretary Dr. J. S. Sarma, who recorded on 28.06.2005
that:
There was another file on the same subject. Please
put up a consolidated note.
405. In fact, Dr. J. S. Sarma was asking for file D-68,

which is clear from the following note sheets. Moreover, he had
returned the file D-68 on the same day, as noted above.
406. The instant file was marked by Dr. J. S. Sarma to
Wireless Advisor, who, in turn, marked the file to Assistant

Page 222 of 424
Wireless Advisor as Joint Wireless Advisor and Deputy
Wireless Advisor were on leave.
407. In response to the note of Special Secretary, Sh. D.
Jha, Assistant Wireless Advisor, to whom the file was marked,
recorded a note dated 04.07.2005 at page 10/N as under:
With reference to minutes of Secretary (T) on
prepage:
Case relates to initial earmarking of 4.4
+ 4.4 MHz GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz Band
for UASL services in Bihar Telecom Service
Area to M/s Dishnet DSL Limited.
2. The service provider applied for GSM

Spectrum vide his application dated
24.05.2004 in 900 MHz band. As per the
license agreement signed between DOT and
the service provider initial 4.4 + 4.4 MHz
GSM spectrum (900/1800MHz band) can be
allotted, subject to availability. The case was
pursued with JCES, but they could not
coordinate spectrum in 900 MHz beyond
20.2+20.2 MHz, already coordinated and in
use by other service providers. Then the
request was made for coordination in 1800
MHz band. M/s Dishnet DSL also requested
GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz band to roll out
their network.
3. JCES vide their letter no. IDS/1128/2/JCES
dated 18.01.2005 had earlier coordinated
10+10 MHz in 16 districts of Bihar state under
Bihar licenced service area, which was
processed in F. No. L-14047/02/2004-NTG
(Pt.). They have now coordinated 5/10MHz in
1800 MHz band for all 37 districts of Bihar
state. Both the cases have now been merged
for consolidated approval of initial earmarking
in all the districts of Bihar state.
3.1 In 6 districts (Gaya, Jehanabad,
Lakhisarai, Muzaffarpur, Samastipur and

Page 223 of 424
Vaishali) out of 37 districts spectrum will be
confirmed after trials. With this coordination,
we may earmark 4.4+4.4 MHz in all 37
districts of Bihar state. However, 18 districts
of Jharkhand state, which is also part of Bihar
licenced service area are not covered in the
coordination.
4. The case is submitted for kind consideration

and approval of the competent authority for
earmarking of initial 4.4 + 4.4 MHz GSM
Spectrum in 1800 MHz Band as per co-
ordination received from JCES and as per
terms of service licence granted to them.
408. Paragraph 3 of this note indicates that the file asked

by Dr. J. S. Sarma was D-68. Thus, D-68 was relevant file in
which coordination and allocation of spectrum to Dishnet in all
seven service areas, that is, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, HP
Assam, North-East and J&K service areas was being dealt with
and this file was opened on 23.06.2004. In note sheet dated
07.02.2005 at 23/N, spectrum was recommended to be
allocated to Dishnet in sixteen districts of Bihar, but the file was
returned asking about the status in the remaining districts on
28.06.2005 at 23/N by Dr. J. S. Sarma himself.
Instant file was returned by Dr. J. S. Sarma on
28.06.2005 itself asking for another file. As noted above, this
file was D-68. As such, this query can, by no stretch of
imagination, be called a frivolous query. When two parallel files
were there and the same were put up on the same day, Dr. J. S.
Sarma was right in asking for another file and for a
consolidated note.
409. The aforesaid consolidated note dated 04.07.2005

Page 224 of 424
recommending allocation of spectrum to Dishnet in Bihar
service area was agreed to by Deputy Wireless Advisor and
Joint Wireless Advisor and Wireless Advisor. This was agreed
to by Member (T) also and he marked the file to Secretary (T)
Dr. J. S. Sarma on 13.07.2005.
410. When the file reached him, Dr. J. S. Sarma again
asked a question as under on 26.07.2005:
What is the stage of network planning? Have they
identified sites even?
411. He marked the file to Wireless Advisor. On this

note, PW 9 Sh. P. K. Garg appended a yellow slip on 10/N
putting a query:
Regarding sites we may check with SACFA if they
have applied for site clearance in Bihar. If yes, how
many?
412. And he marked the file to Joint Wireless Advisor.

However, on the yellow slip itself it is recorded by Deputy
Wireless Advisor on 29.07.2005 as under:
Checked with SACFA, no case as on date.
413. Thereafter, information was sought from Dishnet

vide note dated 02.08.2005 at 11/N.
414. On the basis of the information received from
Dishnet, the following note was recorded by Sh. D. Jha on
16.08.2005 at 12/N (D-35):
As directed by Chairman (TC) on page-10/n ante,
the clarifications were obtained from M/s Dishnet
and is placed below.
M/s Dishnet has stated that they have

Page 225 of 424
completed network planning for the GSM network
to be deployed in Bihar telecom service area based
on the coverage plan of cities and towns proposed to
be covered by them. A detailed planning for the
backbone connectivity along with the highways for
the network has also been completed.
2. M/s Dishnet has stated that they have
identified locations for Main Switching Centers
(MSCs) and Base Switching Centers (BSCs) at Patna
and Ranchi in Bihar.
3. Further, they have stated that their plan for
acquisition of BTS sites and placement of purchase
orders for the infrastructure and equipments are
pending due to firm assignment of frequencies. They
have requested for early assignment of GSM spot
frequencies.
4. In this context, it is mentioned that now the
GSM Spectrum 4.4 + 4.4 MHz in 1800 MHz band
for whole of Bihar telecom service area including
Jharkhand, under Bihar telecom service area, are
available, for initial earmarking as per licensing
condition.
The case is submitted please.
415. On recording this note, the file was marked upward

and the file reached Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg, who
recorded on 21.08.2005:
Whether the DSL had applied for SACFA clearance
for any site in Bihar and Jharkhand areas.
416. Sh. P. K. Garg marked the file downward. The file

reached Sh. Ashok Kumar, JW(F), Incharge, SACFA group, who
recorded on 24.08.2005 as under:
Reference note above. It is stated that till date M/s
Dishnet Wireless Limited has not applied for sitting
clearance in Bihar and Jharkhand areas.

Page 226 of 424
Reaching of file to the Wireless Advisor, custody of file and
approval
417. The file reached the Wireless Advisor on
24.08.2005 itself.
418. Thereafter, there is no movement on the file till
13.01.2006. On this date, Sh. D. Jha recorded at 13/N as under:
From pre-page.
As desired with ref. to the notes on pre-page,
the case is resubmitted for kind consideration
please.
419. He marked the file upward and the file was marked
to the Wireless Advisor on the same date. Again, there is silence
in the file till 01.02.2006.
420. On 01.02.2006, Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless Advisor
recorded the following note at 14/N:
The case relates to allotment of initial GSM
spectrum to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for Bihar
Telecom service area, which includes Jharkhand,
under their UASL.
Recently, JCES, MOD, had coordinated GSM
spectrum in 1800 MHz band for various Districts of
Bihar, including Jharkhand. The service provider
has also informed that he has firm plans for rolling
out the network.
It is, therefore, proposed that we may allot the
initial 4.4 + 4.4 MHz of GSM spectrum in the 1800
MHz band, to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for Bihar
Telecom service area, which includes Jharkhand.
For kind consideration.
421. This note was approved by Secretary (T) on

03.02.2006.
422. Now the question is: Whether the query put up by

Page 227 of 424
the Secretary is frivolous?
423. PW 99 Sh. M. K. Rao, Deputy Wireless Advisor,
states that after allocation of spectrum, licencee has to
approach SACFA secretariat for site clearance (mast height/ full
site clearance). As per this statement, SACFA clearance is to be
sought after allocation of spectrum. If this statement is to be
believed, the query regarding SACFA was not required.
Allocation of spectrum in H.P. service area (D-34)

424. The case of the prosecution is that Dr. J. S. Sarma
did not ask any question about SACFA clearance in HP service
area, but this frivolous query was asked only in Bihar service
area to delay the allocation of spectrum to Dishnet DSL
Limited.
425. In this regard, Sh. D. Jha, in his statement dated
06.11.2012, speaks about allocation of spectrum in Himachal
Pradesh service area by referring to file D-34. He states that
allocation of 4.4+4.4 MHz spectrum for Himachal Pradesh
service area was approved by Dr. J. S. Sarma on 10.03.2006
and no such query was asked. His statement dated 06.11.2012,
page 2, is as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
No undue delay was caused in allocation of start-up
spectrum to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Himachal
Pradesh service area. From the above referred file,
it is clear that no irrelevant query like SACFA
clearance, networks details etc. was asked from
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in this case.
426. The implication of this statement is that after

Page 228 of 424
transfer of Dishnet DSL Limited to Maxis, no such query was
put, but when Dishnet DSL Limited was with Siva group, this
frivolous query was put regarding Bihar service area.
427. However, it is instructive to extract the note sheet
dated 09.03.2006, recorded by Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless
Advisor, at 4/N (D-34) as under:
spectrum to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for telecom
service area of H. P. under their Unified Access
Service Licence.
Recently, JCES, MOD, had coordinated additional

GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz band for various
districts of H. P. The service provider has informed
that they have firm plans for rolling out the
network.
A minor harmonization adjustment is required for

spectrum already earmarked in GSM 1800 MHz
band to M/s Escorts Telecom Ltd. in the area, so
that both the service providers can be earmarked
contiguous GSM 1800 MHz spectrum to ensure its
efficient utilisation. This has been discussed with
representatives of M/s Escorts Telecom Ltd. and
they have agreed for the same.
Now, it is proposed to allot the initial 4.4 + 4.4 MHz

of GSM spectrum in the 1800 MHz GSM band, to
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for H. P. telecom service
area.
For kind consideration,
428. The perusal of the note sheet reveals that the

company itself had informed the DoT that they had firm plans
for rolling out the network. In such a situation, where was the

Page 229 of 424
question of putting the query.
429. However, Sh. P. K. Garg in his statement states that
SACFA clearance/ network planning was not required to be
asked at the time of allocation of spectrum.
430. But the above note sheets contradict his oral
statement. If it is not required, why did he record in para 2 that
service providers had informed that they had firm plans for
rolling out the network. More so, this is in the case of H.P.
service area in which allocation was made subsequently on
10.03.2006. The oral statement of Sh. P. K. Garg is also
contradicted and falsified by his note dated 01.02.2006 at 14/N
(D-35), wherein also he records that service provider has
informed that it has firm plans for rolling out the network. If it
is not required, why Sh. P. K. Garg is so recording? These two
instances indicate that information about roll out plan is
needed, regarding which question was put by Dr. J. S. Sarma.
Regarding SACFA clearance: Statement of P. K. Garg, Wireless

Advisor
431. It is instructive to take note of statement of PW 9
Sh. P. K. Garg in this regard, who has stated in his statement
dated 02.12.2011 at page 5 as under:
In this regard I would like to clarify that in view of
the direction of the Special Secretary (T) Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the aforesaid query was raised. Moreover, I
would like to explain that earlier the Service
Providers could apply for SACFA site clearance only
after allotment of initial spectrum. However,
subsequently a change was made and during this
period i.e. 2005-2006, the Service Providers could
apply for initial spectrum and simultaneously could

Page 230 of 424
apply for clearance of sites by SACFA as per their
network planning. There was no application of the
applicant pending in respect of site clearance in
SACFA as per the note of Sh. Gunasekar, DWA (V)
on the slip on 29.07.2005 affixed on the note sheet
(10N).
432. However, in his statement dated 24.05.2012, at

page 20, Sh. P. K. Garg states as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Before providing initial spectrum to the telecom
service providers, SACFA (Standing Advisory
Committee on Frequency Allocation) clearance is
not mandatory since 2003-04. When a service
provider is allocated spectrum and frequency
assignment letter is issued to it, as per the
conditions provided in the frequency assignment,
applicant has to approach SACFA Secretariat for site
clearance (Mast height/Full site clearance).
...................................................................................
...........................................
433. The query regarding status of network planning was

raised by Dr. J. S. Sarma on 26.07.2005 at 10/N. From the
above statements, it is not clear as to when the policy was
started that service provider could apply for SACFA clearance
only after allocation of initial spectrum, as Sh. P. K. Garg states
that the policy got changed in the year 2005-06 and in the
latter statement, in the year 2003-04. Sh. P. K. Garg further
compounds the statement by stating in his statement dated
02.12.2011 that to the best of his memory, such information
regarding network planning and acquisition of sites was
generally not asked from service providers at the time of initial
GSM spectrum. As such, he is not sure of anything and

Page 231 of 424
contradicts the official record prepared by he himself.
434. Similarly, PW 67 Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha has also
stated in his statement dated 18.11.2011, page 6, that network
planning and acquisition of sites were not mandatory for grant
of initial spectrum and such information was not being sought
from other service providers, but he does not state since when
the policy was changed. If the policy was changed in 2005-06
and one does not know the date and month of the change of
policy regarding SACFA clearance, how can Dr. J. S. Sarma is
faulted for this query.
435. However, the relevant provisions regarding SACFA
clearance and identification of sites are contained in the licence
agreement, a copy of which is available in D-5, pages 4 to 86,
which read as under:
43. Frequency Authorization
43.1 A separate specific authorization and

licence (hereinafter called WPC licence) shall be
required from the WPC wing of the Department of
Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications
permitting utilization of appropriate frequencies /
band for the establishment and possession and
operation of Wireless element of the Telecom
Service under the Licence Agreement of Unified
Access Service under specified terms and conditions
including payment for said authorization & WPC
licence. Such grant of authorization & WPC licence
will be governed by normal rules, procedures and
guidelines and will be subject to completion of
necessary formalities therein.
43.2 For this purpose, a separate application
shall be made to the Wireless Advisor to the
Government of India, WPC Wing, Department of
Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 in a

Page 232 of 424
prescribed application form available from WPC
Wing.
43.3 Site clearance in respect of fixed stations
and its antenna mast shall be obtained from the
WPC Wing for which the applicant shall separately
apply to the Secretary, Standing Advisory
Committee on Frequency Allocations (SACFA) WPC
Wing in a prescribed application form, to the
following address:
The Secretary (SACFA), WPC Wing,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.
EXPLANATION: SACFA is the apex body in

the Ministry of Communications for considering
matters regarding coordination for frequency
allocations and other related issues / matters.
(Siting clearance refers to the agreement of major
wireless users for location of proposed fixed antenna
from the point of view of compatibility with other
radio systems and aviation hazard. It requires inter
departmental coordination and is an involved
process). Normally the siting clearance procedure
may take two to six months depending on the nature
of the installation and the height of the antenna /
masts.
......................................................................................
..............................................................
43.9 For use of space segment and setting up
and operationalisation of Earth Station etc.,
LICENSEE shall directly coordinate with and obtain
clearance from Network Operations and Control
Centre (NOCC), apart from obtaining SACFA
clearance and clearance from other authorities.
436. The aforesaid provisions do not make it clear as to

when SACFA clearance is to be obtained, that is, before
allocation of spectrum, simultaneously with the allocation of

Page 233 of 424
spectrum or after the allocation of spectrum.
437. The case of PW 9 Sh. P. K. Garg and PW 67 Sh. R. J.
S. Kushvaha is that SACFA clearance and identification of sites
is not required at the time of initial spectrum. PW 9 Sh. P. K.
Garg further states in his statement dated 24.05.2012 at page
20 that SACFA clearance is not mandatory since 2003-2004 for
initial spectrum. PW 67 Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha, Joint Wireless
Advisor, also stated in his statement dated 18.11.2011, page 6,
that information regarding network planning and sites was not
mandatory for initial spectrum. However, when the query was
put up by the Secretary, none of them brought this to his notice.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Incharge, SACFA, has not been examined as
a witness.
438. However, in statement dated 21.11.2011, PW 67 Sh.
R. J. S. Kushvaha, based on file D-6, page 6/N, while referring
to allocation of spectrum to Dishnet in different service areas
and problems faced in Bihar and Orissa service areas, states as
under:
Further, at page No. 6/N of file No. L-
14042/30/2004-NTG, a note has been put up by Sh.
Dinesh Jha on 06.05.2005 regarding the processing
of cases for allotment of spectrum to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. in seven Telecom Service Areas and
providing details of spectrum earmarked in each
telecom service area. He has also submitted a table
in which he has provided details in respect of service
area date of earmarking of frequencies for
Microwave Access, Microwave Backbone and GSM
Frequency. The table available on page 6/N of the
file is reproduced as below:

Page 234 of 424
S. Circle Microwave Microwave Frequency Date of
No. Access (Date Backbone Band Earmarking
of (Date of
Earmarking) Earmarking
)
1. Assam 18.08.2004 28.02.2005 900 MHz 22.07.2004
2. North East 23.08.2004 09.03.2005 900 MHz 22.07.2004
3. Jammu and 23.08.2004 03.12.2004 900 MHz 01.09.2004
Kashmir
4. Himachal 23.08.2004 17.01.2005 - Yet to be
Pradesh allotted
5. West 23.08.2004 23.12.2004 1800 15.12.2004
Bengal MHz
6. Orissa 23.08.2004 03.01.2005 1800 24.12.2004
MHz
7. Bihar 18.08.2004 23.02.2005 Proposed Case has
in 1800 been
MHz submitted
This chart indicates that till that time the spectrum

was already allotted in the service areas namely
Assam, North-East, Jammu & Kashmir, West
Bengal and Orissa. It is mentioned in the chart that
the case for allotment of spectrum for Bihar had
been submitted for kind consideration of competent
authority. As far as Himachal Pradesh is concerned
no coordination had been received from JSES in
spite of several reminders issued from our side.
Further in para 2 of this note, the reason has been

given why allotment of GSM Spectrum in 900 MHz
for Bihar and Orissa could not be met.
The file was submitted to the then DWA (V), Sh. G.

K. Agarwal, who marked the file to me on
06.05.2005. I marked the file to the then WA, Sh.
P. K. Garg on the same day i.e. 06.05.2005.
Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg has written on the

file:-
There was another similar letter to MOC&IT

wherein we have provided similar comments to
Member (P), after showing to Member (T). In this

Page 235 of 424
case also we may provide similar information to
Member (P) or send a reply regarding spectrum
and SACFA issues. Our preference would be second
alternative. For kind perusal.
He has signed the note on 10.05.2005 and marked

the file to the then Member (T), who further marked
the file to the then Member (P) on 11.05.2005.
439. As per the aforesaid statement, the note was put up

on 06.05.2005 by Sh. D. Jha and in this note sheet, the issues
of SACFA were involved. This date is prior to the date on which
Dr. J. S. Sarma asked the status of network planning on
26.07.2005, which led to the enquiry about SACFA clearance
etc. This also indicates that there were at least some issues
related to SACFA clearances.
Role and responsibility of Wireless Advisor

440. PW 9 Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless Advisor, in his
statement dated 02.12.2011, page 1, states as under:
.................................................................................
While working as Wireless Advisor, DOT my duties
and responsibilities were to formulate the policies
relating to spectrum, with the approval of
competent authority i.e. MOC & IT through
Secretary (T) and then to implement such spectrum
policies in letter and spirit. I was required to have
coordination of frequencies with existing/ earlier
users for allotment of spectrum to telecom service
providers and grant of Wireless Licenses.
.......................................................................
441. He further states at pages 6 and 7 as under:

On 24-08-2005, the information received from
SACFA Group i.e. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. had not

Page 236 of 424
applied for site clearance in Bihar and Jharkhand
area till that date i.e. 24-08-2005 (Page 12/N). Sh.
D. Singaravelu DWA (P) submitted the file to JWA
(F) Sh. Ashok Kumar on 24-08-2005. Sh. Ashok
Kumar JWA (F) marked the file to me on the same
day i.e. 24-08-2005, as evident from the note at
12/N.
On 13-01-2006 Sh. D. Jha, AWA (V) re-

submitted the file for kind consideration (13/N).
The DWA (V), Sh. Kushwaha, JWA (N) signed in
token of having again recommended to approve for
allotment of spectrum for Bihar telecom service area
including Jharkhand. On this I gave my remarks
dated 01-02-2006 which are reproduced herein
below:-

spectrum to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for Bihar
Telecom service area, which includes Jharkhand,
under their UASL.
Recently, JCES, MOD, had coordinated GSM

spectrum in 1800 MHz band for various Districts
for Bihar, including Jharkhand. The service
provider has also informed that he has firm plans
for rolling out the network.
It is, therefore, proposed that we may allot

the initial 4.4 + 4.4 MHz of GSM spectrum in the
1800 MHz band, to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for
Bihar Telecom service area, which includes
Jharkhand.
For kind consideration
Then I marked the file to Secretary (T), Dr.

J.S. Sarma who was earlier Special Secretary. Dr.
J.S. Sarma signed it on 03-02-2006 in token of
having approved the same. Thereafter, the letter
dated 07-02-2006 under the signature of Sh. D. Jha,
AWA (V) was issued to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.

Page 237 of 424
conveying earmarking of initial spectrum 4.4 + 4.4
MHz in 1800 MHz GSM band for Unified Access
Services in Bihar Telecom Service Area (page no.
16/N and 174/C). Accordingly the aforesaid
spectrum was allotted on 07-02-2006.
On being asked I clarify that the information
regarding network planning and sites being
acquired was not required for grant of initial
spectrum. Further to the best of my memory such
information was generally not asked from other
Service Providers at the time of grant of initial GSM
spectrum.
From the above, it is evident that the co-
ordination of spectrum in the matter of allotment of
spectrum for Bihar circle from the JCES was
received on 08-06-2005 by WPC Wing and was
received on 21-07-2005 for Jharkhand (part of
Bihar telecom circle). In spite of it the spectrum was
allotted on 07-02-2006. Hence an undue delay
took place in the allotment of initial spectrum for
Bihar Telecom Circle to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
To the best of my memory, it is clarified that
Dr. J. S. Sarma had asked me after sending the file
to me on 26-07-2005, to get the complete
information about network planning and
identification of site etc. and then put up the file to
him only when he will call for the same. Dr. J. S.
Sarma called for the file in the month of January,
2006 and accordingly the file was put up by the
WPC Wing as per my direction on 13.01.2006 and I
gave my remarks on 01-02-2006, recommending to
accord approval for allotment of spectrum for Bihar
Telecom Area.
From the above it is evident that the JCES had
conveyed coordination on 08-06-2005 (page no. 161
& 162) and on 21-07-2005 (page no. 163) in respect
of Bihar and Jharkhand respectively. However, in
my note dated 01.02.2006, the word 'recently' was
mentioned by me inadvertently, whereas, the
coordination was received about 6 months back, not
recently.
On being asked about the reason for delay in

Page 238 of 424
allotment of spectrum to Dishnet DSL Limited for
Bihar circle, I explain that the file speaks volumes
about the fact that the officers of the WPC wing
including myself had tried our best to get the
spectrum allotment approved in time. Due to the
queries raised by Dr. J. S. Sarma, Secretary (T)
which were not required (particularly dated 26-
07-2005), the delay in approval and allotment was
caused. Moreover, I reiterate that to the best of my
memory Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T) had
asked me to put up the file when he would ask me to
do so.
442. He further states in his statement dated 29.12.2011,

at page 2, as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
From the above, it is apparent that the said file
remained pending with me during the period from
25.8.2005 to 31.12.2005 (127 days). In this context
it is stated that to the best of my memory, Dr. J.S.
Sarma the then Secretary (T) had asked me after
sending the file to me on 26-07-2005, to get the
complete information about network planning and
identification of site etc. and then put up the file to
him only when he would call for the same. I also
state that I had no intention of delaying the case as
can be seen from the fact that the case was
submitted for approval thrice earlier - on
14.06.2005, 16.06.2005 and 06.07.2005, but was
returned with queries first by Shri K.L. Jain, the
then Member (T), and then by Dr. J.S. Sarma, the
then Special Secretary (T) who subsequently became
Secretary (T). As per my memory, Dr. J. S. Sarma
had called for the file in the month of January, 2006
and accordingly the file was put up by Shri D. Jha,
Assistant Wireless Advisor (V) as per my direction
on 13.01.2006 and I gave my remarks on 01-02-
2006, recommending to accord approval for
allotment of spectrum for Bihar Telecom Service

Page 239 of 424
Area.
443. It is clear from the aforesaid statement that he was

responsible for formation of policy relating to spectrum with
the approval of the Minister. It is a highly responsible position
in the Government of India. But he is not sure of anything and
he changed his statement thrice regarding SACFA issues, as
already noted above. Neither he remembers the correct position
nor the year when the policy regarding SACFA clearance was
changed. He sat on the file for 127 days and thereafter, orally
blames the Dr. J. S. Sarma for that. Dr. J. S. Sarma passed his
directions twice, that is, on 28.06.2005 and 26.07.2005, on
both occasions in writing. In such a situation, it was incumbent
on Sh. P. K. Garg to record his views in writing. Sh. D. Jha and
Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha have stated that they do not know as to
where the file was from 24.08.2005 to 31.12.2005, when the file
was marked downward by the Wireless Advisor. Sh. P. K. Garg
admits that the file was with him, but he kept the file with him
on the asking of Dr. J. S. Sarma. This statement is quite
contrary to the record.
Authorities competent to allocate spectrum

444. In his statement dated 09.05.2012, pages 3 and 4,
Sh. P. K. Garg states about authorities, who were at different
times competent to grant spectrum and how they kept
changing, which reads as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that till end of January 2005,

Page 240 of 424
Joint Wireless Advisors of WPC Wing, DoT were the
competent authority for approval of allotment of
initial as well as additional spectrum as per policy,
guidelines and criteria.
Now I have been shown a copy of order dated
31.01.2005 issued under the signature of Sh.
Nripendra Misra, the then Secretary (T) and
Chairman (TC) which states as under:-
MOC&IT has directed that the following type of
cases should be submitted to him via Member (T) /
Secretary (Telecom), for approval.
(i) Frequency assignment for telecom service
provider while granting license.
(ii) Frequency for terrestrial broadcasting and
uplinking of satellite TV channels.
Please ensure compliance and issue suitable
instructions to various levels in the Wireless
Division for compliance.
The said order dated 31.01.2005 was marked to me
as the then Wireless Advisor and copy thereof was
also endorsed to Member (F), Member (S), Member
(T), Member (P) and AS (T).
I noted the said order on 02.02.2005 {on the copy
received from Member (T)} and further marked it to
Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then JWA (F).
Prior to 31.01.2005, as stated above, Joint Wireless
Advisor was competent to approve the allotment of
spectrum/additional spectrum to different service
providers. After 31.01.2005, the then MOC&IT
became the competent authority to approve the
allotment of spectrum/additional spectrum.
Although in the above referred order dated
31.01.2005, the specific mention of allocation of
additional spectrum is not there, yet it was being
approved by the then MOC&IT.
Now I have been shown a copy of order dated
16.06.2005 issued under the signature of Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the then Special Secretary (T) which states
that the following types of cases should be
submitted via Member (T) to the Special Secretary
for approval:-
(i) Frequency assignment for telecom service

Page 241 of 424
provider while granting license.
(ii) Frequency for terrestrial broadcasting and
uplinking of satellite TV channels.
The said order dated 16.06.2005 was marked to me
as Wireless Advisor. I noted the said order on
16.06.2005 itself and marked it to my subordinates.
Dr. J. S. Sarma was regularized as Secretary (T) in
July, 2005 and no Special Secretary was posted in
his place. Hence, all the cases pertaining to
frequency assignment for telecom service providers
were being sent to him as the then Secretary (T) for
approval.
445. The mere change of authority for allocation of

spectrum does not by itself indicate anything. Amongst other
things he states that Dr. J. S. Sarma was authorized by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran to allocate spectrum. In the absence of any
other incriminating material, authorizing an officer to do a
particular act by itself does not indicate any criminal intent.
Recording name of authority at whose instance note sheet

recorded
446. Dr. J. S. Sarma, when he was Special Secretary (T),
asked for another file and also for a consolidated note on
28.06.2005, at 9/N (D-35). Similarly, he asked for status of
network planning on 26.07.2005, when he was Secretary (T) at
10/N. In response to both the queries, notes dated 04.07.2005
and 16.08.2005 at 10/N and 12/N respectively were recorded
by Assistant Wireless Advisor. Both the notes clearly record
that these were recorded at the instance of noting of Secretary
(T). This indicates that wherever Dr. J. S. Sarma directed
anything to be done, it was clearly recorded in the file. These

Page 242 of 424
two instances are enough to indicate this.
447. However, wherever the notes were recorded, which
apparently were dilatory in nature, nothing of this sort was
noted in the file and only in the oral statements, the delay is
being attributed to the Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma. The oral
statements are thus, contradictory to the record available in the
file as wherever Dr. J. S. Sarma asked for any information, the
note recorded in response to that indicates it that it was being
recorded on the asking of the Secretary (T)/ Chairman (TC).
The delay is, thus, also attributed to the oral instructions of Dr.
J. S. Sarma, for which there is no written record.
448. Let me take note of the official procedure in this
regard.
Oral instructions vis-a-vis written record

449. Sh. P. K. Garg has introduced the plea of oral
instructions by Dr. J. S. Sarma for delaying the file. Let me take
a look as to what the Manual of Office Procedure issued by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions says on
this point.
450. Clauses 36 to 39 deal with oral instructions issued
by superior officers or Ministers. It is relevant to extract them
as under:
36. Oral discussions -
(1) All points emerging from discussions
(including telephonic discussions) between two or
more officers of the same department or from
discussions between officers of different
departments, and the conclusions reached will be
recorded on the relevant file by the officer

Page 243 of 424
authorising action.
(2) All discussions/instructions/decisions which

the officer recording them considers to be important
enough for the purpose, should be got confirmed by
all those who have participated in or are responsible
for them. This is particularly desirable in cases
where the policy of the government is not clear or
where some important deviation from the
prescribed policy is involved or where two or more
level differ on significant issues or the decision
itself, though agreed up to by all concerned, is an
important one.
37. Oral instructions by higher officers -

(1) Where an officer is giving direction (including
telephonic direction) for taking action in any case in
respect of matters on which he or his subordinate
has powers to decide, he shall ordinarily do so in
writing. If, however, the circumstances of the case
are such that there is no time for giving the
instructions in writing, he should follow it up by a
written confirmation at his earliest.
(2) An officer shall, in the performance of his

official duties, or in the exercise of the powers
conferred on him, act in his best judgement except
when he is acting under instructions of an official
superior. In the latter case, he shall obtain the
directions in writing wherever practicable before
carrying out the instructions, and where it is not
possible to do so, he shall obtain written
confirmation of the directions as soon thereafter as
possible. If the Officer giving the instructions is not
his immediate superior but one higher to the latter
in the hierarchy, he shall bring such instructions to
the notice of his immediate superior at the earliest.
38. Oral orders on behalf of or from Minister -

(1) Whenever a member of the personal staff of a
Minister communicates to any officer an oral order
on behalf of the Minister, it shall be confirmed by

Page 244 of 424
him in writing immediately thereafter.
(2) If any officer receives oral instructions from

the Minister or from his personal staff and the
orders are in accordance with the norms, rules,
regulations or procedures they should be brought to
the notice of the Secretary (or the head of the
department where the officer concerned is working
in or under a non-secretariat organisation).
(3) If any Officer receives oral instructions from

the Minister or from his personal staff and the
orders are not in accordance with the norms, rules,
regulations or procedures, he should seek further
clear orders from the Secretary (or the head of the
department in case he is working in or under a non-
secretariat organisation) about the line of action to
be taken, stating clearly that the oral instructions
are not in accordance with the rules, regulations,
norms or procedures.
(4) In rare and urgent cases when the Minister is

on tour/ is sick and his approval has to be taken on
telephone the decision of the Minister can be
conveyed by his Private Secretary. In such cases,
confirmation will be obtained on file when the
Minister returns to Headquarter/ rejoins.
39. Confirmation of oral instructions-
(1) If an officer seeks confirmation of oral

instructions given by his superior, the latter should
confirm it in writing whenever such confirmation is
sought.
(2) Receipt of communications from junior

Officers seeking confirmation of oral instructions
should be acknowledged by the senior officers or
their personal staff, or the personal staff of the
Minister, as the case may be.

Page 245 of 424
451. Thus, rule 37 clearly states that oral instructions be
put in writing at the earliest possible time after taking of the
action following oral instructions. Sh. P. K. Garg who was
Wireless Advisor and was in the rank of Joint Secretary/
Additional Secretary to the Government of India was supposed
to follow the official procedure. He is the custodian of the
spectrum and was holding a highly sensitive and responsible
post. He himself was remiss in performing his duties, but is
blaming others in violation of official procedure by making oral
statements, which are wholly contrary to official record.
452. The Wireless Advisor was duty bound to record the
instructions in writing, but he failed in performing his duties
and is now blaming others, contrary to official record. However,
in his further statements, which would be discussed while
dealing with allocation of additional spectrum in Chennai
service area in D-37, he states that the files of all service
providers were kept pending, indicating that there was no
hostile discrimination against Dishnet DSL Limited.
453. However, the prime question is: Whether the query
put up by Dr. J. S. Sarma regarding network planning was
frivolous? If so, why? The above discussion indicates that the
question of network planning was not frivolous, though there
may be difference of opinion as to whether it was required to be
put up or not. Sh. P. K. Garg is wavering on this point and
contradicts official record. Licence agreement, the relevant part
of which has been extracted above, does not indicate as to when
such query is required to be put, though SACFA clearance is
mandatory for mobile network to avoid interference in the

Page 246 of 424
communication provided by two service providers. Written
record as extracted above indicates that some issues of SACFA
clearance were certainly there.
454. Accordingly, I do not find anything wrong or
incriminating on the part of Dr. J. S. Sarma in this regard.
*****************
VI. Delay in allocation of additional spectrum to

Aircel Cellular Limited in Chennai Metro Service
Area (D-37)
Advocate/ Spl. PP, that Aircel Cellular Limited had applied for
additional spectrum of 1.8+1.8 MHz beyond 6.2+6.2 MHz in
Chennai metro service area on 11.07.2005, when it had become
eligible for that having crossed its subscriber base of 5 lac. It is
further submitted that when the file was put to Dr. J. S. Sarma
on 23.07.2005 recommending the allocation of additional
spectrum to Aircel Cellular Limited, Dr. J. S. Sarma asked the
Wireless Advisor to keep the file with him and put it up only
when asked by him. It is further submitted by him that this
delay was conspiratorial.
submitted that there is no material on the file to indicate that
Dr. J. S. Sarma had directed the Wireless Advisor to keep the
file with him. It is further submitted that even otherwise there
was doubt about the eligibility of the company. It is repeatedly
submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that Dr.
Sarma was responsible for this.

Page 247 of 424
457. Let me examine the issue in the light of the file as
well as the statements on record.
(A) First attempt to seek additional spectrum beyond 6.2

MHz: Data found false
458. The issue of grant of additional spectrum beyond
6.2+6.2 MHz to Aircel Cellular Limited in Chennai service are
was dealt with in file D-37. This file was opened on 16.02.2005
by the note of Junior Wireless Officer, who recorded as under:
PUC is received from M/s Aircel regarding
allocation of additional 1.8 MHz GSM spectrum in
900 MHz GSM band for providing CMTS in
Chennai. Submitted please.
459. Thereafter, on the same day, another note sheet was

recorded by Sh. M. C. Pandey, Engineer, regarding spectrum
being coordinated in 1800 MHz band by JCES and asking the
applicant if it was willing for spectrum in that band, to the
following effect:
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd, Chennai has requested for
additional GSM spectrum in Chennai Metro service
area after reaching subscriber base of 5 lakh. It is
requested to allocate additional 1.8+1.8 MHz in 900
MHz band beyond already earmarked 6.2+6.2 MHz.
JCES have coordinated spectrum in 1800 MHz
band.
We may advice the operator if spectrum in
1800 MHz band is acceptable, the same may be
considered.
Dft letter for approval pls.
The file was marked upward.
460. On 30.03.2005, a request was received from Bharti

Page 248 of 424
also and the following note sheet was recorded:
Request received in 1800 MHz band.
Application for additional GSM requirement of
1.8+1.8 MHz at Chennai metro from M/s Bharti.
461. The file was marked upward and on 08.04.2005,

the following note sheet was recorded:
It may pls. be informed if the case of M/s Bharti
and M/s Aircel who fulfill the requisite criteria for
additional spectrum is to be processed now.
File was pending due to Chennai (BSNL
case).
462. The file was marked upward to Assistant Wireless

Advisor.
463. Thereafter, note was recorded on 30.05.2005, 2/N,
by the Assistant Wireless Advisor Sh. D. Jha to the following
effect:
Request letter from M/s Aircell Cellular Ltd. for
requirement of additional spectrum 1.8+1.8 MHz
beyond 6.2+6.2 MHz already allocated in 900 MHz.
2. M/s Aircell is the only service provider who
has crossed 5.0 lakhs subscriber base in Chennai
Metro service area (COAI statistics April 05). M/s
Bharti has subscriber base of 4,68,310/- only. We
may agree to the request of M/s Aircell.
3. The co-ordination letter from JCES is placed
below for Chennai Metro.
4. Draft earmarking letter for assignment of
1.8+1.8 MHz additional GSM spectrum for Chennai
Metro for Aircell Cellular Ltd. is placed below for
consideration.
464. It may be noted that his note was recorded by Sh. D.

Jha after delay of 52 days without assigning any reason for the

Page 249 of 424
delay.
465. The file reached Wireless Advisor who recorded on
03.06.2005, 2/N & 3/N, as under, asking for information about
active users (VLR):
Recently on another file it was requested that we
may obtain information regarding the active users
(VLR) and peak traffic etc. on weekly basis from all
service providers. Hence, we may obtain this
information for processing these current cases also.
466. Thereafter, information was sought from the

company and on receipt of information the following note sheet
was recorded on 14.06.2005, at 4/N:
Vide 'PUC' M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. Chennai, have
submitted information regarding subscriber &
Traffic detail for the first week of June 2005 as
given below in Chennai Metro Service area:
i) Subscriber in HLR 6,98.740
ii) Subscriber in VLR 4,68,218
iii) Total No. of BTS 354
iv) BTS equipped capacity
(Theoretical Erl.) 21,201
v) BTS Equipped capacity 15901
(Effective Erl.)
vi) Busy Hour Traffic (Erl.) 17,545
Submitted pls.
467. The file was marked upward and on 16.06.2006 the

following note sheet was recorded by the Deputy Wireless
Advisor on 4/N and 5/N
Reference notes above.
Also kindly refer W.A's note on pages 2-3/ante.
We my consider the case of M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd., Chennai for their requirement of additional
spectrum of 1.8+1.8 MHz in 1800 MHz band beyond
6.2+6.2 MHz already earmarked in 900 MHz band.

Page 250 of 424
(Sl. No. 4-R).
2. JCES have co-ordinated the spectrum in 1800

MHz band vide letter dated 04/2/05 & is placed.
3. As directed, M/s Aircel have provided the

desired information on subscribers/ Traffic
particulars for the week ending 05th June 2005 in
Chennai Metro Service Area. Moreover as per COAI
statistics M/s Aircel have more than 5 lakhs
subscribers as on 30th April 2005 [i.e. 5,46,478 as
per telecom Live June 2005 issue]
Draft placed for earmarking of additional

spectrum of 1.8+1.8 MHz in 1800 MHz band.
For kind consideration pl.
468. The file reached Wireless Advisor who recorded on

19.06.2005 as under:
Their subscriber No. in VLR, which indicates the
number of active subscribers is below 5 lakh. We
may enquire the highest number of subscribers in
their VLR, during last 2 months.
469. In due course another note sheet dated 27.06.2005

was recorded at 6/N as under:
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. has given their VLR
subscriber base in Chennai Metro for April 05 and
May 2005.
The VLR figure for April 2005 is 427615 and
that for May 2005 is 466510. VLR subscriber base in
the metro for the week 30.5.2005 to 5.06.2005 was
earlier intimated as 468218.
Submitted for information pls.
470. Thereafter, the file was marked upward to the

Assistant Wireless Advisor, who recorded on 28.06.2005, as

Page 251 of 424
under:
M/s Aircel has provided VLR for April & May 2005
for Chennai metro. They have to wait till it reached
5.0 lacs in the service area.
May kindly be seen for information
471. The file reached Wireless Advisor, who approved it

and marked the file further for conveying the information to the
company and it was conveyed vide letter dated 28.06.2005,
page 58 (D-37) that additional spectrum will be considered
when its VLR subscriber base reached 5 lac.
472. Perusal of the file reveals that there was an
unexplained delay of 52 days on the part of Sh. D. Jha, when he
recorded the note dated 30.05.2005, after the file was marked
to him on 08.04.2005. Furthermore, the company was seeking
additional spectrum beyond 6.2 +6.2 MHz on incorrect data,
that is, active subscribers base and officials of DoT were helping
it by putting a note that it has reached subscriber base of 5 lac
and the note sheet dated 30.05.2005 recorded by Sh. D. Jha
clearly mentions that Aircel has crossed 5 lac subscriber base in
Chennai. This claim was subsequently found to be false.
473. Strangely the note sheet dated 16.02.2005 does not
quote the date of the letter written by Aircel. However, this
letter is dated 28.10.2004, photocopy of which is available at
page 4 of the file. The statement of P. K. Garg dated 23.03.2012
in this regard is quite interesting, which is extracted as under:
In continuation of my previous statement dated
29.12.2011, I further stated that today I have been
shown one file of DoT, WPC Wing, bearing No.L-
14043/3/2005-NTG (PE 1/2011, MR-II, Memo-I, Sl.
5) (D-37) and state that the said file contains the

Page 252 of 424
details with regard to allotment of additional GSM
spectrum to service providers in Chennai metro
circle.
On being asked, I state that M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.

vide its letter 28.10.2004 requested WPC Wing,
DoT, New Delhi for allocation of additional 1.8 MHz
GSM spectrum in the 900 MHz GSM band (i.e.890-
915 MHz paired with 935-960 MHz) for providing
CMTS in Chennai metro circle. A copy of the said
request letter is available at C/4 to C/11 of the said
file. Although, the said request letter is dated
28.10.2004, the copy thereof was made available to
WPC Wing on 28.01.2005. The initial dated
28.01.2005 of Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA (V) is
available on the said request letter. However, the
said request letter dated 28.10.2004 of M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. was processed in the above referred file
by the then Junior Wireless Officer on 16.02.2005
and thereafter Sh. M.C. Pande, the then Engineer,
further processed the said request mentioning that
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd., Chennai have requested for
additional GSM spectrum in Chennai metro service
area after reaching subscriber base of 5 lacs. Sh.
M.C. Pande recommended for allocation of
additional 1.8+1.8 MHz in 900 MHz band beyond
already earmarked (allotted) 6.2+6.2 MHz. Sh.
Pande also pointed out that JCES had coordinated
spectrum in 1800 MHz band whereas the request
was for 900 MHz band. Sh. M.C. Pande proposed to
enquire from M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. if spectrum in
1800 MHz band was acceptable. He marked the file
to Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA (V) on 16.02.2005
itself. Here it is clarified that M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd. was initially allotted startup spectrum i.e. 4.4
MHz only in 900 MHz band in the month of
November, 1995 and subsequently in the month of
March, 2000, additional spectrum 1.8 MHz in 900
Mhz band was allotted to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.
for Chennai metro circle. Initially the startup
spectrum of 4.4 MHz only was being allotted and
subsequently, in September, 2001 the startup

Page 253 of 424
spectrum upto 6.2 MHz was permitted to be
allotted.
A letter dated 22.02.2005 was sent to M/s Aircel

Cellular Ltd., Chennai informing that the GSM
spectrum in 900 MHz band was not available and
the request for additional GSM spectrum may be
considered in 1800 MHz band only. M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. was also advised to apply for additional
spectrum in 1800 MHz band. A copy of the said
letter is available at C/19.
Accordingly, M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. vide its letter

dated 28.02.2005 informed WPC Wing of DoT, New
Delhi about their acceptance of the proposed
allotment of additional spectrum in 1800 MHz
band. The said service provider further requested
for allotment of 1.8 MHz+1.8MHz of contiguous
band for both uplink and downlink communication
in the 1800 MHz band. The said letter dated
28.02.2005 of M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. is available
at C/21. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. sent one reminder
dated 23.03.2005 to WPC Wing, DoT, New Delhi
which was received by me on 23.03.2005. I marked
the said letter to Sh. R.J.S. Kushwaha, the then JWA
(N) who in turn marked the said letter to Sh. D. Jha,
the then AWA (V) on 23.03.2005 itself.
Meanwhile, one request letter dated 24.03.2005 of

M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. was received by Sh. D. Jha,
the then AWA (V) on 31.03.2005 who put up the
said letter of M/s Bharti along with letter dated
28.02.2005 and 23.03.2005 of M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd. in the above referred file on 31.03.2005 but,
inadvertently it appears Sh. D. Jha has put the date
as 30.03.2005 in place of 31.03.2005. The said file
was marked to Sh. M.C. Pande, the then Engineer
(V) by Sh. D. Jha. Sh. M.C. Pande noted on the note
sheet if the case of M/s Bharti and M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd., who fulfilled the requisite criteria for
additional spectrum, was to be processed then. Sh.
M.C. Pande marked the file to Sh. D. Jha AWA (V)

Page 254 of 424
on 08.04.2005.
474. From the perusal of the statement, it is clear that

the company had made the request vide letter dated
28.10.2004 and a copy of it was sent to WPC Wing on
28.01.2005 and the WPC Wing processed it for the first time on
16.02.2005. This shows the way in which DoT was working. Sh.
P. K. Garg does not say that the Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
or anyone else was interfering in the processing of the request
of the company. Furthermore, as noted above, the DoT was
processing the letter on wrong basis. The company was seeking
spectrum on the ground that its subscriber base in September
2004 was 4.4 lac and Airtel's subscriber base was 4.38 lac. The
company had a grievance that a company which had lesser
subscriber base was granted additional spectrum, so its case
may also be considered. The company explained that they are
as eligible as Airtel, but the department processed it on the
ground that the company had crossed the 5 lac subscriber base.
This is totally contrary to the record and reflects adversely on
the working of the DoT.
475. This is clear from the letter itself, the relevant part
of which is extracted as under:
Sub: Request for allocation of
additional 1.8 MHz GSM Spectrum in the
900 MHz GSM band (i.e. 890 915 MHz
paired with 935 960 MHz) for
providing CMTS in Chennai.
Ref: Our Letter dated September 16th, 2004

on the above subject.

Page 255 of 424
Dear Sir,
Reference is made to our letter dated September 16th

on the above subject.
We have made our formal application for additional

1.8 MHz GSM Spectrum and have been waiting for
allocation from your good office.
As of COAI data on Cellular Subscribers as on 30th

September, our subscriber base is 4.43 lacs and our
next competitor in Chennai, M/s Airtel's Subscriber
base is 4.38 lacs.
Wherein we have found that you have allocated

additional spectrum in 900 MHz to M/s Airtel
Chennai (the copies of our Regular Drive Test
Results are attached with ARFCN details). At
present, M/s Airtel Chennai is using 8 MHz
Spectrum.
Since we have more subscriber base than M/s Airtel

in Chennai, we request you to allocate the 1.8 MHz
spectrum to us, as allotted by you to M/s Airtel
Chennai.
We are as eligible as M/s Airtel to get this 1.8 MHz

Spectrum allotted. Hence we request you to allot
the 1.8 MHz spectrum to us.
The ARFCN used by M/s Airtel Chennai in this 1.8

MHz are ARFCN 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 &
101. WE request you to allot a contiguous band of
1.8 MHz like this.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,
For Aircel Cellular Limited
476. The perusal of file this far also shows that whenever

Page 256 of 424
DoT wished to allocate spectrum, they would allocate and
whenever they wished to stop it, they would stop it by putting
all type of queries. For example, Sh. D. Jha recommended for
approval of additional spectrum on the ground that the
company had crossed 5 lac subscriber base, but Sh. P. K. Garg
prevented it by putting a query regarding VLR. This part of the
file has been taken note of and discussed just to show the
strange ways of working of DoT, where nothing is certain and
delay and stalling are a normal feature of its working. Things
can be stalled by putting any query and can also be expedited by
putting no query depending upon the whims of the officer
concerned.
(B) Second attempt and Approval by Secretary (T)

477. Thereafter, in response to the letter of DoT dated
28.06.2005, referred to above, company again wrote a letter
dated 11.07.2005, page 61 (D-37), stating that it has crossed the
5 lac mark of VLR and asking for allocation of additional
spectrum of 1.8 MHz. This letter was processed at 7/N and the
following note sheet dated 13.07.2005 was recorded by the
Assistant Wireless Advisor recommending the allocation:
Reference to our letter dated 28.06.2005 (S.No.
11), M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd Chennai has intimated
that their VLR in Chennai Metro service area has
now crossed 5.0 lakhs subscriber base.
It has been checked that frequency 1.8+1.8
MHz is available in 1800 MHz band after co-
ordination from JCES. The earmarking to M/s
Hutch of 6.2+6.2 MHz in 1800 MHz has also been
checked.
We may earmark 1.8+1.8 MHz spectrum (in

Page 257 of 424
1800 MHz band) to M/s Aircell for Chennai Metro
beyond 6.2+6.2 MHz as per draft placed below.
For kind consideration please.
478. In due course, the file was marked to Wireless

Advisor on 23.07.2005. Thereafter, the file is silent as there is
no movement in the file.
479. However, the file remained with Wireless Advisor
till 31.12.2005. On 31.12.2005, he recorded on a white sheet
stapled at 7/N to the following effect.
Let us wait for the decision of higher authorities on
the note regarding spectrum availability.
480. On recording the aforesaid note, Wireless Advisor

marked the file to Joint Wireless Advisor/ Assistant Wireless
Advisor. Joint Wireless Advisor signed the white sheet on
03.01.2006.
481. Thereafter, on 13.01.2006, Assistant Wireless
Advisor, recorded at 8/N as under:
As desired, with reference to the notes on pre-page
the case is resubmitted for kind consideration
please.
482. The file was marked to Deputy Wireless Advisor and

Joint Wireless Advisor. The Joint Wireless Advisor Sh. R. J. S.
Kushvaha marked the file to Wireless Advisor on 13.01.2006.
483. On 17.01.2006, Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg
recorded a note sheet at 9/N as under:
The case relates to request from M/s Aircell
Cellular Ltd., for additional GSM spectrum beyond
6.2+6.2 MHz in Chennai service area, after crossing
the subscriber base of 5 Lakh.

Page 258 of 424
M/s Aircell Cellular Ltd. have reached a
subscriber base of 6.54 Lakh in Chennai in end
December 2005, as per COAI figures. Thus, they
meet the criteria (5 Lakh subscribers) for getting 1.8
MHz of additional GSM spectrum, beyond 6.2+6.2
MHz. The coordinated spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM
band is available in Chennai.
Hence, it is proposed that we may allot 1.8 +
1.8 MHz spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM band (out of
the available spectrum) to M/s Aircell Cellular Ltd.
for Chennai.
For kind consideration.
484. He marked the file to Secretary (T), who approved

the same on 18.01.2006 at 9/N.
485. This time no question was asked from the company
and Sh. D. Jha straightway recommended the case on
13.07.2005 at 7/N and everybody agreed with that. However,
WA Sh. P. K. Garg sat on the file from 23.07.2005 to
31.12.2005. No written explanation is there in the file as to why
the file remained with him for such a long time, but the
allegation is that Sh. P. K. Garg sat on the file on the oral
instructions of Dr. J. S. Sarma.
486. Let me take a look on the statement of Sh. P. K.
Garg in this regard. Sh. P. K. Garg states in his statement dated
08.05.2012, page 4, as under:
.................................................................................
...............................................................................
On being asked I state that M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.
sent a letter dated 11.07.2005 to me intimating that
their VLR subscriber base has crossed 5 lacs and
requested for allotment of 1.8 MHz + 1.8 MHz of
contiguous band for both uplink and downlink
communication in the GSM 1800 MHz band. The
said letter is available at C/61 of the above referred

Page 259 of 424
file. I marked the said letter to DWA (V) on
12.07.2005, who in turn marked the letter to AWA
(V) on the same day.
Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA (V) put up the said letter
dated 11.07.2005 of M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. in the
above referred file on 13.07.2005 recommending for
earmarking 1.8 + 1.8 MHz spectrum to Aircel
Cellular Ltd. for Chennai metro circle beyond 6.2 +
6.2 MHz. Sh. D. Jha marked the file to Sh. B.
Gunasekar, the then DWA (V) who signed the
notesheet on 15.07.2005 and marked the same to
Sh. R.J.S. Kushwaha, the then JWA (N) who in turn
marked the file to me on 23.07.2005.
On being asked I state that I kept the said file along
with other files pertaining to spectrum allocation,
pending with me at the verbal instructions of Dr. J.
S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T). I kept waiting for
instructions from Secretary (T).
..................................................................................
......................................
487. Thus, he orally blames Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then

Secretary (T), for asking him to keep the file with him till
further instructions, but he qualifies it by saying that files of
other service providers were also kept pending. He does not
talk of any adverse discrimination against Dishnet DSL
Limited.
488. Sh. P. K. Garg further states in his statement dated
09.05.2012, pages 1 and 2, as under:
..................................................................................
Today I have been shown one original file of WPC
Wing of DoT bearing No. L-14043/3/2005-NTG (PE
1/2011, MR-II, Memo-I, Sl. 5) and state that I
stapled one white sheet on 7/N of the above referred
file wherein it was mentioned that 'let us wait for the
decision of higher authorities on the note regarding
spectrum availability.' I signed the said notesheet on

Page 260 of 424
31.12.2005 which was also signed by Sh. R. J. S.
Kushwaha, the then JWA (N) on 03.01.2006.
Similar observation was also passed by me on other
pending cases at that time.
Here I would like to clarify that Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the then Secretary (T) had instructed me to
hold the cases for allotment of spectrum/additional
spectrum till further orders. This instruction was
given in the month of July/August, 2007 and was
applicable to all service providers.
On being asked I state that in the first half of
January, 2006, Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Secretary
(T) instructed me to process the pending cases for
allotment of spectrum/ additional spectrum to
different service providers. Accordingly, I directed
the concerned official of WPC Wing to process/
resubmit the pending cases.
Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA (V) resubmitted the
above referred file on 13.01.2006 for consideration
and marked it to Sh. B. Gunasekar, DWA (V) who in
turn marked the file to Sh. R. J. S. Kushwaha, the
then JWA (N) on the same day and the file was sent
to me by Sh. R. J. S. Kushwaha on 13.01.2006.
I examined the case and noted that M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. had reached a subscriber base of 6.54
lac in Chennai in end December, 2005 as per COAI
figures. I proposed that 1.8 + 1.8 MHz additional
spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM band may be allotted
to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. for Chennai. I marked my
note dated 17.01.2006 to Secretary (T) who
approved the same on 18.01.2006 and sent back the
file to me.
...................................................................................
.............................................
489. Here again he blames Dr. J. S. Sarma for asking him

to hold the cases for allotment of spectrum and additional
spectrum till further orders and this was applicable to all
service providers. He also adds that when the files were

Page 261 of 424
processed, the order was also applicable to all service providers.
Repeatedly the witness says that there was no adverse/ hostile
discrimination against Aircel Cellular Limited.
Criteria for allocation of spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz and

processing of file
490. In this regard, PW 9 Sh. P. K. Garg states in his
statement dated 24.05.2012, page 22, as under:
I have also been shown a copy of order No. L-
14041/06/2000-NTG dated 01.02.2002 issued by
Sh. R. K. Srivastava, Engineer (Memo-69, Sl. No. 3).
On perusal of the said order, I state that this order
was issued for allocation for additional radio
frequency spectrum to the cellular mobile telephone
service providers. Vide this order, it was decided to
assign additional spectrum up to 1.8 + 1.8 MHz to
the CMTS operators (beyond 6.2 MHz). This
order speaks that any service provider having
customer base of more than 4 lakhs or more could
apply for additional spectrum but would be
allocated additional spectrum only when its
customer base reaches 5 lakhs or more. It is also
mentioned in the order that the additional spectrum
will be assigned in 1800 MHz band. This order also
states that further additional spectrum upto 10+10
MHz per operator in a service area could also be
considered. Such additional allocation could be
considered only after a suitable subscriber base, as
may be prescribed, is reached.
491. Furthermore, Sh. D. Jha in his statement dated

17.11.2011, page 6, states as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
I marked the file to Engineer (V) Sh. M.C. Pandey on
30.03.2005. Engineer (V) in his note in the file has
indicated on 08.04.2005 that whether the case for

Page 262 of 424
additional spectrum for M/s Aircel and another
service provider M/s Bharti should be processed
who fulfill the requisite criteria for additional
spectrum. It is indicated that the file was pending
due to Chennai (BSNL Case). At that time the case
for additional spectrum for BSNL in Chennai Metro
was under the examination of the Higher Authority
(ies) and its outcome was essential to take a view for
the allotment of such additional spectrum. The case
was processed by me on 30.05.2005 for earmarking
of additional spectrum to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. in
Chennai Metro. On the basis of claim of M/s Aircel
vide there letter dated 10.05.2005 it is mentioned in
the file that as per COAI Statistics April 05. M/s
Aircel was the only service provider who has crossed
05 lakh subscriber base (HLR) in Chennai Metro
Service area which was the criteria for claiming
additional 1.8 + 1.8 MHz over and above allotted
6.2 + 6.2 MHz at that time. The file was approved
by the then DWA (V) Sh. G.K. Aggarwal and marked
to Wireless Advisor who wrote on the file on
03.06.2005 Recently on another file, it was
requested that we may obtain information regarding
the active users (VLR) and peak traffic etc. on
weekly basis from all service providers, hence we
may obtain this information for processing these
current cases also
...................................................................................
...........................................................
492. It is clear from the note sheets as well as statement

of Sh. D. Jha that since both Bharti and Aircel fulfilled the
requisite criteria and a direction was sought by Sh. M. C.
Pandey as to how the file would be processed. He also states
that at that time case of additional spectrum for BSNL was
under examination of higher authorities. However, in the note,
he does not disclose as to or on whose direction he had initiated
the note and what was the direction of higher authorities

Page 263 of 424
regarding allocation of additional spectrum.
493. However, from Deputy Wireless Advisor to Wireless
Advisor, all of them kept processing the file and making one
remark after the another as extracted above. Finally, Wireless
Advisor also recorded on a white slip on 31.12.2005 that:
Let us wait for the decision of higher authorities on
the note regarding spectrum availability.
494. As such, it is apparent that things were not clear in

the department. Sh. D. Jha sat on the file for 52 days without
any explanation, though he states orally that matter was
pending due to BSNL case.
495. Wireless Advisor sat on file from 23.07.2005 to
31.12.2005, for full 161 days. In the file, there is no direction
recorded by Dr. J. S. Sarma or the Minister. The file was
processed by the officers of WPC Wing on their own. None of
the note sheets, extracted above in detail, state as to on whose
instance any particular note sheet is being recorded. In such a
situation, it is reasonable to presume that the officers were
recording the note sheets on their own initiative in their usual
course of business, sometime expediting the file and sometime
delaying or stalling the same. Furthermore, as already noted
above, there was no hostile discrimination against Aircel
Cellular Limited and the files of all service providers were kept
on hold.
496. Not only this, the oral statement of Sh. P. K. Garg is
contrary to written record available in the file. In such a
situation, I do not find anything incriminating which can put
the blame on Dr. J. S. Sarma alone in this regard, more so,

Page 264 of 424
when there was no hostile discrimination against Aircel Cellular
Limited, as cases of all service providers were put on hold.
497. The delay allegedly started w.e.f 23.07.2005.
Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg states in his statement that he
kept this file alongwith files of other service providers on the
oral instructions of Dr. J. S. Sarma, but he has not noted this
fact anywhere in the file. The statement, as such, is contrary to
the written record. Furthermore, in his note sheet dated
13.01.2006, Sh. D. Jha recorded the note beginning with As
desired....., but he does not state as to who desired the note to
be put up. Similarly, Sh. P. K. Garg in his note dated 17.01.2006
does not state as to why did he choose to record this note on
this particular date itself by sitting over the file for a long time.
Sh. D. Jha in his statement dated 17.11.2011, page 7, speaks
about his note dated 13.01.2006, but does not say as to on
whose instance he resubmitted the file. Thus, Sh. P. K. Garg has
introduced the name of Dr. J. S. Sarma in oral statement for
delaying the file, though the written record says that it was he
who was responsible for the delay. Furthermore, such delays
are not unknown in the DoT as the letter dated 28.10.2004 was
processed on 16.02.2005 and thereafter, Sh. D. Jha sat on the
file for 52 days.
498. Furthermore, Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg does
not say that he withheld the file of Dishnet alone. He states in
his two statements dated 08.05.2012 as well as 09.05.2012,
both extracted above that he withheld this file alongwith the
file of other service providers for allocation of additional
spectrum. He does not talk about any discrimination against

Page 265 of 424
Dishnet. This is contrary to the case of prosecution that only the
file of Dishnet was being deliberately delayed to choke and
constrict its business environment. It strikes at the root of the
prosecution case that the target was Sh. C. Sivasankaran.
********
VII. Representations (D-4)

Advocate/ Spl. PP, that fed up with various delays caused by the
DoT at the instance of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the Siva group made several representations, but these
were never considered or heeded. It is repeatedly submitted
that these representations were not considered by the officials
at the instance of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S. Sarma as
both were in conspiracy and wanted to force the exit of Siva
group of companies from the telecom sector. My attention has
been invited to the files in which these representations were
dealt with as well as the statements of witnesses to emphasize
that the DoT was not attending to the grievances of these
companies, so that their business environment was choked.
submitted that these representations never reached Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and he had no role in this regard. My
attention has been invited to the relevant files and statements
in great detail.
501. Let me take note of the material on record in this
regard.
502. Dishnet had submitted a representation dated

Page 266 of 424
17.08.2005 to Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma. It was processed in
file D-4 at 5/N and a detailed note was recorded by Sh. Govind
Singhal, Director (BS-III) on 24.08.2005. One more
representation dated 30.09.2005 is also available in the file.
503. The note dated 24.08.2005 contains the whole
history of issues of the company pending with the DoT and the
development in the department on these issues. This is a
lengthy note, but for proper understanding of the issue, entire
note is extracted, which is as under:
1. PUC is a letter from M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
(old name M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.) dated 17th August
2005. They have mentioned that a presentation was
given to Secretary (T) on 8/8/2005. They have
mentioned in the letter various issues pending with
DOT.
2. Issues are related to WPC, LR & BS Cell as

below:
S. No. Issue Name of

Section to
whom related
1 Licence for Madhya Pradesh, UP (E) and BS
UP (W)
2 Licence for Kolkata, Punjab, Kerala & BS

Haryana
3 Point of Interconnect (POI) from BSNL for BS

the ongoing GSM project at Jammu &
Kashmir, North-East, Assam, West
Bengal, Orissa, Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh Circles
4 --- ---
5 Wireless Frequencies for Bihar & WPC

Himachal Pradesh
6 --- ---

Page 267 of 424
7 --- ---
8 WiMax Frequency Spectrum for ISP WPC

business division
9 Application for permission to provide IP- LR

VPN Services
10 --- LR
11 --- LR
12 Amendments of name change in the UASL BS

Licences
3 They have requested for resolving the BS

above issue by:
a) Immediate execution of Licence
Agreements for MP, UP (East & West),
Kolkata, PB, HR and Kerala Telecom
Circle
b) Appropriate directions to BSNL to BS/BSNL
provide POI across all the Seven Licenced
Circles as required by the Company
c) Immediate allocation of frequency for WPC
Bihar and HP Circles WPC as required by
the company.
d) Immediate allocation of frequency for WPC
ISP Division as required by the Company
e) Immediate permission to provide IP LR
VPN services and amendment of ISP
Licence
f) Immediate amendment of name in BS
UASL Licences
4. The letter has been sent to WPC & LR Section

for dealing with the issues related to their section.
5. As desired the comments on the issues which

are pending in BS Cell are as below:
1. M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. had applied for
the grant of Unified Access Service
Licences for 8 service areas, which are
Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh,
North East, Orissa and West Bengal on
5th March, 2004. The approval of

Page 268 of 424
Hon'ble MOC&IT was received for
issuance of 8 LOIs to M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd. on 5th April, 2004 on Note Sheet
No. 13 of File No. 20-231/2003-BS-III
(Vol. I)
2. LOI were issued on 6-4-2004. M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. submitted the
required document as per the LOI to the
BS Cell on 20-04-2004 that was the last
day to submit the required documents.
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. submitted the
entry fee etc. for seven service areas
except Madhya Pradesh. In case of
Madhya Pradesh M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited requested for the extension of
LOI by three months.
3. M/s Dishnet DSL Limited applied for
UP (East) and UP (West) service area
also on 21st April, 2004. The case for
extension of Madhya Pradesh LOI, The
case for issue of LOI for Up (East) and
UP (West) service area and the case for
taking the approval for signing of the
licence agreement after 15 days from the
issuance of LOI was put up combindly
on 26.04.2004 vide Note Sheet no. 1 File
No. 20-231/2003-BS-III/Vol. III (Vol.
2).
4. As per the direction on Note Sheet No.
4/N of the same file, the case was
delinked for the service area for which
the entry fee has been paid, therefore,
the case was processed on 11th May,
2004 at Note Sheet no. 5/N and the
Secretary (Telecom) gave the approval
for signing of the licence agreement
after 15 days from the issue of LOI at
Note Sheet No. 5/N.
5. The other two cases i.e. extension of the
LOI of Madhya Pradesh by 90 days and
issue of LOI for UP (East) and UP
(West) service area were processed on

Page 269 of 424
17th May, 2004 vide Note Sheet No. 6/N
of File No. 20-231/2003-BS-III/Vol. III
(Vol. 2). The case was under
consideration from Note Sheet no. 6/N
upto 16/N. On 13 July 2004 Secretary
(T) forwarded the file to Hon'ble MOC &
IT for consideration and approval vide
Note Sheet No. 16/N. PS to Hon'ble
MOC&IT directed to seek the
clarifications as mentioned on N/S No.
17/N.
6. A letter was issued to the applicant
company asking for the information of
its sister concern holding the licences. A
UO note was forwarded to Sr. DDG
(VAS), DDG (LF), DDG (LR) and
Wireless Advisor in respect of the PS to
MOC & IT notings on 17/N. The UO
Note was issued on 8th September 2004
vide Note Sheet No. 18/N (Vol-2).
7. On 27th August, 2004 Hon'ble MOC&IT
had desired the cae file of M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. in which the Letter of Intent
for 8 service areas were issued. The
same information was conveyed to
Hon'ble MOC&IT vide Note Sheet No.
23/N on 27th August, 2004 (Vol-1).
8. PS to Hon'ble MOC&IT forwarded all
the case of BS Cell and VS Cell to
Additional Secretary (T) for the
preparation of note on 15th September,
2004. Additional Secretary (T) gave his
opinion on 30-11-2004 and forward to
Secretary (T). The Secretary (T) asked
to take the legal status on the comments
of the AS (T) (Vol-3). On 13th December,
2004, the case was forward to Legal
Advisor for legal opinion on the
comments of the AS (T) vide Note Sheet
No. 19/N and 20/N (Vol-3).
9. On 17th December, 2004, the file was
withdrawn from the Legal Advisor as per

Page 270 of 424
the direction to submit all the file related
to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. to Hon'ble
MOC&IT. All the files were put up to the
Hon'ble MOC & IT on 21st December,
2004 vide Note Sheet No. 21/N (Vol-3).
10. The case for legal opinion was again
submitted on 22nd December, 2004 and
the legal opinion is available on 21 and
22/N. Secretary (T) has mentioned on
the Note Sheet 21/N on 30 March, 2004
(Vol-2) that the case was discussed with
Hon'ble MOC&IT and these files are
being returned with the direction that
the division should ascertain all the
show cause notices / advisory letter
issued to the above company or
companies belonging to the Group and
the nature of defaults before any view is
taken. It may be submitted to my
successor. As per the direction of
Secretary (T), a UO Note was issued to
DDG (VAS), DDG (LR), DDG (LF) and
Wireless Advisor for giving their
comments.
11. With the above remarks a letter was
issued to DDG (LF), DDG (LR), DDG
(VAS) and Wireless Advisor for giving
the comments as above. The reply of
DDG (LF), DDG (VAS), Wireless Advisor
and DDG (LR) have been received and
the comments are as follows:
a. LF Cell has intimated that the LF
Branch has not issued any Show Cause
Notice / Advisory Letters to M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd.
b. LR has intimated that following
are the cases under process in LR Wing:
(i) Show Cause Notice for imposing
penalty amounting Rs.2,36,88,522 and
submitting additional bank guarantee of
Rs.3.20 crores because of grey market
activities by its subscribers. Final order

Page 271 of 424
under issue after according personal
hearing before Member (P).
(ii) Show Cause Notice for termination
of licence for violation of clause 10
regarding Transfer of Licence is under
issue. Approval of MOC received on 28th
March, 2005.
(iii) 6 nos. of new cases have been
reported for involvement of its
subscribers in grey market recently (on
10th March, 2005). The cases are being
processed.
c. Wireless Advisor has intimated
that no Show Cause Notices/Advisory
Letters have been issue to the Company.
d. VAS has mentioned on Note Sheet
No. 26/N that the extracts of file no.
843-325/2000-VAS (Pt) having remark
of Secretary (T) for information and
further necessary action of BS Cell. In
the remarks Secretary (T) has
mentioned that please examine the
matter afresh in the light of notices
issued to the company in some of the
ISPs related irregularities.
Case is submitted for further
guidelines.
504. Sh. Govind Singhal marked the file to Sh. P. K.

Mittal, who endorsed the note to Advisor (P) on the same date,
that is, 24.08.2005. Advisor (P) endorsed it on 31.08.2005 to
Member (P) and Member (P) marked it to Secretary (T) on
01.09.2005.
505. Secretary (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma recorded on
15.09.2005, page 7/N, as under:
AS(T) to go through and comment.

Page 272 of 424
506. The file went to Additional Secretary (T) Sh.
Yashwant Bhave, who recorded on 19.09.2005 as under:
I would like to discuss with DDG (BS). Is the nature
of irregularities such as to warrant stringent action
regarding further examination?
507. After recording the aforesaid note, he marked the

file to DDG (BS). Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS), sought time for
discussion from AS (T) and recorded a note in this regard:
May kindly indicate time and date for discussion at
the convenience of AS (T).
508. He marked the file to PS to AS (T). AS (T) Sh

Yashwant Bhave discussed the matter with Sh. P. K. Mittal on
17.10.2005 and recorded a note as under:
Discussed. WA may kindly indicate if any spectrum
has been given/ allocated to M/s Dishnet and if so
what is the status of those applications.
509. After recording the note, he marked the file to

Wireless Advisor (WA) Sh. P. K. Garg. Sh. P. K. Garg marked
the file to Deputy Wireless Advisor Sh. D. Jha, who recorded a
note on 31.10.2005 at page 9/N as under:
With reference to minutes of AS (T) on prepage:
1. GSM spectrum:
1.1 Case for allotment of initial 4.4+4.4 MHz

GSM frequencies in 1800 MHz band in Bihar
Telecom Service area is under processing. As
regards, HP Telecom service area, coordination of
spectrum has, so far, not been received from JCES
and same is being pursued.

Page 273 of 424
2. Spectrum for ISP network
Status i.r.o. The applications received from M/s

Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for frequency assignment in
2.5 GHz, 3.3 GHz and 5.7 GHz bands for ISP is as
follows:
2.1 M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. was requested for

status of conversion of decision letters already
issued by WPC Wing, into operating licences. Reply
is awaited.
2.2 Cases pertaining frequency assignment in 3.3

GHz and 5 GHz have been examined and are
pending for further processing for want of
information from the applicant regarding
conversion of decision letters into operating
licences.
510. After this note, the file reached the Wireless

Advisor. He marked this file to AS (T) on 02.11.2005. It is of
some interest in the files D-35 and D-37 also in which allocation
of initial spectrum to Dishnet in Bihar service areas and
allocation of additional spectrum to Aircel Cellular Limited in
Chennai service area were also dealt with. Here, AS (T) Sh.
Yashwant Bhave had sought a report from Sh. P. K. Garg and
Sh. P. K. Garg marked the file to Sh. D. Jha and Sh. D. Jha put
up his aforesaid note dated 31.10.2005. The file was marked by
Sh. P. K. Garg to Sh. Yashwant Bhave on
31.10.2005/02.11.2005 at 9/N (D-4). Thus, Sh. P. K. Garg had
full opportunity to record the status of these two files, that is,
D-35 and D-37, as both the files were with him as D-35 was
marked to him on 24.08.2005 and remained with him till

Page 274 of 424
31.12.2005 and file D-37 was marked to him on 23.07.2005 and
remained with him till 31.12.2005. So, both the files were with
him but he did not record anything about Dr. Sarma asking him
to retain the two files. It is also of interest that the direction of
AS(T) Sh. Yashwant Bhave was recorded at the top of note sheet
by Sh. D. Jha. This indicates that whenever directions came
from an authority, it was duly recorded. This nullifies the stance
in oral statements.
511. Thereafter, the file is silent till 05.06.2006.
512. However, at 10/N Sh. Yashwant Bhave, AS (T)
recorded note on 05.06.2006, as under:
This has reference to Secretary (T)'s remark on
7/N. I am submitting my comments after discussing
the case in detail with DDG (LR), DDG (BS) and
Wireless Adviser from different points of view as
indicated in the above note. As far as the issue of
licences are concerned, from page 5 it is clear that
LOIs for 8 Service Areas (Assam, Bihar, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh,
North East, Orissa and West Bengal) have been
issued on 06.04.2004.
All LOIs (except Madhya Pradesh) were

converted into licence agreements. M/s Dishnet has
further applied for licences in respect of other
service areas of UP (East), UP (West), Kolkata,
Punjab, Kerala and Haryana and extension for
Madhya Pradesh. M/s Dishnet had some violation of
terms and conditions of licences for which show
cause notices were issued. They had requested that
issue of new licences as well as validity of LOI in
case of Madhya Pradesh may not be linked with
show cause notices.
The issues pending with different Branches in

DOT have been examined in the above notes. It

Page 275 of 424
appears that there are some show cause notices from
the LR Branch issued to the company after the legal
opinion dated 11.01.2005. The aspect to be
deliberated upon is whether new licences/LOIs can
be granted during the pendency of issue of show
case notices or litigations.
This was discussed at different times with

DDG (LR), DDG (BS) as well as WA. I now
understand the Hon'ble MOC & IT has approved the
delinking of show cause notice in the grant of LOIs,
etc. The file is, therefore, returned for appropriate
action.
513. Sh. Yashwant Bhave has also recorded that this note
has been recorded with reference to Secretary (T)'s remarks.
This again means that wherever the directions were given, the
same were given in writing and were duly acknowledged by the
officials to whom directions were given. Further, perusal of the
note reveals lack of interest by Sh. Yashwant Bhave in the work
assigned to him in writing by superior officer. The reading of
the note reveals that his attitude was lackadaisical, with no
interest in the assigned work.
514. On recording this note, he (Yashwant Bhave)
marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal, who appended his
signature on the file on 05.06.2006 itself and marked the file to
Director (BS-III). On the same date, Director (BS-III) marked
the file to DDG (BS-III).
515. Thereafter, there is absolutely no movement in the
file and the file stops at this.
516. PW 3 Sh. Yashwant Bhave in his statement dated
13.01.2012, pages 2 and 3, inter alia, states as under:

Page 276 of 424
On being asked I state that the said file remained
pending with me since 02.11.2005 till 05.06.2006.
No other file with regard to UASL was marked

to me earlier, the subject was not allotted to me.
Hence, I state that I did not have detailed domain
knowledge in the procedure of issue of licences or
spectrum etc. I was not dealing with the matter of
licences or spectrum allocation. However, Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the then Secretary (T) had indicated that the
issuance of UASL has been linked with the show
cause notices issued as desired by Shri Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MoC & IT and that it was not yet
decided if show cause notices could be delinked to
grant of new UASL.
I examined the matter as directed by Dr. J. S.

Sarma, the then Secretary (T) summarising the
position and also mentioning that the aspect to be
then deliberated was whether new licences/ LOIs
can be granted during the pendency of show cause
notices or litigations. I have also mentioned that
these issues and aspects were discussed at different
times. My understanding based on the discussion
was that Shri Dayanidhi Maran, Hon'ble MoC & IT
had recently approved the delinking of show cause
notices in grant of LOIs etc.
On being asked I state that I could not offer

my comments as desired by Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then
Secretary (T) vide his note dated 05.09.2005 as I
was asked by Dr. J. S. Sarma to keep the file with me
till a decision is taken in the matter of delinking the
show cause notices to grant of new UASL.
In the first week of June, 2006 I was conveyed

by DoT officials either by DDG (LR) or DDG (BS) or
WA that the Hon'ble MOC&IT had delinked the
show cause notices in the grant of LOIs. However,
the file in which the decision for delinking the show
cause notice with grant of UASL was taken was
never put up through me. Accordingly, I offered my

Page 277 of 424
comments on 05.06.2006 recommending for taking
appropriate action in the matter in the light of the
fact that the issue of delinking of show cause notices
from grant of fresh licences was decided by Shri
Dayanidhi Maran, Hon'ble MoC & IT. I marked the
file to DDG (BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal on 05.06.2006.
This note is available at 10/N of the said file.
517. Furthermore, in his further statement dated

26.08.2013, recorded after more than one and a half year of his
earlier statement dated 13.01.2012, Sh. Yashwant Bhave states
as under:
I had discussed the matter with Dr. J. S. Sarma, the
then Secretary (T) in the matter. He had informed
me that the issuance of UASL has been linked with
the show cause notices issued as desired by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT. He also
apprised me of the fact that the then MoC&IT did
not want to clear the files pertaining to M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. unless a policy decision on the issue of
delinking the irregularities of/show cause notices
issued to M/s Dishnet from issuance of fresh
licences to it is first taken by him. I was given the
impression that till then there was no need to offer
comments in the matter earliest pending the said
decision and that I should keep the file with me till
then. I reiterate that grant of licences, their
monitoring and other actions attendant thereto
were never the subject matter allotted to me.
I was in the zone of consideration of

empanelment for Secretary's post and retained the
file with me as desired by the Secretary Dr. J. S.
Sarma. On being asked I state that I was brought to
DoT at the recommendation of Sh. Nripendra Misra,
the then Secretary (T). I state that my predecessor
AS (T) Dr. J. S. Sarma was brought as Secretary (T)
after retirement of Sh. Nripendra Misra after a
period of four months as was desired by the then

Page 278 of 424
MoC&IT. However, meanwhile Secretary,
Department of Information Technology Mr. Brajesh
Kumar held additional charge of Secretary (T).

03.09.2013, at page 5, states about his note dated 24.08.2005,
extracted above, as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
bearing no. 20-231/2005-BS-III(Vol.IV) and state
that M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had submitted four
applications for grant of UASL for Punjab, Haryana,
Kerala and Kolkata Service areas and the same was
processed by Sh. A.R. Devarajan, AD(BS-III) on
09.03.2005. He recommended for grant of UASL
and marked the file to me. The applications were
examined at different level in DoT. Meanwhile M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. sent a representation dated
17.08.2005 to Dr. J.S. Sarma, Secretary(T). The said
representation was marked to me by Sh. P.K. Mittal,
DDG(BS) on 23.08.2005. I examined the said
representation and put up a note on 24.08.2005
giving a comprehensive note on different pending
issues/approval of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for
further guidance. At para 7 of my note dated
24.08.2005, I mentioned that on 27.08.2004, the
MoC&IT had desired the case file of M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. in which the LOI for 8 service areas were
issued. At para 8, I mention that PS to MoC&IT
forwarded all the cases of BS cell and VAS cell to
AS(T) for preparation of note on 15.09.2004. AS(T)
gave his opinion on 30.11.2004. Secretary(T) asked
to take legal status on the comments of AS(T). On
13.12.2004, the case was forwarded to Legal Adviser
for legal opinion on the comments of AS(T). All the
files were again put up to MoC&IT on 21.12.2004
after withdrawing the files from LA. The case for
legal opinion was again submitted on 22.12.2004
and the legal opinion was received on 11.01.2005.

Page 279 of 424
At para 10, vide 7/N, I have mentioned that on
30.03.2005(inadvertently typed as 30.03.2004), the
case was discussed by Secretary(T) with MoC&IT
and the files were returned with the direction that
the division should ascertain all the show cause
notices/advisory letters issued to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. or the companies belonging to the
group and the nature of the default before any view
is taken. The LR cell has intimated the details of the
show cause notices issued to the company or its
sister concern. I marked the file to DDG(BS) who in
turn marked the file to Sh. R.N. Prabhakar, the then
Advisor(P) who in turn marked the file to Sh. B.
Shiva Ramakrishnan, the then Member(P). Dr. J.S.
Sarma, the then Secretary(T) marked the file to Sh.
Yashwant Bhave, the then AS(T) with direction to
go through and comment on 15.09.2005. The file
remained pending with AS(T) till 05.06.2006.
..................................................................................
.........................................
519. PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal has also stated about these

representations in his statement dated 01.12.2011 at pages 3 to
6. He also states that the file remained with Additional
Secretary till 05.06.2006 for about 216 days, when it was
returned by him after recording his observations.
Representations of Sh. V. Srinivasan: D-5

520. Similarly, some representations of Sh. V. Srinivasan
were also dealt with in file D-5, which were processed by Sh. A.
R. Devarajan, AD (BS-III), at 1/N on 28.10.2004 by recording
note sheet, which reads as under:
Subject: (i) Extension of time for signing License
after issue of LOI in respect of Madhya
Pradesh service areas.
(ii) Issue of LOI for UP (East) & UP

Page 280 of 424
(West) service areas.
(iii) M/s. Dishnet DSL Limited had
applied for change of name.
As directed the following letters are
being put up for further action please.
PUC are three letters (i), (ii) & (iii) all
dated 26.05.2004 received from M/s.
Dishnet Wireless Ltd erstwhile Dishnet
DSL Ltd.
2. In respect of PUC (i) the Letter of

Intent for Madhya Pradesh Telecom
circle was issued to M/s. Dishnet DSL
Ltd. on 6.4.2004. The company had
requested for extension of time for 90
days to sign the licence agreement. At
present the company is ready to sign the
Licence Agreement.
3. Regarding PUC (ii) application

from M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd was received
on 21.4.2004 and processed for issue of
LOI for Uttar Pradesh (East) and Uttar
Pradesh (West).
4. PUC (iii) is in regard to the change

of name by M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd. to
M/s. Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Relevant
documents were submitted. File also
submitted for approval of change of
name.
PUC's are submitted please.
521. The file was marked by Sh. A. R. Devarajan to

Director (BS-III), who, in turn, marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh.
P. K. Mitta, who recorded that the letters are being sent for kind
information please and marked the file to Member (P) and

Page 281 of 424
Member (P) marked the file to Additional Secretary (T) Dr. J. S.
Sarma. Dr. J. S. Sarma recorded on 30.11.2004, These have
been sent to Secretary (DoT) separately, and marked the file to
DDG (BS), who marked the file to Director (BS-III), who, in
turn, marked the file to AD (BS-III). Thereafter, the file is silent
and a new issue of liquidated damages to be imposed on the
company was started from 2/N.
522. Sh. P. K. Mittal in his statement dated 11.02.2013
states about various representations as under:
In continuation to my statement dated 08.10.2012,

I further state that today I have been shown one
original file of DoT bearing No.20-
225/Dishnet/2004GENL Matters/BS-III (Pt.) and
state that Sh. A.R. Devarajan, the then AD, BS-III,
DoT had initiated a note on 28.10.2004. In fact, Sh.
V. Srinivasan, CEO and Director of M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. had submitted three representations,
all dated 26.10.2004 which were addressed to the
Chairman, DoT, New Delhi and available at 238, 239
and 240/C of the above referred file. However, it
appears that Sh. A.R. Devarajan had mentioned the
dates of the said three representations as
26.05.2004 in place of 26.10.2004 inadvertently.
Vide those three letters, Sh. V. Srinivasan had
sought the following:-
(1) Request for extension of time period for LOI
issued to Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for Madhya Pradesh
telecom circle.
(2) Request for issuance of LOI for UP(East) &
UP(West) telecom circle.
(3) Request for taking on record change of name
of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. to Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
Sh. A.R. Devarajan marked the file to Sh. Govind

Page 282 of 424
Singhal, the then Director (BS-III) who in turn sent
the file to me on 28.10.2004. I sent the file to Sh. B.
Sivaramakrishna, the then Member Production. In
fact, the relevant files in which the above referred
three requests were dealt with and recommended for
approval to the Minister, were already sent to Dr.
J.S. Sarma, the then Additional Secretary (T) by the
then MoC&IT office. Therefore, these
representations were also sent to Dr. J.S. Sarma, the
then Additional Secretary by Member (P). The
above referred file was returned to me by Dr. J.S.
Sarma, the then Additional Secretary on 30.11.2004
with the remark that these have been sent to
Secretary, DoT separately. On being asked I state
that the word these in the above referred remark
refers to the files where the requests of M/s Dishnet
were dealt in three different files which were sent to
the Secretary by Dr. J.S. Sarma, the then Additional
Secretary. I marked the file to Director BS-III on
02.12.2004, who in turn marked it to AD (BS-III) on
03.12.2004. It appears that the said three
representations all dated 26.10.2004 of M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. were not put up before Secretary (T).
...................................................................................
...................................
523. Perusal of files reveals that Secretary (T) Dr. J. S.

Sarma had asked Sh. Yashwant Bhave in writing on 15.09.2005
to go through the representations and comment. However, he
sat on the file till 05.06.2006 and makes an oral statement that
it was Dr. Sarma who had asked him to keep the file with him
till a decision is taken in the matter of de-linking. However, the
issue de-linking of show cause notices from the grant of new
UAS licence was nowhere in sight at that time as the file (D-43)
for that was opened on 27.12.2005 and approval was finally
granted by the Minister on 16.05.2006. However, Sh. Yashwant

Page 283 of 424
Bhave sat on the file till 05.06.2006. This statement is contrary
to record as well as official procedure already noted above.
Furthermore, it is not clear as to why, when the
representations were being dealt with in D-5, which was opened
on 28.10.2004, further representations from Dishnet Wireless
Limited were interposed on 24.08.2005 in another file D-4, at
5/N, which was initially opened for dealing with UASL
applications of Dishnet for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and
Kolkata service areas.
524. It is also absurd for an Additional Secretary to be so
scared of Secretary that he would do an illegal act of sitting over
a file for close to nine months, that is, from 15.09.2005 to
05.06.2006, only at his asking. This is further compounded by
the fact that Additional Secretary had been empanelled as
Secretary. This is contrary to the Manual of Office Procedure,
already quoted above. The statement of Sh. Yashwant Bhave is
also contrary to record, as wherever Dr. Sarma gave
instructions, he gave the same in writing only.
525. Furthermore, Sh. P. K. Mittal states in his above
statement that it appears that these representations, all dated
26.10.2004, were never put up before Secretary (T). However,
this statement is also contrary to record as all three
representations bear the number of the office of Chairman (TC)
8391 to 8393. Furthermore, all three representations bear
initials of Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra, with date of
26/10.
526. However, one thing is clear that these two files were
not put up to the then MOC&IT Sh. Dayanidhi Maran.

Page 284 of 424
527. The perusal of the record reveals that the delay was
on the part of Sh. Yashwant Bhave and not on the part of Dr. J.
S. Sarma. The statement of Sh. Yashwant Bhave is contrary to
record. These representations never reached the Minister.
Conspiracy between Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S. Sarma

528. It may be noted that PW 1 Sh. K. Sanjay Murthy and
PW 2 Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra are the only two
witnesses who interacted with Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. Both of
them have not made any oral statement against Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, except narrating the record available in the files.
529. There is also no statement on record indicating the
type of relationship between Dr. J. S. Sarma and Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, except the orders issued by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
authorizing Dr. J. S. Sarma to allocate spectrum and also to give
his comments on certain issues. There is also statement of Sh.
P. K. Garg indicating the role of Dr. J. S. Sarma in modification
of terms of references (ToRs).
530. The issue is how to infer conspiracy between Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S. Sarma? From the aforesaid
material it is difficult to infer any conspiracy between the two.
Simply because Minister is asking a particular officer to
perform certain official acts, one cannot call them conspirators.
531. Furthermore, a perusal of the statement of Sh.
Yashwant Bhave reveals that Dr. J. S. Sarma and Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran were not in conspiracy, which is clear from the following
sentences:
I had discussed the matter with Dr. J. S. Sarma, the

Page 285 of 424
then Secretary (T) in the matter. He had informed
me that the issuance of UASL has been linked with
the show cause notices issued as desired by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT. He also
apprised me of the fact that the then MoC&IT did
not want to clear the files pertaining to M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. unless a policy decision on the issue of
delinking the irregularities of/show cause notices
issued to M/s Dishnet from issuance of fresh
licences to it is first taken by him.
532. The case of the prosecution is that Dr. J. S. Sarma

was a conspirator with Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. However, the
statement of Sh. Yashwant Bhave as extracted above goes
against the theory of conspiracy as here the alleged co-
conspirator Dr. J. S. Sarma is not projecting himself to be a
conspirator but is entirely blaming the Minister for linking the
show cause notices to the issuance of new UASL. He further
states that Dr. J. S. Sarma told him that MOC&IT did not want
to clear the file pertaining to Dishnet DSL Limited unless a
policy decision on de-linking is taken. Thus, the alleged
conspirator is not exhibiting the behaviour of a conspirator, but
is fairly and squarely blaming the Minister. Where is the
agreement to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means?
Furthermore, Dr. J. S. Sarma does not tell Sh. Yashwant Bhave
that the Minister was trying to delay the issues of Dishnet for
any illegal consideration, but purely for a policy decision on the
issue of de-linking of irregularities of/ show causes notices
issued to Dishnet from issuance of fresh licences. This
statement breaks the theory of conspiracy between the two.

Page 286 of 424
Representations of Sh. C. Sivasankaran
533. Sh. C. Sivasankaran in his statement dated
23.02.2012, at pages 8 to 11, states as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Now, I have been shown a folder (MR II, Memo 41,
Sl. No. 1) (at pages 115 to 121) that contains the
letters written by me to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT on 04.04.2005, 03.05.2005 and
01.06.2005 in which I had tried to explain to the
then MOC&IT, the various pending issues of my
telecom business with the DoT, WPC & BSNL, with
a request to the Honble Minister to release the
pending clearances at the earliest. In my letter dated
04.04.2005 addressed to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT, I quote the following issues which
were brought to the notice of the Honble Minister
by me:
First, consequent to change in the name of the
company from Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet
Wireless Limited, we have made a request for
effecting the change of the name of the company in
UASL Licence. This is pending for the last 8
months. Such a request is normally cleared at the
lowest levels in the administration and instantly.
But our request is pending for an unusually long 8
months.
Second the company was given the Letter of Intent
for M.P circle in April 2004. Despite the fact that as
early as April 20th 2004 the company had written to
the DoT expressing its readiness to fulfill the terms
of the LoI and asking for the normal extension of the
LoI and for issue of UASL, both requests are
pending with the DoT for the last 8 months. All
clarifications required by the DoT have been
furnished.
Third, the application for issuance of LoI and UASL
is pending in respect of UP (West) and UP (East)
circles for the past 9 months. Whatever clarification
the DoT wanted has been given.

Page 287 of 424
Fourth, despite that in principle sanction for
frequency was given for the Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh circles, no spot frequency has been allotted
for the past 9 months. In the case of Orissa, the
spot frequency allotted is 1800 MHz against the in
principle sanction of 900 MHz. Despite all
clarifications given by the company, there is
complete stagnation in the matter. I may add at
this stage that because of the delay in giving the
frequencies the revenue accruals that will yield
revenues to government have not taken place and to
that extent there is revenue loss to the state.
Fifth, our request for provision of points of
interconnection by BSNL for J&K, HP, Assam,
North East, Rest of WB, Orissa and Bihar Telecom
Circles, which is normally done for all as a matter of
routine, were pending since October 2004. For
example, out of 453 ports required for all the
mentioned circles, BSNL is yet to raise demand
notes for 362 ports. In J&K even though it has
raised demand notes for 8 ports unusually the BSNL
is not accepting the fee for them.
Sixth, the issue of UASL license in respect of Kolkata
city circle and for the States of Punjab, Haryana and
Kerala is pending for the last six weeks.
Seventh, also the allocation of WiMax Frequency
Spectrum for ISP business division of the company
is pending for the last two months.
In my letter dated 04.04.2005 addressed to Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT, I had also
mentioned that I was bringing those unusual
occurrences to the Honble Ministers notice only to
show how there appears to be some unspoken
convergence in the delays and denials with the
BSNL too acting in tandem with DoT. Since all those
circumstances were intriguing for me I did not want
it to remain unreported to the Honble Minister as
the highest functionary of the DoT, and therefore I
had considered it my duty to bring it to his notice
and accordingly wrote to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT on the subject through my letters
dated 04.04.2005, 03.05.2005 and 01.06.2005

Page 288 of 424
which was already submitted by Sh. V. Srinivasan.
In my letter dated 04.04.2005 addressed to Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT, I had also
mentioned that the way the events had moved for
the previous 8 9 months had made me
apprehensive of the intent of those in decision-
making positions, and as I had no way of knowing
what happened within the system, I was constrained
to seek a hearing from the Honble Minister himself
to submit my side of the case. I had therefore
requested the Honble Minister to give me an
appointment so that I can explain all the facts
relating to each of the issues from my side and how
the delay had imposed heavy costs on my group. I
had also expressed my trust on the Honble Minister
that he would ensure that the normal treatment
which the government gives under the policies and
pronouncements will be given to the Siva Group as
well, particularly Dishnet DSL Ltd. (renamed as
Dishnet Wireless Ltd.) and that justice is done.
On being asked I state that I reiterated more or less
the same issues in my subsequent letters dated
03.05.2005 and 01.06.2005 to Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT, as was done by Sh. V.
Srinivasan and Sh. Rohit Chandra in their various
communications and presentations to Shri J.S.
Sarma, the then Chairman, Telecom Commission
and Secretary, DoT.
On being asked I state that to my dismay, neither
did the DoT under Shri Dayanidhi Maran take any
action to weaken the freeze/strangulation policy
being exercised by them on the telecom business of
Siva Group nor did the Honble Minister consider it
worth his time to grant me an audience which I had
sought repeatedly.
On being asked I state that it was becoming
increasingly clear from the analysis of the above
course of events that the policy of
freeze/strangulation being exercised by the DOT vis-
a-vis my telecom business is not an usual case of
bureaucratic red tape but a policy well thought out,
commanded and monitored by none other than Shri

Page 289 of 424
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT himself.
Perplexing and frustrating as it was to me, the
motive for such a deliberate negative attitude on the
part of Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT
vis--vis my telecom business became even more
clear to me when as mentioned above Sh. V.
Srinivasan informed me about his conversation with
Sh. Asim Ghosh of Hutchison Group.
...................................................................................
..........................
534. Copies of these representations are contained in D-

80 and D-305. However, there is absolutely no material on
record to indicate that these representations were put up before
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or even brought to his notice. These
representations are not available in the DoT record, but copies
of the same were supplied to the CBI by the company itself.
535. The statement of Sh. C. Sivasankaran is not
supported by the material on record regarding non-
consideration of his representations by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran.
536. The conclusion is that there is no material to
indicate that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or Dr. J. S. Sarma were
responsible for delay in considering the representations of Sh.
C. Sivasankaran or Sh. V. Srinivasan or for not considering
them at all.
*********
IX. Provisioning of POIs (D-117 for NE, D-120(i) for

Orissa & D-118(ii) for H.P.)
537. It is submitted by Sh. Anand Grover, learned Spl. PP
for CBI, that provisioning of POIs by BSNL was delayed at the
instance of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is further submitted that it

Page 290 of 424
was also deliberately done to force the exit of Siva group of
companies from the telecom business as it was delayed for a
wholly outlandish reason that the company was not allocated
spectrum. It is submitted that allocation of spectrum was not a
requirement for provisioning of POIs. It is further submitted
that on account of the pressure of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, which
was being done through Chairman, BSNL, Sh. A. K. Sinha, Sh.
Mahipal Singh, Joint DDG (Regulation), had sent an e-mail
dated 06.05.2005 to various service areas to stop work on
provisioning of POIs as the company had not been allocated
spectrum. It is repeatedly submitted that BSNL officials had no
business to ask such questions and this all was done to delay
the matter at the instance of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran.
538. Learned counsel for the defence have refuted this,
submitting that there is no legally admissible evidence on this
point in the record.
539. Both parties have invited my attention to relevant
files and statements of witnesses to support their point of view.
540. The provisioning of Point of Interconnects (POI) by
BSNL to Dishnet DSL Limited was allegedly delayed for a
period of three to seven months in Himachal Pradesh, North-
East and Orissa telecom service areas. It is alleged that this was
done at the instance of Sh. A. K. Sinha, the then CMD, BSNL,
who was doing it at the behest of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran.
Allocation of spectrum to Dishnet

541. Sh. D. Jha, PW 16, in his statement dated
06.11.2012, states about allocation of spectrum to Dishnet in

Page 291 of 424
various service areas as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Out of the above referred seven applications, start-
up spectrum for the following five service areas were
allocated by WPC Wing. The details have been
reflected by me at 6/N of the original file bearing
No.L-14042/30/2004-NTG, which is reproduced as
under:-
Sl. No. Circle Frequency band Date of
earmarking
1. Assam 900 MHz 22.07.2004
2. North East 900 MHz 22.07.2004
3. J&K 900 MHz 01.09.2004
4. Himachal - Yet to be allotted*
Pradesh
5. West Bengal 1800 MHz 15.12.2004
Orissa 1800 MHz 24.12.2004
Bihar Proposed in Case has been
1800 MHz submitted
...................................................................................
..........................................
542. Thus, the allegation is that the provisioning of POIs

was delayed in three service areas, that is, Himachal Pradesh,
North-East and Orissa. The spectrum was allocated in North-
East on 22.07.2004 and in Orissa on 24.12.2004.
543. Similarly, spectrum was allocated in HP service area
on 10.03.2006 (4/N, D-34).
Application for POIs

544. The company had filed application(s) for
provisioning of POIs. On receipt of application dated
21.04.2005, which was received in the office of BSNL on
29.04.2005, from Dishnet regarding opening of MSC code for

Page 292 of 424
provisioning of POIs for Orissa service area, file No. 342-
4/05/Regulation (D-120-i) was opened on 02.05.2005. The
letter was treated as urgent.
Plea of non-allocation of spectrum and approval of CMD

545. However, on 02.05.2005, it was recorded by Sh.
Mahipal Singh that Dishnet Wireless Limited had not been
allocated any spectrum for commissioning of its services and
confirmation be obtained from the company in this regard.
546. As per note at 3/N dated 30.06.2005, it is recorded
that Dishnet confirmed vide letters dated 06.05.2005 and
16.05.2005 that it had been allocated spectrum in J&K, Assam,
NE, West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar and H.P.
547. Thereafter, a comprehensive note was recorded by
Sh. Mahipal Singh on 07.07.2005 to the following effect:
Subject: Provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd.
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. (DWL) signed

Inerconnect Agreements with BSNL on 13th October
2004 for services under UASL for the seven service
areas of Assam, North East, West Bengal, Bihar,
Orissa, J&K and Himachal Pradesh. M/s DWL had
obtained POIs at various locations and also
requested various BSNL field units for opening of
MSC codes.
2. During a meeting in DOT a doubt was raised

whether M/s DWL has been allotted spectrum. It
was further deliberated, if M/s DWL has not been
allotted spectrum then whether still BSNL is
allotting interconnection resources to M/s DWL
although other operators are being denied the same
due to scarcity of the same. In this regard, BSNL

Page 293 of 424
requested M/s DWL to confirm whether the
requisite spectrum has been allocated to them to
ascertain whether M/s DWL was in a position to
commission their services so that BSNL can
continue to allow its scarce interconnect resources
like E1 ports, infrastructure, leased lines, opening of
the additional levels in BSNL switches etc. BSNL
field units were requested by this office to give
details of E1 ports sanctioned & commissioned and
other leased line resources given to M/s DWL and to
await further instructions for provisioning of
additional interconnect resources including POIs to
M/s DWL.
3. The information has since been received from

both M/s DWL as well as the field units of BSNL.
BSNL field units of BSNL have already given PoI at
various locations as well as infrastructure like leased
lines has also been permitted to M/s DWL but at
none of these places the POIs of M/s DWL have
been commissioned till now. M/s DWL vide their
letters dated 5th and 16th May, 2005 has intimated
that they have been allocated spectrum in each of
their seven service areas and have also enclosed
copies of these letters from WPC Wing allocating
spectrum to M/s DWL.
4. Now M/s DWL vide their letter dated 9th June

2005 (PUC) has informed that M/s DWL has not
been given all the ports at the POIs as demanded by
them. M/s DWL has also referred to instructions of
DOT to comply with their roll out obligation under
UASL license. They have also referred to TRAI
Direction dated 7th June 2005 to provide the POIs
within 90 days of the date of payment for the port
charges. M/s DWL had also requested BSNL vide
their letter dated 31st May 2005 to instruct the
concerned officers of BSNL to process their PoI
demand. M/s DWL has further requested CMD
BSNL for a meeting with their CEO to give their
submissions in this regard. It is now proposed to
inform the field units to continue to provide PoI to

Page 294 of 424
M/s DWL as per the terms and conditions of their
Interconnect Agreement.
Submitted please.
548. This was note passed through DDG (Regulation)

and Director (C&N) and was approved by the Chairman (BSNL)
Sh. A. K. Sinha on 20.07.2005. The approval was for all the
seven service areas, that is, Assam, North-East, West Bengal,
Bihar, Orissa, J&K and HP.
549. It is apparent that though this file was meant for
Orissa service area alone, but all service areas were being dealt
with in it. Vide e-mail dated 06.05.2005, Sh. Mahipal Singh
had asked various service areas to await further instructions for
further provisioning of POIs. It is alleged that he was acting at
the behest of Sh. A. K. Sinha, who was acting at the behest of
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. However, Sh. Sinha had approved
provisioning of POIs in all service areas on 20.07.2005. As
such, if there was any delay due to conspiracy, it was only from
06.05.2005 to 20.07.2005, which is not large enough to force
the exit of a company from telecom business.
Issue of H.P. and Bihar

550. However, on 02.08.2005, Sh. Mahipal Singh again
recorded a note at 5/N to the following effect that spectrum has
not been allocated in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh:
As per letter of 16-5-2005 of M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. the spot frequencies of Bihar & Himachal
Pradesh are yet to be allocated by WPC. For rest of
service areas we may advise BSNL field units to

Page 295 of 424
continue to provide interconnection resources to
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
Submitted pl.
551. Thereafter, on 03.08.2005, Sh. K. S. Gulliani

recorded that Dishnet is requested to confirm allocation of
spectrum for Bihar and H. P. In consequence of this, letters
were written to the company and the file continued to be
processed further regarding these two service areas and the
same was finally approved by Sh. D. P. Singh, DDG
(Regulation), on 13.12.2005 at 9/N for these two service areas
for provisioning of POIs.
552. It is, thus, clear from the perusal of file that Sh. A.
K. Sinha, who is alleged to be acting at the behest of Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran had already approved POIs in all service
areas, but these two officials, that is, Sh. Mahipal Singh and Sh.
K. S. Guliani, were acting on their own and asking for allocation
of spectrum in Bihar and HP service areas, more so, when they
knew that allocation of spectrum is not a condition for
provisioning of POIs.
553. It is of some interest to take note of the statements
of various witnesses in this regard.
554. PW 69 Sh. Mahipal Singh was responsible for this,
and in his statement dated 19.12.2011, page 1, he states as
under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
As a Joint DDG (Regulation I), my duties were to
interact with TRAI, TDSAT and sign Interconnect

Page 296 of 424
Agreements with Private Service providers for
establishment of interconnection with BSNL. The
interconnect agreements were signed after the
approval of interconnect agreement committee
consisting of Sr. DDG (MS), Sr. DDG (EFC), DDG
(Regulation) & DDG (NM) BSNL and then approval
of Director (C&M) & CMD, BSNL. I was authorised
by the then CMD, BSNL to signed interconnect
agreement on behalf of BSNL.
I further state that for the purpose of establishing
interconnection between telephone switch of one
service provider to other service provider a
interconnect agreement is signed between them for
this purpose.
..................................................................................
.........................................
555. He further states at page 2 onwards:

....................................................................................
................................................................................
Today, you have shown me file no. ENG/10-
1188/04 (POI) of Orissa Telecom Circle in respect
of provision of POI to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. On
being shown this file I state that I wrote a letter
dated 05/05/2005 to Sh. Sushil Aggarwal, Head
projects, M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., Chennai
regarding operation of full mobility service in Orissa
Telecom Circle mentioning therein that it was
understood that spectrum had still not been allotted
to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for commissioning of
its service and in this regard the said company was
required to confirm, the copy of same is available
at page 224, marked in pencil. I further state that on
06/05/2005, I sent an e-mail to DGMs of Orissa,
Assam, West Bengal, J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar
and North East Telecom Circles of BSNL requesting
them to furnish details of POIs sanctioned and
commissioned and other leased lines resources
given to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd., it was also
mentioned that further instructions be awaited for
further provisioning of interconnect resources

Page 297 of 424
including POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. The same is
available at page 216, marked in pencil. Sh. Vikram
Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless Ltd. sent a letter
dated 06/05/2005 addressed to me on 06/05/2005
informing therein that Dishnet wireless Ltd. had
already been allotted spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM
Band for unified access in Orissa telecom Circle on
24/12/2004. He also enclosed the copy of letter
dated 24/12/2004 of WPC Wing addressed to
Dishnet DSL Ltd., regarding allotment of said
spectrum (at page 226 & 225).
Today, I have been shown the file no. C&M
(Regln.)/2004-05/25-109 of Himanchal Pradesh
Telecom Circle in respect of provision of POI to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. and state that on 06/05/2005, I
sent an e-mail to DGMs of Orissa, Assam, West
Bengal, J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar and North
East Telecom Circles requesting them to furnish
details of POIs sanctioned and commissioned and
other leased lines resources given to M/s Dishnet
DSL Ltd. It was also mentioned that further
instructions be awaited for further provisioning of
interconnect resources including POIs to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd., at page 206 marked in pencil and
encircled. Sh. B.D. Sharma, AGM (BD & NC), HP
Circle, Shimla wrote a letter dated 19/05/2005 to
me asking the clarification whether the POIs were to
be commissioned or to be with held in respect of
Himanchal Circle to M/s Dishnet where payments
had already been received and advice notes issued
at page 205 marked in pencil and encircled. Again,
Sh. R.P. Gupta sent a letter to me vide letter dated
05/09/2005 requesting to intimate the decision
taken in the aforesaid matter at page 203, marked
in pencil and encircled. Sh. R.P. Gupta, AGM (BD &
NC) vide his letter dated 02/12/2005 addressed to
me informed that HP Telecom Circle had received a
letter dated 01/12/2005 of Sh. A.K. Mittal, DDG
(NM), BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi asking for
reasons of delay for providing POIs. He requested to
convey the decision immediately so that they could
reply to DDG (NM) accordingly at page 190 & 191

Page 298 of 424
marked in pencil and encircled. Accordingly, I
issued a letter dated 15/12/2005 addressed to CGMs
of Bihar and Himanchal Pradesh referring that
TRAI had issued directions to release POIs within
90 days and therefore, it was decided to release
POIs to M/s DWL in service areas of Bihar and
Himanchal Pradesh at page 186 marked in pencil
and encircled.
I have also been shown file no- 342-4/2005-
Regulation maintained at BSNL Corporate Office,
New Delhi in respect of opening of MSC Code to
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. I was shown letter dated
21.04.2005 from Mr. Shushil Agarwal, Head
Projects, Dishnet Wireless Ltd., address to Chief
General Manager, BSNL, Orissa Circle with a copy
to D.D.G. Regulation, BSNL Head Quarter, New
Delhi wherein M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had
requested to open the allocated MSC code in Orissa
Circle, copy placed at page 21. This letter was
marked by the then D.D.G Regulation to me on
29.04.2005. The then D.D.G. Regulation, Sh. K.S.
Guliani, informed me that CMD, BSNL had
informed him that a meeting was held in DoT in
which it was discussed that if M/s Dishnet DSL has
not been allotted spectrum for all the circles then
whether still BSNL is allotting inter connect
resource to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. although other
operators are being denied the same due to scarcity
of the same. The then D.D.G Regulation also gave
verbal direction to me on 29.04.2005 in his office
room at Corporate office of BSNL, 6th floor, at
Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi to
confirm from M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., whether
spectrum has been allotted to it by DOT.
Accordingly, in the file no- 342-4/2005-
Regulation I had processed such notes on
02/05/2005 and after approval on 3.05.2005 sent a
letter dated 05.05.2005 to Shri. Sushil Agarwal,
Head Projects, M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. that it is
understood that spectrum has still not been allotted
to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Orissa Telecom
Circle, for commissioning of its service and asked

Page 299 of 424
him to confirm the same. Sh. Vikram Chona, G.M.,
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., intimated vide its letter
dated 06.05.2005 addressed to me that spectrum
for Orissa Telecom Circle has been allotted on
24.12.2004 copy of the same is placed at page 49.
Meanwhile, similar letters were received from M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for opening of MSC codes in
its other services areas of Assam, West Bengal, J&K,
Himachal Pradesh, Bihar and North East Telecom
Circles. Accordingly, I wrote a letter dated
06.05.2005, to M/s Dishnet Wireless to send
similar information of allocation of spectrum for
other services area also. The then D.D.G Regulation
also gave verbal direction to me on 06.05.2005 in
his office room at Corporate office of BSNL, 6th
floor, at Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New
Delhi that as desired by CMD, BSNL it is required to
take status from the fields units regarding the
details of POIs sanctioned and commissioned and
other leased line resources given to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd., and also to intimate the field units to
await for further provisioning of interconnect
resources including POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. As per these verbal directions of D.D.G
Regulation, I sent e-mail on 06.05.2005 to DGMs of
Orissa, Assam, West Bengal, J&K, Himachal
Pradesh, Bihar and North East Telecom Circles
requesting them to furnish details of POIs
sanctioned and commissioned and other leased
lines resources given to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd., it
was also mentioned that further instructions be
awaited for further provisioning of interconnect
resources including POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.,
at page 54. Sh. Vikram Chona, G.M., M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. intimated vide its letter dated
16.05.2005 addressed to me that spectrum for West
Bengal Circle, Assam Circle, North East Circle and J
& K Circle Telecom Circle has also been allotted by
DOT and for Bihar and Himachal Pradesh the
spectrum / spot frequencies are still being
coordinated with WPC. Copy of the same is placed
at page 52. The letter dated 09.06.2005, was also

Page 300 of 424
seen which was sent from Sh. Vikram Chona,
General Manager, Dishnet Wireless addressed to
CMD, BSNL copy available at page 96. This letter
was marked by O/O CMD to Director (C&M)
without any comment who further marked it to
DDG Regulation without any comment and it was
further marked to me. The letter dated 31.05.2005
from Sh. Vikram Chona, General Manager, Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. addressed to Joint DDG Regulation -1
copy placed at page 115. This letter was marked by
O/O CMD, BSNL to DDG Regulation and DDG
Regulation marked this letter to me. In these letters
dated 31.05.2005 and 09.06.2005, M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd., while sharing its problems being
faced in BSNL field units, requested to instruct
concerned official of BSNL to process their POI
demand.
After receiving this information from M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd, on 05.05.2005, 16.05.2005
and compilation of status reports as called for from
BSNL Circles i.e. West Bengal Circle, Orissa Circle
and Himachal Pradesh Circle, in the above
mentioned E-mail dated 06.05.2005, I immediately
put up a comprehensive note dated 07/07/2005
that DWL had informed that the spectrum had been
allotted and therefore it was proposed to inform the
field units to continue to provide POI to M/s DWL
as per the terms and conditions of their
interconnect agreement. In this note prepared it
was mentioned that during a meeting in DOT, a
doubt was raised whether M/S Dishnet has been
allotted Spectrum. It was further deliberated, if M/S
Dishnet not been allotted spectrum then whether
still BSNL is allotting interconnection resources to
M/s Dishnet although other operators are being
denied the same due to scarcity of the same. In this
regard, BSNL requested M/s Dishnet to confirm
whether the requisite spectrum has been allotted to
them to ascertain whether M/s Dishnet was in
position to commission their services so that BSNL
can continue to allow its scarce interconnect
resources like E1 ports, infrastructure, leased lines,

Page 301 of 424
opening of the additional levels in BSNL switches
etc. BSNL field units were requested by Regulation
branch BSNL to give details of E1 ports sanctioned
& commissioned and other leased line resources
given to M/s Dishnet and to await further
instructions for provisioning of additional
interconnect resources including POIs to M/s
Dishnet. The information called for had been
received from both M/s Dishnet and BSNL field
units. M/s Dishnet had already been given POIs at
various locations as well as infrastructure like leased
lines has been permitted to M/s Dishnet but at none
of these locations the POIs have been commissioned
till then. M/s Dishnet had intimated that that they
have been allocated spectrum in each of their seven
service areas. Accordingly, it was proposed to
inform the BSNL field units to continue to provide
POI to M/s Dishnet as per terms and conditions of
the Interconnect Agreement. This note was
concurred by Sh. K.S. Guliani, DDG, Regulation and
Sh. G.S. Grover, Director BSNL Board and then was
finally approved by Sh. A.K. Sinha, CMD, BSNL on
20/07/2005 (at 4/N).
Accordingly, the field units of BSNL in Orissa,
West Bengal Circle, Assam Circle, North East Circle,
and J & K Circle were informed on 22nd August
2005, as available at page 135 in the file no- 342-
4/2005-Regulation, after taking approval of final
draft on 19th Aug 2005 from the then DDG
Regulation, to take necessary action for provision of
Interconnect resources to M/s Dishnet as per terms
and conditions of Interconnect agreement. Also as
per approval of DDG Regulation of 19.08.2005,
letter dated 22.08.2005 as available at page 136 was
sent to Sh. Vikram Chona G.M M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd., to confirm if the spot frequencies has
been allotted by WPC for Bihar and Himanchal
Pradesh Circles. To this M/s Dishnet Wireless in its
letter dated 30.08.2005 from Mr. Sushil Agarwal,
Head Projects intimated that the spot frequencies
are still being coordinating by WPC.
On being asked I admit that due to conveying

Page 302 of 424
of instructions for withholding POIs as per the oral
orders of DDG (Regulation) Sh. K.S. Guliani in
respect of DWL, the delay had caused in processing/
provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet in certain
locations as at some location M/s DWL itself was
not ready for interconnection.
Today after perusing copy of text of e-mail available
at page 93, marked in pencil of File No NE-
I/op/Dishnet-UAS/04-05, I state that it is the
copy of text of email sent by me on 6th May 2005 to
DGM, NE-I circle, BSNL.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) vide
its direction dated 7th June 2005 to all Telecom
Service Providers including BSNL directed to
provide POIs within 90 days of the date of payment
for the port charges. TRAI also issued show cause
notices to BSNL for delay in provisioning POIs by
BSNL.
Q- Whether such instructions were issued

for other service providers for withholding
provisioning of POIs till further instructions
which had not been allotted the spectrum.
Please explain.
Ans- No such instructions were given for
withholding provisioning of POIs in respect of other
service providers during my stint as Jt. DDG
(Regulation) at BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi
from June 2001 to July 2006 since I resigned.
Q- Whether it is required to be ascertained
by the field officers while provisioning POIs
that spectrum had been allotted or not to the
service providers. Please explain.
Ans- There is no such mention specifically in the
Interconnect Agreement. However, for efficient
utilization of the POI/ ports it is required that it
carries telephone traffic instead of just lying idle. In
fact as per interconnect agreement signed between
BSNL and service providers M/s Dishnet DSL there
was a provision in clause no 3.2.2 The UASL shall
ensure that the interconnect capacities are got
tested within 30 days from the date these are made

Page 303 of 424
available by BSNL and these capacities are used
fully within a period of three months from the date
of commissioning. After expiry of six months
extendible to nine months on request, the demand
shall be deemed to have withdrawn if these are not
put to full use by UASLs. BSNL shall have the right
to use these capacities for its consumption. Copy of
this clause of the interconnect agreement of M/s
Dishnet DSL is available at page 299 marked in
pencil of File No NE-I/op/Dishnet-UAS/04-05.
Q- You replied after perusing above
referred files that when M/s Dishnet replied
to BSNL that he as has been allotted
spectrum in Orissa Circle vide letter dated
06.05.2005, received in BSNL Corporate
office then why instructions for allotment of
POI was not issued to Orissa Circle BSNL.
Ans- Information for status of allotment of
spectrum of balance six circles from M/s Dishnet
and details of POIs sanctioned and commissioned
and other leased lines resources given to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd. was awaited from six BSNL circle
units. It was required to put up a comprehensive
note for information of status of resources allocated
by BSNL for all seven circles together and seeking
approval of CMD, BSNL for issue of instructions for
commissioning of POIs by BSNL field units as
desired by Sh. A.K. Sinha, the then CMD, BSNL and
conveyed to me by Sh. K.S. Guliani, the then, DDG
(Regulation).
556. In his statement dated 26.12.2011, he further states

at page 2 as under:
...................................................................................
................................................................................
As I was preparing the drafts to be sent to various
field offices of BSNL, I realised that the fact that
M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited was not having
spectrum in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh Telecom
Circles. Accordingly, on 2.8.2005, vide my noting

Page 304 of 424
at 5/N I brought this fact into the knowledge of Shri
K.S. Guliani who asked for draft for approval.
Accordingly, I asked Shri Devender Singh to put up
draft letters to be sent to different telecom circles of
BSNL and in addition, asked to put up a draft letter
to M/s Dishnet asking them about allocation of
spectrum Bihar and Himachal Pradesh Telecom
Circles.
I discussed the matter Shri K.S. Guliani who
informed me that we cannot send the file again to
CMD, BSNL for approval as he apprehended that
the file may be held up by CMD, BSNL. Thus, it was
decided to send letters to the service areas in which
M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited was having
spectrum. Accordingly, letter dated 22.8.2005 was
issued for Orissa, J & K, Assam, West Bengal, and
North East telecom circles of BSNL informing
therein to continue to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited. Another letter was also sent to
Shri Vikram Chona, GM, M/s Dishnet Wireless
Limited to confirm whether Dishnet has been
allotted spectrum in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
service areas.
After two or three days of issuance of this
letter, I received a call from the O/o the then
MoC & IT on my official basic phone. The
Officer making the call enquired me why
did I issue such letter of M/s Dishnet
Wireless Limited. I informed that I had
issued the letter after due approval of the
CMD, BSNL. On this, he shouted that I will
speak to your CMD then and disconnected
the phone. I shared this with Shri K.S.
Guliani, the then DDG (Regulation) on his
mobile phone as he was not available in the
office. He asked me to stay calm and not to
worry. After receipt of this call I was under
fear as it was not usual for an officer of my
level to receive a call from Ministers Office.
After this, I did not pursue the matter of
providing POIs to Dishnet in Bihar and
Himachal Pradesh Telecom circles.

Page 305 of 424
..................................................................................
...............................................................................
On receipt of this letter I asked Shri Devender Singh
to put up it on file. On my directions Shri Devender
Singh put up the letter on file and initiated a general
note at 9/N as he was not having the knowledge of
this issue. He marked the file to me on 12.12.2005.
I proposed to release POIs for Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh service areas to M/s Dishnet Wireless
Limited in view of the TRAI Guidelines and show
cause notices issued by TRAI to BSNL in the matter
of provisioning of POIs. I marked the file to Shri
D.P. Singh, the then DDG (Regulation) who
approved the proposal on 13.12.2005. Accordingly,
a letter dated 15.12.2005, was sent to CGMs of Bihar
and Himachal Pradesh telecom circles to release
POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless Limited.
..................................................................................
............................................
557. He further states at page 4 as under:

....................................................................................
................................................................................
Q. Initially Regulation Branch of BSNL
Corporate office had requested to BSNL field
units on 06.05.2005 through e-mail to await
further instructions for further provisioning
of POI as it was understood that M/s Dishnet
Wireless was not having spectrum. Then in
December, 2005, when the spectrum had
still not been allotted to M/s Dishnet for
Bihar and Himanchal Circle why approval
was given to BSNL Circle units for providing
POI for Bihar and Himanchal Pradesh
Circle.
Ans. Initially instructions of 06.05.2005 through e-
mail to seven BSNL fields units were issued based
on the verbal instructions of Sh. K.S. Guliani, the
then D.D.G Regulation, BSNL, Corporate office.
When I issued letters to five Telecom circles to
continue to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless

Page 306 of 424
Ltd., a call from the then Ministers office came to
me and I was asked why had I issued such
directions. On this, I got afraid and stopped
pursuing the matter of provisioning of POIs to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Bihar and Himanchal
Pradesh Service Area.
However, meanwhile TRAI issued show cause notice
to BSNL asking for reasons for delay in provisioning
of POIs for all Circles and all operators concerned. It
was at this time that I proposed to allow further
provisioning of POI for M/s Dishnet Wireless in
Bihar and Himanchal Pradesh Circle on 12.12.2005
in note sheet 9/N in file No. 342-4/2005-Regln
of BSNL Corporate office New Delhi. Sh. D.P. Singh,
the then D.D.G (Regulation) approved the same and
accordingly I had issued the instructions to Bihar
and Himachal Pradesh Telecom Circles, dated
15.12.2005, copy of same is placed at page 152 of
this file.
..................................................................................
..........................................
558. The gist of this long statement is that he was acting

on the oral instructions of Sh. K. S. Guliani. However, he has
not recorded these facts in the file. This is violation of official
procedure.
559. PW 84 is Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then DDG
(Regulations), BSNL, who also used to deal with POIs. He
states in his statement dated 05.01.2012 as under:
....................................................................................
...............................................................................
On being asked I state that some time in the month
of April - May, 2005, the then CMD Sh. A K Sinha
called me in his chamber at Statesman House,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and told me that
issue is being raised in DOT that BSNL is providing
POIs to M/s Dishnet who does not have even
spectrum and is not providing POIs to other

Page 307 of 424
operators who are already providing services. Sh. A
K Sinha directed me to check the status of spectrum
allotted to M/s Dishnet. Accordingly, I directed the
then Joint DDG Sh. Mahipal Singh to get the
information collected from M/s Dishnet. This
information was being collected in between after
few days Sh. A K Sinha called me again in his office
and asked me the status of the spectrum allotted to
M/s Dishnet. I informed him that information is
being gathered. Sh. A K Sinha told me that there
are serious complaint against BSNL that BSNL is
providing POIs to M/s Dishnet who even does not
have spectrum and is not in a position to launch the
services. Sh. A K Sinha directed me to withhold
further provisioning of POIs and other resources
like lease lines to M/s Dishnet, till the time we
verify and take a view on that.
I accordingly directed Sh. Mahipal Singh to get the
information as soon as possible and withhold
further provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet. Sh.
Mahipal Singh told me personally that he had send
e-mail to M/s Dishnet and field unit of BSNL to get
the information about interconnected resources,
already provided to M/s Dishnet as well as the
spectrum availability with M/s Dishnet.
I further state that after getting the required
information, the whole case alongwith background
note was submitted by the then Joint DDG Sh.
Mahipal Singh who mark the file to me as DDG
(Reg.), I mentioned in file A above for kind
consideration and approval please and marked the
file to Director (C&M) Sh. G S Grover who signed on
11.07.2005 and put up the file to the then CMD
BSNL Sh. A K Sinha who directly marked the file to
me mentioning please discuss on 15.07.2005.
Today you have shown me file no. 342-4/2005-
regln marked as Malkhana CBI/ACB/Delhi PE no.
1(A)/2011 MR II Memo VI serial no. 1 page no. 4N, I
identify signatures of myself, Sh. G S Grover as
Director (C&M) and signature of the then BSNL Sh.
A K Sinha on it.
I further state that on 20.07.2005 I wrote on the file

Page 308 of 424
at page 4N Discussed. Resubmitted for kind
perusal and approval of proposal as at A above.
CMD approved the proposal on the same day. I
marked the file to the then Joint DDG (Regulation)
Sh. Mahipal Singh on 21.07.2005 for necessary
action as discussed.
I further state after perusing page no. 5/N of file no.
342-4/2005-regln that Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regulation) mentioned that As per
letter of 16.05.2005 of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
the spot frequencies of Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
are yet to be allocated by WPC. For rest of service
areas we may advised BSNL field units to continue
to provide interconnection resources to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. and marked the file to me. I
agreed and directed to put up draft accordingly Sh.
Mahipal Singh Put up two drafts, one for M/s
Dishnet and other for BSNL field units. After some
corrections it was finally approved by myself on
19.08.2005.
After perusing page no. 7/N of file no 342-4/2005-
Regln, I state that on 23.09.2005 Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regulation) mentioning
For Himachal Pradesh circle, M/s Dishnet has yet
to confirm allotment of spectrum we make await
this conformation from M/s Dishnet and submitted
the file to me. I agreed on the same date and
directing Sh. Mahipal Singh to issue to reminder to
M/s Dishnet.
After perusing page no. 8/N of file no. 342-4/2005-
Regln a note was put up to the then Joint DDG
(Regulation) Sh. Mahipal Singh on 18.10.2005 who
marked the file to me as DDG (Regulation). I
directed on 18.10.2005 to Sh. Mahipal Singh to
Discuss the matter but I was transferred before
discussion. The note which were put up at page
8/N are related with requesnt of M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd. to provide E1s in Jharkhand Circle and the
information received from M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. in response to our letter dated 26.09.2005
stating that spot frequencies are still being
coordinated by WPC for Himachal Pradesh Circle.

Page 309 of 424
Q .1. Whether BSNL, Corporate Office or the
field staff of the concerned telecom circles
were required to ensure the allotment of
spectrum to the service provider before
provisioning of POI in the respective
telecom circles. Please Explain?
Ans. Normally, the BSNL Corporate Office and
telecom circles of BSNL was not required to ensure
the allotment of spectrum for provisioning and
commissioning of interconnect resources including
POI to the service provider because some of the
service provider may like to provide services using
wire line networks only. However, BSNL field staff
do check the preparedness of the operators for roll
out of the networks and launch of services before
providing POIs to ensure that these are used
judiciously to protect the commercial interest of
BSNL. There is specific clause in the interconnect
agreement which ensures that the service provider
has to use the POIs provided by BSNL fully within
three months of their commissioning falling which
BSNL reserve the right to withdraw the POIs
provided by BSNL. Therefore, if it is brought to the
notice of BSNL corporate office or its field units that
a particular service provider is not be in a position
to launch services due to non-availability of
spectrum or any other network element, BSNL may
withhold provisioning of POIs to such service
provider to protect its commercial interest.
..................................................................................
.................................................

....................................................................................
................................................................................
Q. 5. Has this action of BSNL delayed the
provisioning of services by M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd.
Ans. No, Even after the clearance was given by
BSNL Head Quarter in August 2005 and the POIs
were provided by field units immediately wherever

Page 310 of 424
they were technically feasible, M/s Dishnet was not
able to provide commercial services to its customers
till October 2005. Further in Himachal and Bihar
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. was not having any spectrum
as a result even if POIs were provided by BSNL, it
could not have launched the services. It is further to
state that in all the circles BSNL was the first
operator to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
561. He further states in his statement dated 12.01.2012

at page 2 as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
When I went to discuss the matter with Sh.
A. K. Sinha, the then CMD, BSNL, he asked
me can we delay the POIs for few more
days. On this I replied in negative and told
him that you asked us to check for the
spectrum. We have checked it and they
have spectrum. We should release this
now. On this Sh. A. K. Sinha shouted that,
Mantri daantega. Then, I pleaded with
CMD, BSNL that we should not get into this
problem. On this, he agreed with me. I at
the same time put up the file then and there
for approval of CMD which he accorded
immediately. After this, he informed
someone over telephone on DOT PAX
(internal numbers) that we have checked
spectrum with Dishnet. We cannot hold
POIs anymore and I am releasing the file.
He made this call in front of me but I cannot
ascertain to whom he was talking.
...................................................................................
.................................................

....................................................................................
.................................................................................

Page 311 of 424
Q4:- When the CMD, BSNL approved the
proposal of informing BSNL field units to
continue to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. then why Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh circles were not informed about the
same and why it took nearly a month to issue
letters to other BSNL circles?
Ans. While the file was submitted for approval of
CMD on 07.07.2005 the fact that M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd. does not have spectrum in Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh was overlooked by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) inadvertently. The
approval of the CMD was accorded on the fact that
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. is having spectrum in all the
seven circles including Himachal Pradesh and Bihar.
When the instructions were to be issued to the field
units, it was discovered that M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
does not have spectrum in Himachal Pradesh and
Bihar and the same was communicated to me by Sh.
Mahipal Singh on file. As the approval of CMD,
BSNL was in the context of availability of spectrum
with M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd., the instructions were
issued only for the five circles where M/s Dishnet
had spectrum and Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
circle were not informed as M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
did not have spectrum in these two circles. We were
of the opinion that if we will resubmit the file to
CMD, BSNL for approval again, the file could be
withheld by him and we could not do anything in
this regard as evident from his earlier instructions.
As we had to decide whether to send the file
again to CMD, BSNL for approval and what action is
to be taken for Bihar and Himachal Pradesh service
areas, the matter was discussed several times
between me and Sh. Mahipal Singh and several draft
letters were modified. Thats why, it took us nearly
one month to send letters to other telecom circles.
We decided to process the issue of provisioning of
POIs in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh separately,
thats why the letter to Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
circles could not be sent in time. As soon as BSNL
Corporate Office received show cause notice from

Page 312 of 424
TRAI, letters were issued to Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh telecom circles for releasing of POIs to
Dishnet DSL Ltd. in accordance to the TRAI
guidelines. At this point of time, I was deputed as
Advisor to the Minister of Communications and IT,
Trinidad & Tobago through Ministry of External
Affairs under ITEC program.
563. Sh. K. S. Guliani blames Sh. A. K. Sinha for issuing

him oral instructions for withholding further provisioning of
POIs. Sh. K. S. Guliani also did not record the instructions
anywhere. Again, this is contrary to the official procedure.
564. PW 91 is Sh. G. S. Grover, who is Director, C&N,
BSNL, at that time, states in his statement dated 06.01.2012 as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Today, I have been shown file no. 342-4/2005-
Regln (Memo VI, Sl. No. 1). On being shown the
said file, I state that on 02.05.2005 Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) put up a note
which is reproduced below:-
It is understood that spectrum has still not been
allotted to M/s Dishnet for commissioning of its
services. We may confirm the same from M/s
Dishnet.
The said note was put up to Sh. K S Guliani, the then

DDG (Regln.) who approved the same on 3.05.2005.
Accordingly, a letter dated 5.05.2005 was sent to Sh.
Sushil Aggrawal, Head Projects, M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. by Sh. Mahipal Singh to confirm the
allotment of spectrum in Orissa Telecom circle (at
page 46). Further, another letter was also sent on
06.05.2005 to Mr. Sushil Aggrawal to confirm the
allocation of spectrum in other service areas also (at
page 51). On the same day an e-mail was also sent by
Sh. Mahipal Singh to various BSNL field officers

Page 313 of 424
mentioning therein that (at page 54) :-
Please refer to the Interconnect Agreement dated
12.05.2004 for UASL services of M/s Dishnet Ltd.
You are requested to give details of POIs sanctioned
and commissioned and other leased line resources
given to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. Further instructions
be kindly awaited for further provisioning of
Interconnect resources including POIs to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd.
Further, on 6.05.2005, vide its letter Sh. Vikram

Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless Ltd. informed that
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. has already been allotted
spectrum in Orissa Telecom service area (at page
59). The said letter received on 9.05.2005 in BSNL
Corporate office. In the meanwhile, the BSNL field
officials of different Telecom circles informed the
BSNL Corporate office about the stage of providing
Interconnect resources to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
in their respective Telecom circles (at page 68, 70 &
55).
On 16.05.2005, Sh. Vikram Chona again wrote a
letter to Joint DDG (Regln.), BSNL Corporate office
informing therein that M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
has been allocated spectrum in J&K, Assam, North
East and West Bengal service areas while spectrum
is being coordinated with WPC wing of DoT for
Bihar and Himachal Pradesh service areas. He also
enclosed the earmarking letters issued by WPC wing
of DoT for the respective telecom circles (at page 61).
Thereafter, on 13.06.2005, a letter was received
from Sh. Vikram Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
which was addressed to CMD. It was mentioned in
the letter that Dishnet has demanded 461 ports but
only 125 ports have been allotted to them and they
requested to resolve the issue and also requested for
a meeting of Sh. V Srinivasan, CEO with the CMD,
BSNL for resolving the issues. As the letter was
addressed to CMD, it came to me and I marked the
same to DDG (Regln.) for further necessary action. I
identify my signatures on the said letter (at page 77).
But on perusal of the file, it is apparent that the said

Page 314 of 424
letter was processed on 07.07.2005 after 21 days
vide a note by Sh. Mahipal Singh mentioning therein
that M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had informed that
they are not being given all the ports at the POIs as
demanded by them and they also referred to TRAI
directions dated 07.06.2005 to provide the POIs
within 90 days of payment of port charges. It was
proposed to inform the field units of BSNL to
continue to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. as per the terms and conditions of their
Interconnect Agreement. Sh. K.S. Guliani, the then
DDG (Regln.) signed the said note on 08.07.2005
and marked the same to me which I signed on
11.07.2005 and marked the file to Sh. A.K. Sinha, the
then CMD, BSNL who put up a note of please
discuss and marked the file to Sh. K.S. Guliani, the
then DDG (Regln.) on 15.07.2005. Sh. K.S. Guliani
discussed the matter with CMD and resubmitted the
note for approval of CMD, BSNL on 20.07.2005
which was approved by the CMD, BSNL on the same
day.
The file was finally marked to Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) for necessary action as
discussed on 21.07.2005 by Sh. K.S. Guliani (at
4/N). Finally, a letter was issued by Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regln.) on 22.08.2005,
after 31 days to CGMs of Assam, West Bengal,
Orissa, J&K and North East Telecom circles in which
it was instructed to take necessary action for
provision of Interconnect resources to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. as per the terms and conditions of
Interconnect Agreement (at page 135). On the same
day, another letter was sent by Sh. Mahipal Singh to
Sh. Vikram Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless Ltd. to
confirm whether spectrum for Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh Telecom circles has been allocated by WPC
(at page 136).
On 09.09.2005, a letter was received from Sh. R P
Gupta, AGM (BD&NC), HP Telecom Circle in the
name of Sh. Mahipal Singh requesting therein to
intimate the decision taken in the matter of
provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. at

Page 315 of 424
the earliest (at page 137). The matter was dealt after
14 days at 7/N on which Sh. Mahipal Singh
remarked on 23.09.2005 as under:-
For Himachal Pradesh circle, M/s Dishnet has yet
to confirm allotment of spectrum. We may await
this confirmation from M/s Dishnet.
The file was marked to Sh. K.S. Guliani, the then
DDG on 23.09.2005 who remarked as under:-
As proposed. Please send reminder to M/s
Dishnet.
The file was marked to Sh. Mahipal Singh who noted
We may also inform HP circle to await further
instructions. and marked the file to Assistant
(Regln.) on 24.09.2005. Accordingly, a letter was
sent to Sh. Vikram Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. on 26.09.2005 to confirm whether Dishnet has
been allotted spectrum for Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh service areas (at page 139). Vide its letter
dated 7.10.2005, Sh. Vikram Chona informed that
the spot frequencies for Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh are still being coordinated (at page 140).
The file remained with Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regln.) since 20.10.2005 to 12.12.2005
(52 days).
On 2.12.2005, Sh. R P Gupta the then AGM
(BD&NC), HP Telecom Circle wrote a letter to Sh.
Mahipal Singh, Joint DDG (Regln.) informing
therein that HP Telecom Circle has received a letter
from Sh. A.K. Mittal, DDG (NM) seeking reasons for
delay in provisioning of POIs. The e-mail of Sh.
Mahipal Singh dated 06.05.2005, Letter from HP
Telecom Circle dated 19.05.2005 and reminder
letter from HP Telecom Circle dated 05.09.2005 was
also enclosed with this letter. The copy of the said
letter was also sent to Sh. A.K. Mittal, DDG (NM) (at
page 145). The said letter was dealt at 9/N and a
note was put up by Sh. Mahipal Singh on 12.12.2005
which is reproduced as under:-
TRAI has issued direction to release POIs within
90 days. SACFA clearance was awaited for M/s
Dishnet. We may permit release of POIs in balance
service areas of Bihar and HP. Reference of notes

Page 316 of 424
at pre pages may also be done.
DDG (Regln.) who opined as under:-
May be cleared in the light of above clearly telling
operator that SACFA clearance shall be his
responsibility and then file may be sent to
concerned for information please.
He marked the file to Joint DDG (Regln.) on
13.12.2005. Finally, a letter dated 15.12.2005 was
sent to CGMs of Bihar and Himachal Pradesh circle
wherein it was mentioned that TRAI has issued
direction to release POIs within 90 days. It has been
decided to release POIs to M/s DWL in service areas
of Bihar and Himachal Pradesh. The letter was
signed by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Joint DDG
(Regln.-I) (at page 152).
I identify the signatures of Sh. Mahipal Singh, the

then Joint DDG (Regln.), Sh. A.K. Sinha, the then
CMD, BSNL and Sh. K.S. Guliani, the then DDG
(Regln.) as I have seen them signing during the
normal course of my duty.
Q.1
Whether BSNL is required to see allocation

of spectrum to the service provider before
providing POIs? Please explain.
Ans.
In general it is not mandatory but in case there is

shortage of POIs this can be checked by the BSNL
circle office concerned. Corporate office of BSNL is
involved only in signing the Interconnect Agreement
with other service providers.
565. Sh. G. S. Grover blames Sh. Mahipal Singh for the

delay at various levels. He states that the letters dated
16.05.2005 and 13.06.2005 written by Dishnet Wireless
Limited were processed by Sh. Mahipal Singh on 07.07.2005

Page 317 of 424
after 21 days. He states that when the matter reached CMD Sh.
A. K. Sinha, he asked for a discussion on 15.07.2005 and
approved the same on 20.07.2005. He further states that
subsequently Sh. Mahipal Singh conveyed the approval to the
company on 22.07.2005 after delay of 31 days. He again
blames Sh. Mahipal Singh in delaying the matter for HP service
area for fourteen days and again Bihar and HP service areas for
52 days. Thus, he holds Sh. Mahipal Singh responsible for all
the delay at various levels and times.
566. PW 92 Sh. Devendra Singh, Assistant (Regulation),
was also involved in processing the file. He states in his
statement dated 09.01.2012 as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Today, I have been shown file no. 342-4/2005-
Regln. (Memo VI, Sl. No. 1). On perusal of the
said file I state that a letter was received from Sh.
Sushil Aggrawal, Head Projects, Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. on 27.04.2005 in the office of DDG (Regln.)
which was marked to Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regln.) by Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then
DDG (Regln.) (at page 1). Sh. Mahipal Singh
marked the letter to me on 29.04.2005 with the
remarks urgent please, put up. I accordingly put
up the letter in the file vide my note on 1/N and
marked the file to Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Joint
DDG (Regln.) who remarked as under:-
It is understood that spectrum has still not
been allotted to M/s Dishnet for commissioning of
its services. We may confirm the same from M/s
Dishnet. Put up DFA.
The file was marked to me on 02.05.2005 by
Sh. Mahipal Singh. I accordingly put up a draft letter
and marked the file to Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regln.) on the same day. Sh. Mahipal
Singh marked the file to Sh. K. S. Guliani on

Page 318 of 424
02.05.2005 who signed the file on 3.05.2005 and
marked the same to Joint DDG (Regln.-I). Sh.
Mahipal Singh signed the file on 4.05.2005 and
accordingly a letter was sent to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. on 05.05.2005 (at page 46).
Here, I would like to mention that I dont have
any technical knowledge regarding provisioning of
POIs. I also did not know from where Sh. Mahipal
Singh got the information regarding unavailability
of spectrum with M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., as
mentioned in the above noting of Sh. Mahipal Singh.
I would like to clarify that as per the wishes of Sh.
Mahipal Singh, I put up the note on 1/N as apparent
from his remarks on the said letter from M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
On 06.05.2005, Sh. Vikram Chona, General
Manager, M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. sent a letter to
Joint DDG (Regln.-I) addressing to his query of
spectrum allocation to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in
Orissa Telecom Circle, mentioning therein that
spectrum has been allotted to M/s DWL on
24.12.2004 and also enclosed copy of allotment
letter issued by WPC wing of DoT (at page 49). I
accordingly put up the letter on file at 2/N and
proposed as under:-
Reply received from M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. may kindly be seen. Since they have sent the
information regarding OTS, we may request them
to send the similar information for other service
areas also. Submitted Please.
I marked the file to Joint DDG (Regln.-I) on
6.05.2005 who approved the same on the same day.
Accordingly, a letter was sent to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. on 06.05.2005 (at page 51). Here, I
would like to clarify that I put up the above
mentioned note as per the directions of Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) who instructed
me to put up such note. I further state that Sh.
Mahipal Singh himself approved the proposal
without sending the file to DDG (Regln.) and on the
same day he sent an e-mail through his e-mail ID to
the e-mail IDs of various BSNL Circle Officers (at

Page 319 of 424
page 54) despite the fact that the proposal was for
enquiring availability of spectrum from M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. not from the BSNL Circle Offices
concerned. Here, I would like to clarify that the said
proposal should have been approved by DDG
(Regln.) instead of Joint DDG (Regln.-I). The
contents of the said e-mail are as follows:-
Please refer to the Interconnect Agreement dated
12.05.2004 for UASL services of M/s Dishnet Ltd.
You are requested to give details of POIs
sanctioned and commissioned and other leased line
resources given to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. Further
instructions be kindly awaited for further
provisioning of Interconnect resources including
POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
As per this e-mail, the BSNL circle offices were
directed to await further instruction of the BSNL
Corporate office before providing POIs to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
...................................................................................
..........................................

....................................................................................
................................................................................
Thus, by the end of May, 2005, Sh. Mahipal Singh
was in the receipt of all the information which he
desired vide his e-mail dated 6.05.2005 and letter to
M/s DWL dated 06.05.2005.
The file remained with Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) since 6.05.2005 to
7.06.2005 (31 days). On 7.06.2005, Sh. Mahipal
Singh called me and asked me to put the letters of
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. on file. I, accordingly,
put up the said letters along with a request for
provisioning of POIs in NE Telecom Circle by M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. The said letter is not
available in the file. On this, Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) remarked on 9.06.2005
to put up a comprehensive note and marked the file
to me but he did not hand over the said file to me

Page 320 of 424
and the file remained with Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I). On 30.06.2005, Sh.
Mahipal Singh called me and asked me to put up a
note at 3/N which was typed on computer and
printed on a note sheet. As per the directions of Sh.
Mahipal Singh, I signed the said note on
30.06.2005 and marked the same to Joint DDG
(Regln.-I). Here, I would like to clarify that I did
not have computer with me nor did I use computer
typed note sheet while I was working as Assistant
Regulation. I used to put up notes by hand.
A computer was installed in the room of Sh.
Mahipal Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) and
he was using the same for writing his note sheets.
He generally printed the notes himself and asked
me to sign the same. As I was junior to him and I
did not have much knowledge about the technical
aspects of provisioning of POIs, I used to follow
such directions given by him. Generally, Sh.
Mahipal Singh kept all the files with him and
marked the same only when some correspondence
came.
..................................................................................
.............................................
568. In reference to enquiry by AGM, HP service area

regarding provisioning of POI and the letters written by him on
05.09.2005 and 09.09.2005, Sh. Devendra Singh states
further:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
The said letter was not dealt with at that time but
when the reminder from HP Telecom Circle came on
09.09.2005, I was directed by Sh. Mahipal Singh to
put up the same on the file. On the said note Sh.
Mahipal Singh remarked as under:-
For Himachal Pradesh Circle, M/s Dishnet
has yet to confirm allotment of spectrum. We may
await this confirmation from M/s Dishnet.

Page 321 of 424
DDG (Regln.) on 23.09.2005 who remarked as
under:-
As proposed. Please send reminder to M/s
Dishnet.
The file was marked to Sh. Mahipal Singh who
marked the file to me on 24.09.2005. Accordingly, a
letter was sent to Sh. Vikram Chona, GM, Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. on 26.09.2005 to confirm whether
Dishnet has been allotted spectrum for Bihar and
Himachal Pradesh service areas (at page 139). I
marked the file to Sh. Mahipal Singh who again
noted We may also inform HP circle to await
further instructions. but did not sign the said note
and marked the file to me. But the said file was not
handed over to me and Sh. Mahipal Singh kept the
said file with him. Vide its letter dated 7.10.2005,
Sh. Vikram Chona, GM, Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
informed that the spot frequencies for Bihar and
Himachal Pradesh are still being coordinated (at
page 140). The said letter was received in the office
of Joint DDG (Regln.-I) on 14.10.2005. On
18.10.2005, Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Joint DDG
(Regln.-I) again called me in his room and asked me
to put up the said letter on file. I, accordingly, put
up a note at 8/N and marked the file to Sh. Mahipal
Singh who signed the file and marked it to DDG
(Regln.). Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then DDG (Regln.)
noted please discuss and marked the file to Joint
DDG (Regln.-I) who signed the file on 20.10.2005
and marked the file to me but actually he kept the
file and did not hand over the same to me.
The file remained with Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regln.) since 20.10.2005 to 12.12.2005
(52 days).
On 02.12.2005, a letter was received from Sh. R. P.
Gupta the then AGM (BD&NC), HP Telecom Circle
through fax. The enclosures of the said letters
received through fax are available in the file at pages
142 to144 but the covering letter is not available in
the file. The same letter along with its enclosures
was received in the office of Joint DDG (Regln.-I) on

Page 322 of 424
9.12.2005. It was informed in the letter that HP
Telecom Circle has received a letter from Sh. A.K.
Mittal, DDG (NM) seeking reasons for delay in
provisioning of POIs. The e-mail of Sh. Mahipal
Singh dated 06.05.2005, Letter from HP Telecom
Circle dated 19.05.2005 and reminder letter from
HP Telecom Circle dated 05.09.2005 were also
enclosed with this letter. The copy of the said letter
was also sent to Sh. A.K. Mittal, DDG (NM) (at page
145).
On receipt of this letter, Sh. Mahipal Singh called
me on 12.12.2005 and asked me to put up a note on
the file regarding this letter. As I was unaware of
the developments in the case and the matter
discussed in the letter, I put up a general note on
12.12.2005 at 9/N and marked the file to Joint DDG
(Regln.-I). A note was put up by Sh. Mahipal Singh
on 12.12.2005 which is reproduced as under:-
TRAI has issued direction to release POIs within
90 days. SACFA clearance was awaited for M/s
Dishnet. We may permit release of POIs in balance
service areas of Bihar and HP. Reference of notes
at pre pages may also be done.
The file was marked to Sh. D. P. Singh, the then
DDG (Regln.) who opined as under:-
May be cleared in the light of above clearly telling
operator that SACFA clearance shall be his
responsibility and then file may be sent to concern
for information please.
He marked the file to Joint DDG (Regln.-I) on
13.12.2005 who marked the file to me on
15.12.2005. I accordingly put up a letter which was
signed by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Joint DDG
(Regln.-I). Accordingly, the said letter dated
15.12.2005 was sent to CGMs of Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh Circles wherein it was mentioned that TRAI
has issued direction to release POIs within 90 days.
It has been decided to release POIs to M/s DWL in
service areas of Bihar and Himachal Pradesh (at
page 152).
I identify the signatures of Sh. Mahipal Singh,
the then Joint DDG (Regln.-I), Sh. A.K. Sinha, the

Page 323 of 424
then CMD, BSNL, Sh. D. P. Singh, the then DDG
(Regln.) and Sh. K.S. Guliani, the then DDG (Regln.)
as I have seen them signing during the normal
course of my duty.
On being further asked I state that my room was in
front of the room of Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then
Joint DDG (Regln.-I). Sh. Vikram Chona, GM,
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. met several times with Joint
DDG (Regln.-I) during this period for getting the
matter of provisioning of POIs to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. cleared. During such visits he also
used to sit in my room while waiting for the
meeting. During his visits, he shared with me that
he is being harassed by the indifferent attitude of
Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Joint DDG (Regln.-I). I
used to console him.
569. Sh. Devendra Singh also blames Sh. Mahipal Singh

for delaying the matter at various stages.
570. Perusal of the statement of Sh. Mahipal singh
reveals that he was acting on the oral instructions of Sh. K. S.
Guliani. Furthermore, the CMD had given his approval for all
the seven service areas on 20.07.2005, but he (Mahipal Singh)
conveyed the instructions only to five service areas, that is,
Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, North-East and J&K, vide letter
dated 22.08.2005, that is, after a gap of more than one month
of the approval. After the approval, he (Mahipal Singh) on his
own recorded on 02.08.2005 that Dishnet has not been
allocated frequencies for Bihar and HP. When allocation of
spectrum was not necessary for providing inter-connect
resources by BSNL, why did he put this question after the
approval of CMD on 20.07.2005?
571. Sh. K. S. Guliani is also making his statement

Page 324 of 424
without any documentary record. He also states that he agreed
with Mahipal Singh regarding his note dated 02.08.2005 at
5/N that spot frequencies for Bihar and HP are yet to allocated
by WPC, so only rest of the five service areas be informed for
providing inter-connect resources. Again if allocation of
spectrum is not necessary, why they were putting this
condition? He further states that even on 23.09.2005. Mahipal
Singh recorded that Dishnet had not been provided spot
frequencies and they should await till Dishnet confirms it.
572. Furthermore, he is quite wavering in his statement
also when he states as under:
Therefore, if it is brought to the notice of BSNL
corporate office or its field units that a particular
service provider is not be in a position to launch
services due to non-availability of spectrum or any
other network element, BSNL may withhold
provisioning of POIs to such service provider to
protect its commercial interest.
573. He further states:

Further in Himachal and Bihar M/s Dishnet DSL
Ltd. was not having any spectrum as a result even if
POIs were provided by BSNL, it could not have
launched the services. It is further to state that in all
the circles BSNL was the first operator to provide
POIs to M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
574. Furthermore, Sh. Mahipal Singh and he (K. S.

Guliani) were also acting on their own, when he states as under:
While the file was submitted for approval of CMD
on 07.07.2005 the fact that M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
does not have spectrum in Bihar and Himachal
Pradesh was overlooked by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the
then Joint DDG (Regln.-I) inadvertently. The

Page 325 of 424
approval of the CMD was accorded on the fact that
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. is having spectrum in all the
seven circles including Himachal Pradesh and Bihar.
When the instructions were to be issued to the field
units, it was discovered that M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
does not have spectrum in Himachal Pradesh and
Bihar and the same was communicated to me by Sh.
Mahipal Singh on file. As the approval of CMD,
BSNL was in the context of availability of spectrum
with M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd., the instructions were
issued only for the five circles where M/s Dishnet
had spectrum and Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
circle were not informed as M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.
did not have spectrum in these two circles. We were
of the opinion that if we will resubmit the file to
CMD, BSNL for approval again, the file could be
withheld by him and we could not do anything in
this regard as evident from his earlier instructions.
575. It is apparent that both Sh. Mahipal Singh and Sh.

K. S. Guliani were not only acting on the oral instructions of
CMD, which they say were contrary to the policy, but were also
against the orders of CMD dated 20.07.2005. Any delay after
this date cannot be attributed to any instructions of CMD Sh. A.
K. Sinha.
576. Even otherwise, there is no written record to show
that any instructions were issued to Sh. K. S. Guliani either by
the Minister or Sh. A. K. Sinha.
577. Moreover, on perusal of case diaries, I find that Sh.
Anil Kumar Sinha, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
BSNL, was examined by CBI on 19.04.2012 and his statement
was recorded on the same day. The same is extracted as under:
I am as above on being asked state that I have done
B.Sc. (Engineering) in the year 1966 from MIT,
Muzaffarpur. I qualified Indian Telecom Service

Page 326 of 424
Exam conducted by UPSC in the year 1967 and
joined as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Telegraph)
in DoT in the year 1969. Thereafter, I worked in
various capacities in DoT and BSNL. In the year
2004, I got selected by Public Enterprise Selection
Board (PSEB) to the rank of CMD, BSNL and
worked in the same capacity till my superannuation
in the year 2007. As CMD, BSNL my duty was to
look after the overall control of the corporation
which includes its operation, maintenance activities,
expansion, HRD, finance, liaison with Government
etc.
Today, I have been shown file No. 342-4/05-

Rgln. maintained at the regulation branch of BSNL
Corporate Office, New Delhi. On perusal of the said
file, I state that at 1/N there is a note of Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Jt. DDG (Regln.-1) dated
02/05/2005 mentioning therein that it is
understood that spectrum has still not been allotted
to M/s Dishnet for commissioning of its service we
may confirm the same from M/s Dishnet. This
information that M/s Dishnet has still not been
allotted spectrum was not passed on by me. I further
state that allocation of spectrum is not at all looked
after by BSNL while provisioning of POIs to any
service providers. Spectrum is only required for
commencement of the services by any service
providers.
Accordingly, a letter was issued on

05/05/2005 by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Jt.
DDG (Regulation-I) after the approval of Sh. K. S.
Guliani, the then DDG (regulation) to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. to confirm whether they have been
allotted frequency in Orissa Telecom circle (at page
46). This matter should have been brought into the
knowledge of Director or CMD before issuing such
letter. Thereafter, another e-mail was sent to
different BSNL field offices by Sh. Mahipal Singh,
the then Jt. DDG (Reg-I) on 06/05/2005, directing
therein to await further instructions from BSNL

Page 327 of 424
Corporate office before providing POIs to M/s
Dishnet (at page 54). Another letter was also issued
to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. on the same day to
intimate the allocation of frequency in other service
areas (at page 51). Here, I would like to say that
these instructions should not have been issued by
the concerned BSNL officials.
On being asked I state that the matter was

brought into my knowledge only on 15/07/2005 at
4/N when the file came to me. Normally, these types
of files do not come to CMD and are dealt at the
level of Director/ DDG. As I was not aware of the
developments in this case, I discussed the matter
with Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then DDG (Regulation).
After the discussion as I became aware of the facts
of this case, I immediately approved to continue to
provide POIs to M/s Dishnet on 20/07/2005.
Despite my approval, the instructions were issued
by Sh. Mahipal Singh, the then Jt. DDG (Regln.-I)
on 22/08/2005. This clarifies that I did not have
any intention to delay the provisioning of POIs to
M/s Dishnet but it was Sh. Mahipal Singh who
delayed the issuance of instructions to BSNL field
offices to continue to provide POIs to M/s Dishnet
and issued instructions after a delay of 38 days. In
the meanwhile, the file moved between Sh. Mahipal
Singh, the then Jt. DDG and Sh. K. S. Guliani, the
then DDG only.
Q- What you have to say with regard to the

allegation made by Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then
DDG (Regulation) who has categorically
taken your name, as it was you who had
directed him to check the spectrum of M/s
Dishnet and further directed him to keep the
matter of provisioning of POIs to M/s
Dishnet pending. Please clarify.
Ans- Sh. K. S. Guliani is covering his delay by taking
my name. The matter should have been brought
into my knowledge by Sh. K. S. Guliani on
06/05/2005 itself when the letter and e-mails were

Page 328 of 424
sent to BSNL field offices.
Q- What you have to say on the allegation

of Sh. K. S. Guliani, the then DDG
(Regulation) that when he intimated you that
the matter of M/s Dishnet cannot be delayed
further you uttered Minister will scold and
asked him to further delay the matter.
Ans- I did not delay the matter of provisioning of
POIs to M/s Dishnet and the allegations made by
Sh. K. S. Guliani are wrong. I cleared the file on the
very next day when it was put up to me.
Q- Did anyone in DoT directed you to delay

the matter of provisioning of POIs to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. as it has not been
allotted spectrum yet. Please clarify.
Ans- No one directed me to delay the provisioning
of POIs to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. nor did I do
the same.
578. PW 88 Sh. Thaiu Mag, the then DGM, Planning,

NE-1 Telecom Circle; PW 89 Sh. Harish Kumar Verma, the then
General Manager, H. P. Telecom Circle; and PW 94 Ms.
Anupama Sanghi, the then DGM, Marketing and Network,
Orissa Telecom Circle have stated about the delay, if any, in
commissioning the POIs in the three circles.
579. Sh. K. S. Guliani has categorically denied in his
statement in response to question No. 5, quoted above, that
there was any delay in the provisioning of services by Dishnet
DSL Limited on account of action of BSNL in the provisioning
of POIs.
580. Delay or no delay, Sh. Mahipal Singh was acting on
the oral instructions of Sh. K. S. Guliani and he, in turn, was
acting on the oral instructions of Sh. A. K. Sinha, CMD (BSNL).

Page 329 of 424
However, Sh. Sinha has denied having given any oral
instructions to Sh. K. S. Guliani. In such a situation, there is no
legally admissible evidence for attributing the delay to the two
alleged conspirators, that is, Dr. J. S. Sarma or Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran.
581. In view of the above discussion, I find that there is
no legally admissible evidence on record that either the
Minister or Dr. J. S. Sarma were involved in this. Even the
charge sheet admits that there is no documentary evidence to
prove that the e-mail dated 06.05.2005 was sent by Sh.
Mahipal Singh at the instance of Sh. A. K. Sinha. Sh. A. K. Sinha
has also denied having issued any such instructions. Hence, this
circumstance cannot be used against the conspirators. As such,
this circumstance cannot be legally read against the two
conspirators as the link snaps with the denial of Sh. A. K. Sinha.
This is more so when there is absence of any other evidence in
this regard.
582. This case is based on the foundation that Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S. Sarma deliberately delayed the
approval relating to aforesaid nine issues relating to issue of
UAS licences in six service areas, that is, UP(E), UP(W),
Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata, and other regulatory
approvals as noted and discussed above to force the exit of Siva
group of companies from telecom sector. All the nine
allegations have been found to be without any legal evidence.
There is no legally admissible evidence on record to indicate
any incriminating conduct of the two accused. As such, the very
foundation of the case is knocked out that the delay was meant

Page 330 of 424
to choke the business environment of Siva group of companies.
583. Thus, the case can be disposed of on the basis of
these findings alone as once the very concept of delay is not
accepted, nothing survives in the case. However, the other
points contained in the charge sheet would also be discussed to
find if there is any merit therein also.
B. Acquisition of Aircel by Maxis: Constricted business

environment
584. It is submitted by Sh. Anand Grover, learned Spl.
PP, that on account of delay in regulatory approvals, the
business environment of Siva group of companies was highly
constricted. Apart from that the Standard Chartered Bank had
made unsolicited offer to the group for selling the telecom
business. It is further submitted that Sh. Ralph Marshall, Sh.
Kalanithi Maran and Sh. Dayanidhi Maran also put pressure on
Sh. C. Sivasankaran to sell the companies, though he was
resisting it and wanted to retain at least 26% of the
shareholding. It is repeatedly submitted that finding no
alternative due to the constricted business environment and the
pressure put by the accused persons, Sh. C. Sivasankaran was
left with no option but to sell Aircel Limited to Maxis group. It
is repeatedly submitted by him that this was a forced sale which
was conducted under pressure of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. He has
argued at length that the sale was not as per the free will of Sh.
C. Sivasankaran but he was forced due to the choked business
environment created by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and also by the
pressure exerted on him by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Sh.

Page 331 of 424
Kalanithi Maran. It is repeatedly submitted by him that by
effecting this sale, Sh. C. Sivasankaran was attempting to get
the best out of a bad situation. My attention has been invited to
the relevant files, e-mails and statements of witnesses in great
detail to emphasize the point.
585. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defence
have argued that the sale was voluntary as Sh. C. Sivasankaran
was getting the price of his choice fixed at US$ 800 million. It is
repeatedly submitted that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran has no role in
the transaction and he is being dragged into it for no reason at
all. My attention has been invited to the relevant documents
and statements to emphasize that the sale was voluntary and
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran had no role in it. It has been repeatedly
argued that Sh. C. Sivasanakaran was already in market to sell
his companies and in such a situation where is the question of
any pressure being put on him. It is repeatedly submitted that
there is no evidence, even prima facie, in this regard.
586. The case of the prosecution is that on account of the
delay in regulatory approvals concerning aforesaid nine issues
of Aircel Limited/ Dishnet Limited, the business environment
of Siva group of companies became very constricted and this led
to the sale of Aircel Limited to Maxis. The allegation is that this
delay was due to conspiracy by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J.
S. Sarma and a part of the conspiracy was that the company be
sold to Maxis alone. It is the case of the prosecution that Sh. C.
Sivasankaran was left with no alternative except to sell the
company to Maxis.
587. However, out of nine issues, as already noted, the

Page 332 of 424
Minister had no role as far as alleged delay relating to grant of
UASL for Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata service areas
are concerned as the file D-4 never reached him as it remained
pending due to issues relating to impending FDI policy.
Similarly, the representations were also dealt with in this file
(D-4) and these representations also never reached the
Minister. Sh. Yashwant Bhave has orally stated that he retained
the file till 05.06.2006 on the oral directions of Dr. J. S. Sarma,
but this is contrary to record as Dr. J. S. Sarma always gave the
instructions in writing.
588. The issue relating to delay in provisioning of POIs is
also of no consequence as there is no legally admissible
evidence connecting Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or Dr. J. S. Sarma
with this issue. There is no evidence to show that these three
issues ever reached the Minister or the Minister was in any way
connected with these.
589. As far as issues relating to delay in spectrum
allocation in Bihar service area and delay in allocation of
additional spectrum in Chennai metro service area are
concerned, the same were also not in the notice of the Minister
as per the files. These two files never reached the Minister. The
delay was on the part of the Wireless Advisor who sat on the
two files, but in the oral statement blames Dr. J. S. Sarma for
this, but this is also contrary to record. Furthermore, he says in
his statement dated 09.05.2012, page 1, that Dr. J. S. Sarma
instructed him to hold all cases for allotment of spectrum/
additional spectrum till further orders. He further states that
these instructions were given in the month of July-August

Page 333 of 424
2007. However, this may be read as July/August 2006 as Dr.
J. S. Sarma held the office of Secretary (T) till 16.07.2006 alone.
In these circumstances there is not much incriminating
evidence against the accused and whatever little oral evidence is
there, it is contrary to official record. Even otherwise a delay of
a few months cannot be constrictive enough as to choke
business environment of a company as the negotiation for sale
of the company started in October 2005 itself. The alleged delay
in allocation of initial spectrum in Bihar service area is alleged
to be from 26.07.2005, when Dr. J. S. Sarma asked a question
about network planning. Similarly, the alleged delay in the
allocation of additional spectrum in Chennai service area is
from 23.07.2005, when the file was marked to Wireless
Advisor. The alleged delay started in these two cases in the last
week of July 2005 and the negotiations for sale were started in
first half of October 2005. This is not an instance of great delay.
As such, these two instances are also of no use for indicating
constriction of business environment of Siva group.
590. As far as delay in grant of approval for change in
equity of Aircel Limited and taking on record name change of
Srinivas Computers Limited in Tamil Nadu service area (D-40)
and issues relating to delay in approval (a) of change of name
from RPG Cellular Services Limited to Aircel Cellular Limited;
(b) to approve the purchase of 20.76% shareholding of foreign
partner namely M/s Siva Cellular Holdings Limited in Aircel
Cellular Limited by Aircel Televentures Limited to make it
100% Indian company; (c) taking on record the name change
from Srinivas Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures

Page 334 of 424
Limited in Chennai service area (D-30), are concerned, the
same remained pending as there was illegality in the sale to
Aircel Digilink India Limited as it was in violation of
competition clause and for Tamil Nadu service area the equity
structure of Aircel Digilink India Limited and its promoters was
not clear to the DoT.
591. Not only this, the grievance of Sh. C. Sivasankaran
in his statement is that he was forced to terminate the deal with
Aircel Digilink India Limited as the approval for sale was not
forthcoming and it was due to the conspiratorial acts of Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, but the facts are contrary to this. The
officials of DoT had recommended rejection of sale proposal,
but Sh. Dayanidhi Maran sat on the proposal and did not reject
it. Secretary (T) had approved the rejection on 06.09.2004.
Similarly, the equity structure of ADIL was held to be
complicated as far as sale of licence in Tamil Nadu service area
(D-40) was concerned. If Sh. C. Sivasankaran had really wanted
to sell the company, he could have made efforts to explain the
equity structure of ADIL to the DoT and also for asking the
purchaser ADIL to become compliant to the competition clause
by reducing its equity as far as Chennai service area was
concerned. But he took no such steps in this regard and rather
withdrew the applications filed for seeking approval of DoT. In
these circumstances how can it be alleged that the acts of the
department in not permitting the sale led to the constriction of
business environment of Siva group.
592. As far as the next issue relating to delay in change of
name from Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet Wireless Limited

Page 335 of 424
(D-41) is concerned, the same was linked with other issues by
Sh. P. K. Mittal on 27.08.2004 and not by the Minister or Dr. J.
S. Sarma. Furthermore, when the Secretary (T) himself was
competent to approve the issue, there was no need for him to
mark the file to the Minister without specifying any reason. As
already noted, there is no material on the file to suggest that the
Minister had asked for the file. When the file reached the
Minister, it got linked with other files, as the Minister was
suspicious that licences were granted to the company in hasty
manner, which doubt of the Minister was not unfounded as the
issues relating to financial capacity of the company were not
dealt with properly when eight LOIs were granted to it in file D-
38. This delay cannot be laid at the door of the Minister. Even if
it is so, there is no material on the file to term it as mala fide.
593. Even otherwise, the issue is so small that it cannot
have any constricting impact on the business environment of
the company. It is not clear as to why a separate file D-41 was
opened for this, when the issue relating to grant of licences in
four service areas of Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata was
being dealt with in file D-4 and the issues relating to UP (E) and
UP(W) and extension of time for compliance of LOI in MP
service area were being dealt with in file D-2. Strange are the
ways of DoT as many issues were being dealt with collectively in
files D-30 and D-40 making things very complicated.
594. As far as delay in grant of LOI in UP (E) and UP (W)
and extension of time for signing of licence agreement in MP
service area (D-2) is concerned, the same was also for reasons
which cannot be termed as frivolous or outlandish, as already

Page 336 of 424
noted above.
595. It has already been recorded that the financial
capacity of the company was suspect from day one and it was
also indulging in the grey market activities and sold the ISP
licence without permission of the DoT. The Minister was
suspicious, as already noted above, that the earlier licences
were granted to it in undue haste. This fact is on record in D-41
at 7/N. A suspicious mind cannot be termed as a conspiratorial
mind.
596. In view of the above discussion, it is hard to believe
that the Minister or the Secretary had created a situation by
resorting to delay in approval relating to the aforesaid nine
issues. The basic thrust of the statement of Sh. C. Sivasankaran
is that the sale of licences in Tamil Nadu and Chennai service
areas was not allowed mala fide on account of which he could
not raise requisite finance for his business. But the Minister
could not have allowed that for the reasons already noted.
Other issues relating to change of name etc are very petty.
597. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that
there were no issues which were the making of the two accused
which constricted the business environment of Sh. C.
Sivasankaran resulting in the sale of company to Maxis.
598. Furthermore, feeling constricted is highly elastic
and subjective feeling. It is difficult to believe as to when one
would feel constricted enough in a particular situation
compelling him to take a certain course of action.
599. It is further alleged that when the sale was being
negotiated, Siva group wanted the buyers to take responsibility

Page 337 of 424
for obtaining regulatory approvals as Sh. Dayanidhi Maran as
MOC&IT had choked the business environment of its group
companies. How and when one would feel that one's business
environment is choked? Sh. C. Sivasanakaran was in telecom
business since 1994. His company Sterling Cellular Limited was
given a licence for CMTS in Delhi service area in 1994. His
company Aircel Limited was a licencee in Tamil Nadu service
area since 22.05.1998 (1/N, D-40). He had acquired RPG
Cellular Services Limited, which was operating a telecom
licence in Chennai metro service area, in the year 2003 and the
same was approved by the DoT on 18.12.2003 (D-30). These
facts indicate that Sh. C. Sivasankaran was having sufficient
experience in the field of telecom sector. He was no novice in
telecom sector. He is deemed to know the pace at which DoT
works.
600. He was granted licence for seven service areas, in
which spectrum was allocated in six service areas and there is
no allegation in this regard. If one has no grievance against
allocation of spectrum in six service areas, how can a delay of a
few months in one service area can amount to choking of
business environment. Furthermore, the delay in allocation of
start-up spectrum in Bihar service area is attributed to Dr. J. S.
Sarma from 26.07.2005 onwards, whereas delay in allocation of
additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz is being attributed to Dr.
J. S. Sarma since 23.07.2005.
601. The case of the prosecution is that the delay started
in these two service areas in the last days of July. Very strangely
Sh. C. Sivasankaran felt frustrated enough to sell his business

Page 338 of 424
and started negotiation in early October 2005 and he valued his
company at US$ 850 million. A delay of about two and a half
months, counted from 26.07.2005, in allocation of initial
spectrum is not of much consequence in telecom business,
which has a long gestation period and is a capital intensive
industry. Similarly, additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz may
be needed but a delay of about two and a half months or three
months would not push the owner of the company into such
frustration as to sell his company. It is interesting to quote from
his statement dated 04.09.2013, page 2, which is as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
By the third quarter of 2005, the roll out of services
was stalled in all 14 but 4 circles. At this stage,
sometime in the month of October 2005, Mr. Rahul
Goswamy who is from the Investment Banking
division of SCB in Singapore, called me with a
proposal from M/s Maxis Communications Berhad,
Malaysia (Maxis) to acquire 100% of Aircel, Aircel
Cellular and Dishnet Wireless. Simultaneously, V.
Srinivasan, my CEO, informed me that he had also
received a similar call from Mr. Prahlad Shantigram,
who was the head of Investment Banking in India
for Standard Chartered Bank (SCB).
...................................................................................
...............................................
602. This indicates that he engaged himself in the

negotiations for sale of the companies, frustrated due to delay
of two-three months. Perusal of the various DoT files reveals
that delay in spectrum allocation was usual thing, more so, in
case of additional spectrum.
603. As far as grant of licence in UP (E) and UP(W)

Page 339 of 424
service areas and extension of time for compliance of LOI in
MP service area is concerned, the Minister was suspicious that
the earlier file, in which eight LOIs including MP service area
was granted, was processed in undue haste and he put this on
record and asked for its examination. The financial capacity of
the company was in doubt from the very beginning itself. In
such a situation, how can one claim that his business
environment was choked or for that matter constricted by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran forcing him to sell his business. It is relevant
to extract from his statement dated 04.09.2013, page 1, which is
as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
Sometime in June 2004, I decided to divest the
holdings of Siva Group in M/s Aircel Ltd. and M/s
Aircel Cellular Ltd. in order to raise funds to roll-out
the new circles. Subsequently, in June 2004, an
agreement was executed between ATVL and M/s
Aircel Digilink India Ltd. (ADIL), a Hutchison Essar
group company in which the said buyer had agreed
to pay a total consideration of Rs. 1,200 crores to
ATVL to buy 100% of Aircel and Aircel Cellular. DoT
approval was required for the deal to be completed.
Since approval from DoT was not received for more
than eight months, I decided to terminate the
agreement to sell Aircel and Aircel Cellular.
...................................................................................
.........................................
604. This statement makes it clear that he wanted to sell

his companies Aircel Limited and Aircel Cellular Limited ADIL
for raising funds, but permission for the same was not coming
from the DoT. No permission could have been granted by the
DoT as the sale of Aircel Cellular Limited in Chennai service

Page 340 of 424
area was in violation of competition clause and department had
recommended its rejection. In this statement lies his real
grievance which is wholly unfounded and is contrary to record.
As such, there is no material on the file to indicate that the
business environment of Siva group was ever constricted or
choked by the actions of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is a wholly
unfounded allegation.
605. The further allegation is that Sh. Ralph Marshall
and Sh. Dayanidhi Maran pressurized Sh. C. Sivasankaran to
sell his entire stakes in the company. Let me take a look as to
what Sh. C. Sivasankaran states in his statement dated
23.02.2012, pages 14 to 16, relevant parts of which are as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that by the third quarter of
2005, the roll out of services was stalled in all 14 but
4 circles. At this stage, sometime in the month of
October 2005, Mr. Rahul Goswamy who is from the
Investment Banking division of SCB in Singapore,
called me with a proposal from M/s Maxis
Communications Berhad, Malaysia (Maxis) to
acquire 100% of Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. Simultaneously, Sh V.
Srinivasan informed me that he had also received a
similar call from Mr. Prahlad Shantigram, who was
the head of Investment Banking in India for
Standard Chartered Bank (SCB).
On being asked I state that I was aware of the fact
that Maxis was a telecom company based in
Malaysia and the company was promoted by Sh. T.
Ananda Krishnan who was of Sri Lankan tamil
origin.
On being asked I state that sometime after the
commencement of Aircel operations in 1999, Sh. T.

Page 341 of 424
Ananda Krishnan, of Maxis met with me in 2002 to
obtain my advice of entering the Indian
telecommunication sector. This was the first
meeting between us.
On being asked I state that having received the
above mentioned calls from the SCB officials
sometime in October 2005, I then participated in a
telephonic conference call organized by SCB on the
next day which call I attended from Chennai. In the
said telephonic conference call, the other
participants were Sh. Rahul Goswamy, Sh. Prahlad
Shantigram from SCB, Sh. V Srinivasan and Sh.
Ralph Marshall, Chairman of Maxis.
On being asked I state that during the call Sh. Ralph
Marshall introduced himself as a representative of T
Ananda Krishnan, promoter of Maxis. Sh. Ralph
Marshall conveyed that Maxis was interested in the
deal for acquiring equity stake in ATVL. I explained
to SCB and Maxis officials, the issues being faced by
Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. with DoT, regarding approvals for UASLs,
spectrum, POI, FIPB, etc. which were not
forthcoming. On this, Sh. Ralph Marshall
responded, Dont worry about that, Maxis will take
responsibility in this regard and further added,
you will also hear from the Telecom Minister in this
regard.
On being asked I state in keeping with the efforts of
the Siva Group to infuse equity for financing pan
India operations, the offer from SCB on behalf of
Maxis was initially taken at its face value. I was
always confident that if allowed to grow normally
the telecom business would be a company worth US
$10 billion is not a too distant future and I wanted to
participate in that growth. Incidentally, the
company was valued at US$ 8 billion in 2009. Thus,
I always wanted to be having a controlling stake in
my telecom business and negotiations with Maxis
initially started on this note. However, when the
negotiations proceeded further, the hidden agenda
of Maxis started unfolding itself when Sh. Ralph
Marshall and others on behalf of the Maxis started

Page 342 of 424
insisting on 100% sale of Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular
Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. to Maxis.
On being asked I state that subsequent to the
conference call, I went to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
for a meeting with Sh. Ralph Marshall also of Sri
Lankan origin and a Malaysian national on
04.11.2005. In the said meeting we discussed
regarding the terms of Maxis investment. I also
made a presentation to Shri Ralph Marshall at the
meeting wherein I had mentioned very clearly to
him about my intention to continue holding a
significant stake in my telecom business.
...................................................................................
....................................................................

....................................................................................
................................................................................
On being asked I state that during the meeting with
Sh. Ralph Marshall on 04.11.2005 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, Sh. Ralph Marshall had arranged for Shri
T. Ananda Krishnan to have a telephonic
conversation with me. During the said telephone
call, Shri T. Ananda Krishnan told me the following:
That he (Shri T. Ananda Krishnan) had
already spoken to the Maran brothers with regard to
Maxis investment in my telecom business.
That Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT,
will provide all approvals including the pending
approvals of Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and
Dishnet DSL Ltd. and also the approval for Maxis
proposed investment in my telecom business.
That I can retain only 26% equity stake in my
telecom business.
On being asked I state that after the meeting with
Shri Ralph Marshall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and
the telephone call with Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan, I
returned to Chennai, after which the
discussions/negotiations with Maxis continued
through emails and telephone conversations.

Page 343 of 424
..................................................................................
................................................
607. He further states at pages 19 to 25 as under:

....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that an overall view of the
email communications mentioned above leads only
to one conclusion at all stages of negotiations, that
Siva Group always wanted to retain at least 26%
stake in the company (as per the new FDI norms
which allowed only 74% share holding by a foreign
partner in a telecom company).
On being asked I state that the fact that I and Siva
Group had in fact, become victims of a criminal
conspiracy between Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT and his brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran on
one hand and Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan and Sh.
Ralph Marshal of the Maxis on the other hand,
became clear when Maxis started showing
confidence about getting all the stalled/freezed
approvals of Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. from the DOT and gave an
undertaking to that effect. They have said so clearly
in the correspondence referred to above. Hoping
against hope, even at this stage, I felt that if the
Maxis could get the freezed approvals through and if
I could have the operations in the new circles
launched in a normal way, my telecom business
would be gaining in value very soon and I as an
entrepreneur would also get benefitted in the
process. This was the reason that I insisted to Maxis
on retaining a stake in the business right till the very
end of the discussions. However, that was not to be.
On being asked I state that I was suddenly called for
a meeting with Sh. Kalanithi Maran, promoter of
Sun TV Group and the brother of Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT on 12.11.2005 at the Sun
TV Group headquarters at Anna Arivalayam (which
has also been the DMK party headquarters) in
Chennai.

Page 344 of 424
On being asked, I state that this meeting with Sh.
Kalanithi Maran on 12.11.2005 was organized by Sh.
Ralph Marshall.
On being asked I state that on 12th November 2005,
around 10:30am to 11:00am in the morning I
instructed my chauffer, Sh. C.V. Venkatamuni to
drive me from my residence situated at 78/81 Fir
Haven Estate, R.A Puram, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028, to the Sun TV Group
headquarters at Anna Arivalayam building. On the
way to Anna Arivalayam building, I briefly stopped
at our office at Sterling Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai
and informed Sh. V. Srinivasan that I was going to
Sun TV Group headquarters at Anna Arivalayam to
meet with Sh. Kalanithi Maran.
On being asked I state that I subsequently arrived at
the Sun TV Group headquarters at Anna Arivalayam
building in my Toyota Camry car driven by my
chauffer, C.V. Venkatamuni, between 11:00am and
11:30am.
On being asked I state that upon arriving at Anna
Arivalayam building, I got off my vehicle, and I was
received by a person at the portico of Anna
Arivalayam building who then escorted me to the
meeting room located inside the Sun TV groups
office where I waited briefly to meet with Sh.
Kalanithi Maran.
On being asked, I state that during the meeting with
Sh. Kalanithi Maran, he directed me to do the
following with respect to the sale of my telecom
business to Maxis:
That Siva Group had to sell 100% equity in
ATVL and that too to Maxis only.
Further, that while Maxis would hold 74%, the
remaining 26% equity will be held by an Indian
Partner which would be arranged by Maxis.
That I would shortly after the discussions with
Sh Kalanithi Maran, receive a telephone call from Sh
Kalanithi Marans brother, Sh Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT with the assurance that the deal for
sale of Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet

Page 345 of 424
Wireless Ltd. to Maxis would be cleared/approved
by the then MOC&IT, Sh Dayanidhi Maran.
On being asked I state that, immediately after the
meeting I went to our office at Sterling Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai, and shared with Sh. V.
Srinivasan the above said directions given by Sh.
Kalanithi Maran with respect to sale of my telecom
business to Maxis.
On being asked I state that, shortly after my visit to
our office in Sterling Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai,
according to the script written by the Maran
brothers and Maxis, I did receive a phone call from
Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT himself on
the same day on my mobile phone no.+91 98414
91000 in which call Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT told me in no uncertain terms that I had
no choice but to sell 100% stake in Aircel Ltd., Aircel
Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. to Maxis as
nothing else will meet with his approval.
On being asked, I state that on the same day, i.e.
12.11.2005, in the evening around 4pm, I along with
Sh. V. Srinivasan met with Sh. Ralph Marshall and
Sh. Chan Chee Beng of Maxis at the 6th floor, Club
Lounge of the Taj Coromandel Hotel,
Nungambakkam High Road, in Chennai. During the
said meeting, Sh. Ralph Marshall discussed various
choices available to me about the sale of the
company but all the choices had one thing in
common, that I had to sell my 100% stake in Aircel
Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
Sh. Ralph Marshal also during conversation clearly
stated that this was the desire of Shri Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT. Sh. Ralph Marshall also
confirmed to Sh. V. Srinivasan and me the
following:
that the sale had to be for 100% equity stake in
Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless
Ltd.
that Maxis will give me an upside payment for
26% stake linked to the increase in valuation of
Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet Wireless

Page 346 of 424
Ltd. through an IPO. It meant Siva Group will get
26% stake in the increase in the valuation after IPO
without actually owning the 26% equity in the
business.
that Maxis will on their own identify an Indian
partner to hold the 26% equity in the business.
On being asked I state that, I agreed to the said offer
of upside payment as I knew that I will not get the
pending approvals from the MOC&IT if I did not
accede to the said offer from Maxis.
On being asked I state that Sh. Ralph Marshall of

M/s Maxis Communications sent me an email dated
16.11.2005, referring to the discussions in Chennai
on 12.11.2005 and subsequent telephone
conversations. Also, in this email Sh. Ralph
Marshall gave me, four final offers (transaction
structures) and asked me to choose from one of
these offers. The significant features of the four
options are as under:
Offer A:
o Siva Group to sell 74% stake to Maxis for US$
520 million and retain balance 26% stake in Aircel
Ltd, Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet DSL Ltd.
o Maxis to have a call option for 11.2% stake at
US$ 200 Mn.
o In case Aircel was not listed within 36 months,
then between 37th and 48th month, Maxis can
exercise Call Option for 14.8% stake at equity value
based on 10 times EV / EBIDTA.
o In case Aircel was not listed with 36 months,
then between 37th and 48th month, SVL can
exercise Put Option for 14.8% (upto 26% in case call
option for 11.2% has not been exercised by Maxis) at
equity value based on 10 times EV / EBIDTA.
Offer B:
o Under this offer, SVL was provided an offer to
sell its 100% stake in Aircel for US$ 800 Mn plus an
upside amount on 26% stake.
o Upside amount payable to SVL will be
calculated based on the increase in the valuation of

Page 347 of 424
the company calculated on the market price of
Aircel, 18 months after its listing in the stock
exchange(IPO)
Offer C:
sell its 100% stake in Aircel for US$ 900 Mn.
Offer D:
sell its 100% stake in Aircel for US$ 800 Mn.
In addition to cash of US$ 800 Mn, Maxis also
offered to provide 15 Mn warrants (approx. 8 %
stake of Aircel) that can be exercised by SVL prior to
IPO at par value.
On being asked I state that all the 4 options given by
Sh. Ralph Marshall were for me to primarily sell
100% of my equity in my telecom business to Maxis.
Further, in this email Sh. Ralph Marshall undertook
that Maxis will obtain necessary approvals in India
and Malaysia for the transaction.
On being asked I state that I never wanted to sell
100% of the business. My vision/intention for Siva
Groups telecom business was always to do few
private equity deals then follow it up with an IPO to
get additional funds into the company in order to
further expand the business into one of the leading
telecom operator with pan India operations. I
always believed that the business had tremendous
growth potential and expected the valuation of the
business to be about US$ 10 billion by 2008. Being
the founder and mentor of the business, I always
wanted to ride this growth and benefit from the
increased valuations, by having majority stake in the
company at all times. It is only on account of the
strangulation by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT, by holding all the approvals of Aircel Ltd,
Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd and
the coercion by the Maran brothers to sell 100% of
the business, that I got frustrated and was left with
no choice but to do the deal with Maxis.
On being asked I state that as the Maran brothers
had very clearly communicated to me that I had to

Page 348 of 424
sell 100% equity held by me to Maxis and only then
approvals will be given by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the
then MOC&IT and as Sh. Ralph Marshall had told
me that he would work out a way through which I
would at least get 26% upside payment in lieu of
even the 26% equity I was not allowed to retain, I
had no other option but to choose Offer B. Besides,
out of the 4 options given, Offer B as per which
Siva Group would sell 100% stake in Aircel Ltd,
Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. to
Maxis for US$ 800 million plus upside payment on
26% stake to Siva Group, would fetch me the
maximum value under the forced circumstances.
On being asked I state that my underlined thought
in this decision was also the same confidence that
given the proper conditions to grow, Aircel Ltd,
Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. would
gain its true well deserved value of around US$ 10
billion and I would be able to make up atleast some
part of the huge loss that I had incurred by the sale
of my telecom business under coercion to Maxis.
On being asked I state that in an ideal situation as in
the case of a normal business negotiation, I would
have not agreed to any of the 4 final offers given by
Maxis. But, I was pushed to a situation where I had
no other choice but to choose Offer - B. The other
offers given by Sh. Ralph Marshall would have
anyway not given me an opportunity to get better
value due to the following reasons:
Offer A:
o While Siva Group was provided an option to
retain 26% in Aircel, the following were the
disadvantages in the offer:
There was a risk of Maxis not exercising Call
Option for 11.2% for US$ 200 million
Moreover, for the balance of 14.8%, call option
was to be exercised at an equity value based on 10
times EV / EBIDTA.
In the event Siva Group had exercised Put
option, it was also based on equity value at 10 times
EV / EBIDTA

Page 349 of 424
o Hence, the Offer A and Offer B was similar
offers except that Maxis had the option to exercise
Call Option for 11.2% at US$ 200 million.
o There was also a risk of exit being offered to
Siva Groups stake.
Offer C
o Siva Group always believed that it made
commercial sense to retain interest in 26%. It is
justified by the fact that under Offer A, Maxis had
offered call option for 11.2% stake for US$ 200
million.
Offer D
o While amount received was similar between
Offer B and Offer D (i.e. US$ 800 million) at the
time of sale of 100%, under Offer B, Siva Group had
an option to realize value for 26% stake in Aircel,
while under Offer D, it was for approx. 8% stake.
Hence, it was prudent that Siva Group had decided
not to accept Offer D.
On being asked I state that after having taken the
decision under the forced circumstances to adopt
Offer B as the preferred offer, I communicated my
preferred choice to Sh. Ralph Marshall of Maxis and
Sh. Prahlad Shantigram of SCB telephonically.
...................................................................................
.............................................
608. He further states on page 25 as under:

....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that, the agreement for sale
of 100% equity of ATVL in Aircel Ltd, Aircel Cellular
Ltd and Dishnet DSL Ltd., was signed with Maxis on
22.12.2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The
agreement came to be effective from 30.12.2005. Sh.
V. Srinivasan signed the said agreement on behalf of
ATVL and Mr. Ralph Marshall signed on behalf of
Maxis.
...................................................................................
.....................................

Page 350 of 424
....................................................................................
................................................................................
On being asked I state that the key element to this
conspiracy by which I was forced to sell my telecom
business to Maxis at a grossly lower value concerns
the interest of Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MOC&IT and his brother, Sh. Kalanithi Maran,
promoter of Sun TV Group. The motive behind the
interest the Maran brothers had personally taken for
the benefit of Maxis at both my cost and the cost of
Government of India became clear when Maxis was
allotted the long pending licenses in 14 circles in
December 2006 and right after that on 05.04.2007,
an agreement was signed between Astro All Asia
Networks Plc., a company belonging to the Maxis
group and Sun Direct TV Private Limited, a
company promoted by the Maran family, according
to which Maxis/Astro had agreed to pass on Rs. 600
crores to Sun Direct in the form of Astro purchasing
shares at a highly inflated value of Rs. 79.57 per
share in Sun Direct whereas the Marans had
acquired the same shares at par value of Rs. 10 per
share. As has become very apparent now, this was a
payback/quid-pro-quo by Maxis to Shri Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT and his family for the
favors done to them by Shri Dayanidhi Maran by
misusing his office and position as the then
MOC&IT and his brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran, by
coercing me to sell my telecom business to Maxis at
a low value. This huge payoff by Maxis to Marans
was the bedrock on which the conspiracy involving
forced sale of my telecom business to Maxis was
resting.
On being asked I summarize as under:
1. I never intended to exit my telecom business
completely.
2. I tried to dilute stake only to the extent of 20%
22% to private equity players in order to raise the
funds.

Page 351 of 424
3. I also tried to sell Chennai and RoTN licenses
to ADIL in order to meet the rollout expenses for
other existing and prospective licenses.
4. I was coerced to sell my telecom business to
M/s Maxis only by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and his
brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran.
5. I intended to retain at least 26% stake in my
telecom business which was also denied by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Sh. Kalanithi
Maran.
6. The regulatory approvals in respect of my
telecom business was not granted by Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT. It did not allow my
company to grow which resulted into under
valuation of my telecom business at the time of its
forced sale to Maxis.
610. He made a further statement on 04.09.2013,

running into five pages, in which he has almost repeated the
above assertions/ allegations.
611. If the above statements are read carefully in the
light of material on record, it would become clear that either
most of the statement is contrary to the record or bragging by
the buyer about his links with the Minister and tough
negotiations on his part (buyer) for purchase of entire business
are being dubbed as indicators of conspiracy and pressure
tactics to sell the entire business. It is more so as the
negotiation continued for about three months and that too in
writing through e-mails and thereafter, only the share
subscription agreement and share purchase agreement, both
dated 30.12.2005, were executed. The statement of Sh. C.
Sivasankaran, as already noted, is either contrary to record or is
based on suspicion. Why? He infers conspiracy because the

Page 352 of 424
buyer showed confidence that he would get the needed
approvals. Why would a buyer buy a business unless he is
reasonably sure of its future course of action. Hence, the
confidence of the buyer cannot be termed as an indicator of
conspiracy. Moreover, as long as the Siva group was promoter
of the three companies, that is, Aircel Limited, Aircel Cellular
Limited and Dishnet DSL Limited, there were several
allegations against these companies as already noted in detail.
Once the management changed, most of them would no longer
survive and this may be the reason for the confidence of the
buyer. He himself says in his statement that he knew that he
will not get the pending approvals. Perhaps he was right
because his financial capacity was suspect from the day one and
there were several other allegations against his company. He
further alleges that it was strangulation of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran
which led him to sell 100% of his business. The record as
discussed above in detail does not support this view. It were his
own mistakes and deficiencies which led to the situation, which
he complains about.
612. I have no hesitation in recording that his statement
is based on speculations, surmises and conjectures and is
totally contrary to the record, as discussed in detail above.
613. It is also interesting to take note of the statement of
PW 121 Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhojane, who is a qualified
Company Secretary, and was Company Secretary to M/s
Dishnet DSL Limited. He states in statement dated 25.10.2013,
pages 1 and 2, as under:
....................................................................................

Page 353 of 424
................................................................................
Now I have been shown original board meeting
minutes of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. for the period
from 04.03.2004 to 02.11.2007 and also register of
directors of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. After
verification of the original minutes of the board
meeting held on 06.01.2006 and 21.03.2006 and
the entries in the register of directors, I state that in
the board minutes dated 06.01.2006, the board
informed that the management team successfully
inked a historic deal with M/s Maxis
Communications Bhd. of Malaysia on 30.12.2005.
Pursuant to the arrangement, Maxis and its Indian
Joint Venture Company (JVC) would acquire a
100% interest in Aircel Ltd. (Aircel). Maxis and JVC
would jointly invest UDS 1.08 billion (RM 4.104
billion) to purchase the 100% stake of which USD
280 million (RM 1.064 billion) would be injected
into the company as cash. This implied a pre-money
equity valuation of USD 800 million (RM 3.040
billion) for Aircel.
On completion of the proposed acquisition,
Maxis would hold a 65% equity stake in Aircel
directly while the JVC would hold the remaining
35%. The JVC would be an Indian company jointly
owned by Maxis and its Indian partner in a ratio
that would give Maxis an overall equity interest in
Aircel of 74%, the maximum foreign ownership
permitted. Maxis Indian partner in the JVC would
be the Chennai based Reddy family.
The transaction would be executed in two
independent stages; the first, a subscription for new
equity shares (26% of the expanded capital) and the
second, the purchase of all of the existing equity
shares held by Aircel Televentures Limited (ATVL).
The second transaction would be subject to
shareholders and Malaysian as well as Indian
regulatory approvals.
The board took note of the developments. It
also overwhelmingly congratulated Mr. V.
Srinivasan, CEO for acting as a catalyst in the
process and ensuring the completion of the deal

Page 354 of 424
with extraordinary initiative and energy. The Board
noted that the deal had been completed without the
involvement of a Merchant Banker in the process,
thus reducing the costs involved. The Board also
recorded its specific appreciation of the efforts taken
by Mr. R. Narayankumar, GM-Strategy, Mr. T.L.
Guruvijendran, CFO, Mr. T. Sivakumar, GM and
Company Secretary and their team members in ably
assisting Mr. V. Srinivasan, CEO in the process.
..................................................................................
.............................................
614. It is further interesting to take note of statement of

PW 62 Sh. A. Subramanian, a qualified Chartered Accountant,
who was Director (Finance) to the Siva group of companies. He
states in his statement dated 07.12.2012, page 5, as under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
In the board meeting dated 06.01.2006, I attended
the meeting as Director and Dr. Vijay P. Bhatkar,
Chaired the meeting, who was pleased to report that
the management successfully inked a historic deal
on 30/12/2005 with Maxis of Malaysia. Pursuant to
that arrangement, Maxis and its Indian Joint
Venture Company (JVC) would acquire a 100%
interest in Aircel Ltd. Maxis and the JVC would
jointly invest US$ 1.08 billion to purchase the 100%
stake of which US$ 280 million would be injected
into Aircel Ltd. as cash. This implied a pre money
equity valuation of US$ 800 million for Aircel Ltd.
The board took note of the developments and also
overwhelmingly congratulated Sh. V.
Srinivasan, CEO for acting as a catalyst in the
process and ensuring the completion of the deal
with extraordinary initiative and energy. The board
also noted that the deal had been completed without
the involvement of the merchant banker in the
process thus, reducing the cost involved. The board
also recorded its specific appreciation of the efforts

Page 355 of 424
taken by Sh. R. Narayankumar, GM-Strategy, Sh.
T.L. Guruvijendran, CFO, Sh. T. Sivakumar, GM and
Company Secretary and their team Members in ably
assisting Sh. V. Srinivasan, CEO in the process.
...................................................................................
..............................................
615. How can one ignore this written record. That is why
the oral narrations of Sh. C. Sivasankaran are contrary to
record. Furthermore, it is interesting to take note of statements
of Sh. Prahalad Shantigram, PW 32, and Sh. Rahul Goswamy,
PW 37, in which they have described the entire process, which
lasted for about three months, followed by written agreements
dated 30.12.2005. In the face of such written record and long
negotiations, the oral suspicions do not constitute a ground to
suspect the deal as the one negotiated under pressure, more so,
when the board of the company is congratulating the
negotiators.
616. In brief, there is no ground to presume that the
business environment of Siva group was constricted or choked
enough as to pressurize them into selling its companies to
Maxis and that the subsequent sale was the result of pressure
from any quarter including the Minister or Ralph Marshall.
This allegation is based entirely on the oral statement of Sh. C.
Sivasankaran, as has been deliberately extracted in detail above
to make things clear and understandable. Once the statement of
Sh. C. Sivasankaran is found to be imaginary and contrary to
record, nothing survives under this head.
C. Issues relating to smooth approvals

Page 356 of 424
Advocate/ Spl. PP for CBI, that after sale of the three
companies, that is, Aircel Limited, Aircel Cellular Limited and
Dishnet DSL Limited, to Maxis group, there was change in the
attitude and behaviour of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S.
Sarma relating to the issues of three companies. It is further
submitted that as long as the companies remained with Siva
group, the two conspirators were putting every hurdle in their
cases relating to new licences and other regulatory approvals.
However, once the management passed over to the Maxis
group, the two conspirators became very active and every
approval was granted not only smoothly but very quickly. It is
repeatedly submitted by him that this is an indicator of
conspiracy between Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, Dr. J. S. Sarma and
other accused relating to Maxis group. My attention has been
invited to the notings in the various files as well as statements
of witnesses in great detail.
618. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Sr.
Advocates for the defence that once the management passed
over to the Maxis group, the shortcomings and deficiencies
from which the three companies were suffering were no longer
there and approval became very easy. It is further submitted
that even otherwise there is no instance of any hurried or hasty
approval post transfer to Maxis. It is repeatedly submitted that
whatever Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or Dr. J. S. Sarma did was done
by them in the regular course of official business without any
favour to anyone. My attention has been invited to the various
notings as well as statements of witnesses to emphasize their

Page 357 of 424
point of view.
619. Let me take note of each circumstance.
(i) De-linking of show cause notices (D-43)

620. It is the case of Sh. Anand Grover, learned Spl. PP,
that as long the three companies were with Siva group, Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran linked various violations by the companies to
the issue of new licences, thus, stalling the issue of new
licences. It is submitted that this was a deliberate attempt. It is
further submitted that once the management of the three
companies passed to Maxis group, he immediately ordered de-
linking of the two issues. It is repeatedly submitted that
thereafter, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S. Sarma became
very active and this indicates that both were in conspiracy with
the Maxis group.
621. This has been refuted by the learned defence
counsel submitting that the issue of de-linking was processed in
the ordinary course of business by the official of the department
in which Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or Dr. J. S. Sarma had no role. It
is repeatedly submitted that even otherwise Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran was not hyper-active at all, as alleged, but he sat on this
file also for close to four months from 26.01.2006 to
16.05.2006, when the approval was finally granted. It is
repeatedly submitted that where is the active/ smooth
behaviour of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is repeatedly submitted
that he was at his natural self as he always was and there was
no change in his attitude or behaviour.
622. Let me take note of the details as they exist in the

Page 358 of 424
file to find out the reality of the issue.
623. This issue has been dealt with in file D-43. The first
note sheet was recorded by Sh. R. K. Gupta on 27.12.2005 at
1/N to the following effect:
As directed the summary of the cases pending for
issue of Licences are as below.
1. The cases M/s Dishnet DSL Limited were

forwarded to AS(T) by PS to Hon'ble MOC&IT in
last year. The opinion of the AS(T) is Placed at 1/c.
As directed by the then Secretary (T), the comments
of Additional Secretary (T) was submitted to LA for
Legal opinion on this matter.
2. The opinion of LA is placed at 2/c. Salient

points of LA opinion are as below:
In Para 2. Moreover the DOT withdrew of its

own letter of imposition of penalty so M/s. Dishnet
DSL Ltd. cannot be faulted on this count and denial
of LOIs/License will not withstand legal scrutiny till
the company is not blacklisted for already
committed major malpractices in accordance with
administrative instruction, if any, after holding a full
fledged enquiry and affording fair opportunity of
hearing.
In Para 3. Hence no objection to indirect

foreign investment to whatsoever level can be taken
especially where DOT does not know the contrary
facts about non-existence of management in Indian
hands.
In Para 4. Any objection to this equity patten

or of cross holding various companies can not be
taken by DOT. This for the Business World to
manage and not an unusual happening to have cross
holdings.
In Para 5. With regard to complicated nature

Page 359 of 424
of equity holding, no objection can be taken by
Licensor because such adverse notice is not
provided in the licence agreement.
3. The last noting of Secretary (Telecom) in the

month of March, 2005 is that the files are
returned with the direction that the division
should ascertain all the Show Cause Notices/
Advisory Letters issued to the above
company or companies belonging to the
Group and the nature of default before any
view is taken.
4. The cases pending for issuance of the Licences

are summarized and summary is placed at 3/c.
5. The file is submitted for further orders

please.
624. The note does not mention as to who directed the

note to be recorded.
625. The file was marked upward and DDG (BS) Sh. P. K.
Mittal recorded on the same date that the case was discussed
with ADG (BS-III) and asked for a detailed self-contained note.
626. Thereafter, again a detailed self-contained note was
put up by Sh. R. K. Gupta on 28.12.2005 at N/2 to N/5, which
incidentally again begins with the words:
Subject: Pending cases for issue of licences
As directed, the summary of the cases pending for
issue of licences are as below:
..................................................................................
...............................................................................7.

627. It can be taken that this note was recorded as per

the directions of Sh. P. K. Mittal, as contained in his note dated

Page 360 of 424
27.12.2005.
628. He marked the file to DDG (BS) Sh. P. K. Mittal,
who again recorded a detailed note on 30.12.2005, suggesting
de-linking and many other things. In due course the file
reached Secretary (T), who asked for a discussion on
05.01.2006. Thereafter, the file was marked downward.
629. Again on 19.01.2006, Sh. P. K. Mittal recorded a
detailed note at 7/N and 8/N suggesting de-linking of various
issues to the following effect:
Sub: Policy regarding grant of licence- issue
regarding show cause notices and
advisories.
The details of various applications pending in

BS Group as on 31.12.2005 and the reasons there
upon is placed at p.3/c.
2. It was opined in case of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.

that before granting of UASL licence to M/s
Dishnet DSL Ltd., we may await the decision of
TDSAT on the issue of vigilance cases and penalties
imposed by DoT on this company.
3. It was also desired to ascertain all the show

causes notices/ advisory letters issued to the above
company or companies belong to the group and the
nature of default before any view is taken.
3.1 Accordingly, the practice along with

observations indicated in para 2 above was followed
without discrimination for other companies.
3.2 On the observation in para 2, Legal Advisor

has opined that, in this regard it may be stated that
there is no pending litigation as on today. Moreover,
the DoT withdrew of it's own letter of imposition of
penalty so M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. cannot be faulted

Page 361 of 424
on this count and denial of LOIs/ Licence will not
withstand legal scrutiny till the company is not
blacklisted for already committed major
malpractices in accordance with administrative
instructions, if any, after holding a full fledged
enquiry and affording fair opportunity of hearing.
4. The matter was discussed in a meeting chaired

by Secretary (T) and attended by Member (F),
Member (P), Advisor (P), Sr. DDG (LF) and DDG
(BS) on 13.1.2006. It was felt that as opined by the
Legal Advisor, denial of LOIs/ licences will not
withstand legal scrutiny till the company is black
listed for already committed major malpractices in
accordance with administrative instructions, if any,
after holding a full fledged enquiry and affording a
fair opportunity of hearing.
4.1 Further, it was felt that if for any major

malpractices any action has be taken then action
can be taken for that particular licence. For violation
of a particular licence, it may not be legally tenable
to terminate or suspend various other licences of the
same company or group of companies.
4.2 Processing of responses to various

explanations/ show cause notices is a continuous
process.
5. Keeping in view the above, it was felt that

processing of application for grant of new licences
should be de-linked from show cause notices or
explanation call for or any other advisory issued to
that company or any other sister/ group company is
respect of any other licence.
Submitted for kind consideration and

approval please.
630. In due course the file reached the various officials,

including Secretary (T), who agreed to the note of Sh. P. K.

Page 362 of 424
Mittal on 26.01.2006 and marked the file to the Minister.
631. The Minister finally approved the note on
16.05.2006. In due course, the file reached Sh. P. K. Mittal on
17.05.2006, who marked it to ADG (BS-III) on the same day.
Thereafter, there is no movement in the file.
632. It is interesting to note as to what Sh. R. K. Gupta,
who has been examined as PW 7, says on this point. His
statement is as under:
................................................................................N
ow I have been shown one original file no. 20-
231/2005/BS-III/ Volume II (MR-II, Memo 47,
Serial No.4 in PE 1/2011) and state that Shri Govind
Singhal, the then Director(BS-III) directed me to
put up a summary of the cases pending for issue of
UAS Licenses. Accordingly, I put up a note on
27.12.2005 in the above referred file. I had referred
to the salient points of the opinion of Shri O.P.
Nahar, Legal Advisor and the last noting dated
30.03.2005 of Shri Nripendra Misra, the then
Secretary (T). I had placed the details of the cases
pending for issuance of licenses at 3/C of the said
file. I marked the file to Shri Govind Singhal, the
then Dircector (BS-III) for further orders who in
turn marked the file to Shir P.K. Mittal, the then
DDG(BS) on 27.12.2005 itself. Shri P.K Mittal
discuss the matter with me and instructed to
prepare a detailed self contained note. I accordingly
put up note dated 28.12.2005 at 2-4/N detailing the
cases pending for issue for licenses.
On being asked I state that at that time applications
of M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. for grant of UAS licenses in
UP (E), UP (W), Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and
Kolkata Service Areas were pending. Besides, case of
M/s Dishnet DSL Limited for extension for LOI for
grant of UAS licenses in Madhya Pradesh Service
Area was also pending. I have also mentioned the
reasons for pendency. At that time, Licensing
Regulation (LR) Wing of DoT had intimated that the

Page 363 of 424
following show cause notices were under process in
respect of sister concerns of M/s Dishnet DSL
Limited.:-
1. Show Cause Notice for imposing penalty
amounting Rs. 2,36,88,522/- and submitting
additional bank guarantee of Rs. 3.20 crore
because of grey market activities by its subscribers.
Final order under issue after according personal
hearing before Member (P).
2. Show cause notice for termination of license
for violation of clause 10 regarding Transfer of
License is under issue. Approval of MOC received
on 28th March 2005.
3. 6 nos. of new cases have been reported for
involvement of its subscribers in grey market
recently (on 10th March, 2005). The cases are being
processed.
I marked the file to Shri Govind Singhal, the then

Dircector (BS-III) on 28.12.2005 for further orders
who in turn marked the file to Shir P.K. Mittal, the
then DDG(BS) on 28.12.2005 itself.
Shri P.K Mittal, DDG(BS) put up the file to
Adviser(P) vide 5-6/N on 30.12.2005. He had
stated the following vide para 5 at 5/N:-
The various licensees have been issued Show Cause
Notices and their response are processes. It is a
continuous process as complaints keeps on coming
and the show cause notices issues. Keeping in view
the legal advise, a view may have to be taken
whether further processing of these applications
for grant of license for any breach or violation of
that licensee or associate/sister concern is to be
delinked as that breach or violation is to be dealt
with according to the terms and conditions of that
particular license. Further, if any penalty is
imposed and realized that violation/breach get
liquidated.
Shri R.N. Prabhakar, the then Adviser (P) signed the

notesheet on 03.01.2006 and send the file to
Member(P)/ Member(F) who also signed the

Page 364 of 424
notesheet on 05.01.2006 and send the file to Shri
J.S. Sarma, the then Secretary (T). Dr. J.S. Sarma,
the then Secretary (T) sent back the file on
05.01.2006 to Member (P)/Adviser(P)/DDG(BS)
with a direction to discuss the matter.
Shri P.K. Mittal put up another note dated
19.01.2006 vide 7-8/N. He had stated the following
vide para 5 at 8/N:-
Keeping in view the above, it was felt that
processing of application for grant of new license
should be de-linked from show cause notices or
that company or any other sister /group company
in respect of any other license.
Senior DDG(LF) signed the said notesheet on
19.01.2006, Adviser(P) & Member(P) signed the
said notesheet on 20.01.2006, Member(F) signed
the said notesheet on 23.01.2006 and Secretary(T)
signed the said notesheet on 26.01.2006 and sent
the file to the then MoC&IT.
The then MoC&IT approved the above note on
16.05.2006.
633. Thus, Sh. R. K. Gupta states that he initiated the

note on the asking of Sh. Govind Singhal.
634. PW 15 Sh. Govind Singhal, the then Director (BS-
III), to whom Sh. R. K. Gupta marked the file, states in his
statement dated 03.09.2013, at page 6, as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
bearing No. 20-231/2005/BS-III/Vol.II and state
that Sh. R. K. Gupta, ADG (BS-III) had put up a
summary of the cases pending for issue of UASL and
marked the file to me on 27.12.2005. Then it was
marked to DDG (BS). DDG (BS) desired to submit
the detailed Self Contained Note. Sh. R. K. Gupta,
ADG (BS-III) submitted the detailed note from
notesheet No. N/2 to N/4 dated 28.12.2005. DDG

Page 365 of 424
(BS) processed the case on 19.01.2006 for delinking
the issue of show cause notices or explanation called
for or any other advisory issued to the company or
any other sister/ group company from granting the
new licences. Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG (BS) in his
proposal dated 19.01.2006 has referred to the legal
opinion dated 11.01.2005 of Sh. O. P. Nahar, LA. Sh.
P. K. Mittal has also mentioned that the matter was
discussed in a meeting chaired by Secretary (T) and
attended by Member (F), Member (P), Advisor (P),
Sr. DDG (LF) and DDG (BS) on 13.01.2006. In the
said meeting, it was felt that as opined by the Legal
Advisor, denial of LOIs/ Licences will not withstand
legal scrutiny till the company is black listed for
already committed major malpractices in
accordance with the administrative instruction, if
any, after holding a full fledged enquiry and
affording a fair opportunity of hearing. The proposal
was concurred by Sr. DDG (LF), Advisor (P) &
Member (P) and Member (F). Dr. J. S. Sarma, the
then Secretary (T) also concurred with the proposal
and sent the file to MoC&IT on 27.01.2006. And
approval was granted by the then MoC&IT on
16.05.2006.
From the above, it is evident that the legal input was

already available on 11.01.2005 and the linking of
issuance of UASL with show cause notices/advisory
letters issued to the applicant company or group of
companies, which was conveyed by Sh. Nripendra
Misra, the then Secretary(T) on 30.03.2005,
appears to be reason of delay in issuance of LOI to
M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd. in 7 telecom service areas
including extension of LOI in Madhya Pradesh area.
..................................................................................
..............................
635. Sh. Govind Singhal does not say that he had asked
Sh. R. K. Gupta to put up the note. He states that Sh. R. K.
Gupta had put up the summary of cases pending for issue of

Page 366 of 424
UASL and marked the file to him (Govind Singal) on
27.12.2005 and he, in turn, marked the file to DDG (BS).
636. It is also relevant to quote PW 8 Sh. P. K. Mittal
from his statement dated 30.05.2012, pages 2 and 3, which is as
under:
....................................................................................
.................................................................................
On being asked I state that in the month of
December, 2005 it was desired by Secretary to
submit a note for consideration for taking a view for
delinking the violations for grant of new licenses.
Accordingly, a note was submitted in a separate file
No. 20-231/2005/BSIII/Vol-II on 27.12.2005 by Sh.
R. K. Gupta, the then ADG (BS III). The note was
further approved on 28.12.2005 by him and on
30.12.2005 by me before submitting to Advisor (P)
& Member (P) Sh. R. N. Prabhakar. Sh. R. N.
Prabhakar submitted the file to Dr. J. S. Sarma, the
then Secretary (T) through Member (F), Secretary
(T) desired to have discussion. The matter was
discussed in a meeting chaired by Secretary (T) and
attended by Sh. A. K. Sahawney the then Member
(F), Sh. R. N. Prabhakar, the then Member (P) and
Advisor (P), Smt. Sadhna Dixit, the then Sr. DDG
(LF) and myself on 13.01.2006. It was felt that as
opined by the Legal Advisor, denial of LOIs/ licenses
will not withstand legal scrutiny till the company is
blacklisted for already committed major
malpractices in accordance with administrative
instructions, if any, after holding a full fledged
enquiry and affording fair opportunity of hearing. It
was also felt that if for any major malpractices any
action has to be taken, then action can be taken for
that particular license. For violation of any
particular license, it may not be legally tenable to
terminate or suspend various other licenses of the
same company or group of companies. Processing of
responses to various explanations/ show cause
notices is a continuous process.

Page 367 of 424
Therefore, it was felt that processing of
applications for grant of new licenses should be
delinked from show cause notices or explanation
call for or any other advisory issue to that company
or any other sister or group company in respect of
any other license. The aforesaid recommendation
was submitted to the then MoC&IT Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran on 26.01.2006 and was approved on
16.05.2006 by him.
637. In the statement dated 01.12.2011, page 9, he

further states that:
I would like to add here that as per oral directions
of Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then Secretary DOT, a
proposal for delinking Show Cause Notices from the
processing of applications of grant of new License
was initiated on 27.12.2005 by Sh. R. K. Gupta,
ADG (BS-III). In fact, Dr. J. S. Sarma, the then
Secretary (T) had orally directed me to put up a
proposal for delinking show cause notices. Hence, I
conveyed the directions to Sh. Govind Singhal, the
then Director (BS-III). Accordingly, Sh. R. K. Gupta,
ADG (BS-III) prepared a self contained note on the
note-sheet itself explaining different pending
applications of different companies and reasons of
pendency, the legal opinion suggesting that linking
of licences with Show Cause Notices will not
withstand legal scrutiny. I also summarized the
status and issues and marked the file to Sh. R. N.
Prabhakar the then Advisor (P) and Member (P) on
30.12.2005 who in turn marked the same to Shri A.
K. Sawhney, Member (F) on 03.01.2006 who
further marked the same to Dr. J. S. Sarma,
Secretary (T) on 05.01.2006. Secretary (T) directed
to have a discussion which took place on 13.01.2006
which was chaired by Secretary, DOT and attended
by me, Sh. A. K. Sawhney, the then Member
(Finance), Sh. R. N. Prabhkar, the then Member (P)
as well as Advisor (P) and Mrs. Sadhna Dixit, the
then Sr. DDG (Licensing Finance). It was felt that

Page 368 of 424
processing of application for grant of new licences
should be delinked from show cause notices or
that company or any other sister/ Group company
in respect of any other licence. Accordingly, I put up
a note on 19.01.2006. Thereafter, the said note was
seen and signed by Ms. Sadhna Dixit, Sr. DDG (LF),
Sh. R N. Prabhakar, Advisor (P) and Member (P),
Sh. A.K. Sawhney, Member (F) and Dr. J. S. Sarma,
Secretary (T). The said file containing the proposal
for delinking was sent to the then MoC & IT on
27.01.2006. It remained pending till 16.05.2006
when Shri Dayanidhi Maran the then MoC & IT
approved the proposal for delinking the process of
UASL from the Show Cause Notices.
638. Furthermore, in his statement dated 08.10.2012,

pages 3 and 4, Sh. P. K. Mittal states regarding de-linking as
under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
Today I have been shown one original file No.10-
21/05-BS-I (Vol.II) (MR-II, Memo-143, Sl. No.2 (i))
wherein guidelines for grant of UASL were approved
by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT on
13.12.2005 at 3/N. The said guidelines were issued
on 14.12.2005, a copy of which is available at serial
No.427 in KW folder of said file (MR-II, Memo-143,
Sl. No.2 (ii)). The said guideline also does not
provide for linking of any show cause notice or
advisory issued to the applicant company or its
sister concern or its associates from the process of
granting any further UASL in other services areas or
processing any request such as change of name of
that company. Prior to approval of the said
guidelines on 13.12.2005 by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran,
the then MoC&IT, the UASL applications were being
processed as per the guidelines approved by Sh.
Arun Shourie, the then MoC&IT and issued on
11.11.2003. This guideline also does not link any

Page 369 of 424
show cause notice or advisory issued to the
applicant company or its sister concern or its
associates from the process of granting any further
UASL in other services areas or processing any
request such as change of name of that company.
639. The perusal of the note sheet dated 27.12.2005 does

not reveal as to on whose direction this note was recorded by
Sh. R. K. Gupta, but in oral statement, he states that he
recorded it on the direction of Sh. Govind Singhal, but Sh.
Govind Singhal is silent on this point and states that Sh. R. K.
Gupta had put up the note. Sh. P. K. Mittal in his statement
dated 01.12.2011 states that Dr. J. S. Sarma orally directed him
to put up a proposal for de-linking, show cause notices from the
processing of applications of grant of new UAS licence. He
further states that he conveyed the directions to Sh. Govind
Singal, but as already noted Sh. Govind Singhal is silent on this
point.
640. Sh. P. K. Mittal states that Dr. J. S. Sarma had orally
directed him to do so, but in the file there is no such mention.
In the oral statement he put the blame on Dr. J. S. Sarma, but
his written note is contrary to this, particularly paras 4 and 4.1
of his note dated 19.01.2006, which for ready reference read as
under:
4. The matter was discussed in a meeting chaired
by Secretary (T) and attended by Member (F),
Member (P), Advisor (P), Sr. DDG (LF) and DDG
(BS) on 13.1.2006. It was felt that as opined by the
Legal Advisor, denial of LOIs/ licences will not
withstand legal scrutiny till the company is black
listed for already committed major malpractices in
accordance with administrative instructions, if any,

Page 370 of 424
after holding a full fledged enquiry and affording a
fair opportunity of hearing.
4.1 Further, it was felt that if for any major

malpractices any action has be taken then action
can be taken for that particular licence. For violation
of a particular licence, it may not be legally tenable
to terminate or suspend various other licences of the
same company or group of companies.
641. The written record shows that it was a collective

decision, but in his oral statements Sh. P. K. Mittal puts the
blame on the Secretary alone. This stance of the witness is
contrary to the written record and is violation of official
procedure and guidelines as noted above.
642. Furthermore, the file was marked to the Minister by
the Secretary (T) on 26.01.2006, but he approved the same on
16.05.2006. Thus, he sat on the file for close to four months.
There is no eagerness or hurry exhibited by the Minister here.
643. Furthermore, the processing of file does not reveal
having any ministerial interference.
644. I may note that it may set dangerous precedent to
prosecute public servants on the basis of oral statements which
are contradictory to the official record maintained in the
ordinary course of government business. The de-linking is at
the core of the charge sheet as the case of the prosecution is
that this was done by the Minister to help Maxis, but the file
does not reveal any such thing. The file appears in its entirety to
be the doing of Sh. P. K. Mittal, but when questioned he cast the
blame on the Secretary by making oral statement which is
contrary to the official record and procedure.

Page 371 of 424
645. The case of the prosecution is that the regulatory
approvals of Siva group of companies, that is, Aircel Limited,
Aircel Cellular Limited and Dishnet DSL Limited, were being
delayed deliberately by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Dr. J. S.
Sarma, who were in conspiracy with each other, in order to
force its exit from telecom sector. It is further their case that
this regulatory delay forced the exit of the aforesaid companies
as the same were sold by Sh. C. Sivasankaran to the Maxis
group vide agreement dated 30.12.2005. It is further their case
that subsequent to the transfer of the companies to Maxis
group, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran became very active and he de-
linked his earlier objections from the grant of new licences/
approvals to these companies.
646. However, as noted above, file D-43, which deals
with de-linking, does not reveal that the file was initiated at the
initiative of Dr. J. S. Sarma. It may be noted that there is no
material on the file to indicate that the file was initiated on the
initiative of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. However, Sh. P. K. Mittal has
stated in his oral statement that he has done so at the instance
of Dr. J. S. Sarma and he directed Sh. Govind Singhal to put up
the note, but Sh. Govind Singhal does not say so. Thus, there is
a contradiction amongst the three witnesses about the initiation
of the file. Needless to add, at the cost of repetition, that the
oral statement of Sh. P. K. Mittal is contrary to the file. The file
has the footprints of Sh. P. K. Mittal at every stage of the case,
but whenever he is questioned, he, by making oral statement,
cast the blame on others. The file appears to be the doing of Sh.
P. K. Mittal in its entirety. In this file, three officials, namely,

Page 372 of 424
Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sh. Govind Singhal and Sh. P. K. Mittal, were
mainly involved at the processing stage, while at the final stage
Member (P), Secretary (T) and the Minister were involved. The
file itself does not indicate much role of anyone except that of
Sh. R. K. Gupta, who initiated the file and Sh. P. K. Mittal, who
recorded the two crucial notes dated 30.12.2005 and
19.01.2006. However, by making oral statement, any one of the
six could be held guilty for the issues dealt with and approved
in the file. This is the pitfall of the oral statements when made
contrary to official record. The real offenders can put the
innocent at the risk of prosecution by making oral statements
contrary to official record. I have already noted that in many
files when the directions were passed by the Secretary (T), the
next note sheet was recorded by the official concerned quoting
that the note sheet was being recorded as per the directions of
Secretary (T)/ Chairman (TC), but no such thing appears in this
file.
647. Even if it is assumed that the file was initiated at the
instance of Dr. J. S. Sarma, even then there is no smooth or
hurried approval by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. The file was marked
by Dr. J. S. Sarma to Sh. Dayanidhi Maran on 26.01.2006, but
he sat on the file for more than four months and approved it on
16.05.2006. This breaks the theory propounded by the
prosecution that after sale of Aircel Limited to Maxis, the
Minister became very active and granted smooth approval.
Sitting over a file for about four months can by no stretch of
imagination be called smooth approval. This also breaks the
theory of conspiracy between Dr. J. S. Sarma and Sh. Dayanidhi

Page 373 of 424
Maran.
648. This ground itself is enough to destroy the entire
theory of conspiracy propounded by the prosecution regarding
smooth approval.
****************
ii. Approval granted for issue of LOI to Dishnet

Wireless Limited after acquisition by Maxis
Communication
649. The allegation is that after the sale of the company
to Maxis, Sh. R. K. Gupta recorded a note on 08.11.2006 (D-2,
39/N to 41/N) recommending issue of LOI to the company in
Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, Kolkata, UP(E) and UP(W) service
areas and amendment to the LOI in MP service area, issued on
20.04.2004. It is further alleged that the file was marked by the
Secretary (T) to the Minister on 21.11.2006 and the same was
approved by him on 22.11.2006. Accordingly, it was smooth
approval post acquisition by Maxis.
650. The fact of Maxis acquiring 73.99% of Aircel
Limited was taken on record in the file D-2 for the first time on
06.03.2006 at 30/N.
651. This instant file, that is, D-2, remained under
processing from 26.04.2004 to 13.07.2004, when it was
marked by the Secretary (T) to the Minister. As noted earlier,
the Minister asked for certain clarifications vide note dated
26.08.2004 at 17/N, which for ready reference are extracted
again as under:
a) The financial/equity between M/s. Dishnet

Page 374 of 424
DSL Ltd. and its sister concerns holding
licence elsewhere, particularly in Tamil Nadu
and Chennai.
b) To please verify the status of the newspaper

reports regarding sale of M/s. Dishnet DSL
Ltd. or any of its sister concerns to any other
company.
c) To also verify whether M/s. Dishnet DSL Ltd.

or any of its sister concerns granted licences in
licensee/entity.

certain licence conditions entailing specific
penalty being imposed on it. The legal
implications to this case may please be
examined and reported.
652. Thereafter, the file was again sent to the Minister, as

desired by him, per statement of Sh. P. K. Mittal dated
29.11.2011, page 1, and the file was marked to him by Secretary
(T) on 24.12.2004 at 21/N (D-2), but the file was returned with
the note of Secretary (T) dated 30.03.2005, which for ready
reference is extracted as under:
653. As already noted above, the financial capacity of the

company was in question from the very beginning itself.
Furthermore, the company was trying to sell its licence in

Page 375 of 424
violation of the competition clause in the agreement in Chennai
service area to Aircel Digilink India Limited, as noticed in file
D-30.
654. Furthermore, the company was involved in several
violations, as already noted. In such a situation, the questions
raised by the Minister cannot be termed to be outlandish or
frivolous. When the company was involved in so many
violations by being engaged in grey market and also sale of ISP
licence without permission of the department, its applications
should have received some serious or higher scrutiny.
655. The Minister had asked for a note of AS (T) vide
order dated 15.09.2004 at 35/N in D-40. On this, AS (T) Dr. J.
S. Sarma submitted his note dated 30.11.2004 suggesting that
before granting UAS licences to Dishnet, decision of TDSAT
may be awaited.
656. On this, Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra asked
for legal opinion on the comments of Dr. J. S. Sarma.
657. Sh. O. P. Nahar, LA (T), submitted his report dated
11.01.2005 (43/N, D-40). In this regard, the opinion of Legal
Advisor is too legalistic. If a company is involved in several
violations pertaining to earlier licences held by it, denial of new
licence is not the only action, which can be taken against it nor
the Minister was calling for it nor the AS(T) had suggested it.
The AS(T) had only suggested that they may await the decision
of TDSAT. Postponing an action on the application of a
company on account of its being involved in grey market
relating to other licence and denying a new licence to it on this
ground are two entirely different things. Nobody had suggested

Page 376 of 424
that applications for new licences be rejected or that the new
licences be denied.
658. The Legal Advisor took it as if the AS(T) had
suggested for denial of licence to the company and gave a very
legalistic report, which is wholly out of context. As already
noted above, when the company was involved in grey market
and was also accused of selling an ISP licence without
permission of DoT and its financial capacity was in doubt from
the very beginning, its applications should have received
higher/ strict scrutiny. The note of Dr. J. S. Sarma makes sense
in the light of the facts of the case.
659. The case of the prosecution is that post-acquisition
by Maxis, when proposal was submitted by Sh. R. K. Gupta on
08.11.2006 and the file was marked upward and reached the
Secretary (T) on 21.11.2006. The Secretary (T) marked the file
to Minister Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, who approved it on the very
next day, that is, 22.11.2006. The allegation is that post-
acquisition, it was a smooth approval with mala fide intention.
660. However, the charge sheet does not say as to what
questions or objections ought to have been raised by the
Minister. How the Minister could have stopped or rejected or
delayed the proposal? What to talk of a reasonable objection,
the charge sheet is silent on this point. In such a situation, the
Minister had no option but to approve it as the earlier
objections ceased to have effect on account of changed
circumstances like change of management from Siva group to
Maxis group, withdrawal of applications for sale of licences to
Digilink as the same was in violation of licence conditions and

Page 377 of 424
the issues about the financial capacity of the company also
vanished with change of management. Hence, this ground does
not carry any value in the eye of law that it was a smooth
approval with mala fide intention.
iii. Approval granted for taking on record change of

name from Dishnet DSL Limited to Dishnet
Wireless Limited
661. The allegation is that note dated 29.06.2006 was
put up by Sh. S. A. Malik, as already noted above, in file D-41 at
8/N, for taking on record change of name of Dishnet DSL
Limited Sh. Dishnet Wireleless Limited in ten service areas,
that is, J&K, Assam, North-East, West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, UP (E) and UP(W). The
file was marked to Dr. J. S. Sarma on 29.06.2006 and he
approved the same on 30.06.2006. The allegation is that it was
smooth approval after sale of the companies to Maxis.
662. The last entry in this file prior to the note of
29.06.2006 is dated 03.03.2005, by which the Minister had
directed the Secretary (T) to examine if there was undue haste
in processing the files, as contained in D-2, D-46, D-38 and D-
41. However, there is no such report on the file.
663. The agreement of sale of the companies to Maxis
was executed 26.12.2005 and it was to be effective from
30.12.2005.
664. However, the approval was granted by the Secretary
(T) on 30.06.2006, that is, after six months of the sale of the
companies. Moreover, there is no material on the record to

Page 378 of 424
indicate that Sh. S. A. Malik put up the note at the instance of
either Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or Dr. J. S. Sarma so that early
approval can be granted.
665. There is a delay of six months from the date the
agreement of sale became effective, that is, 30.12.2005. How
can an approval granted after six months of the sale of the
company can be called smooth approval. Moreover, by now
earlier objections ceased to be there. It became a query-free file.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this point also.
iv. Approval granted to take on record change of

name of promoter (of Aircel Limited), M/s Srinivas
Computers Limited to Aircel Televentures Limited
666. The allegation is that Sh. A. K. Dhar put up a note,
as already noted, on 03.11.2005 in file D-40 at 51/N, seeking
approval for change of name of promoter of Aircel Limited, M/s
Srinivas Computers Limited to M/s Aircel Televentures
Limited. It is alleged that the file was marked to Dr. J. S. Sarma
on 09.11.2005 and he approved the same on 10.11.2005.
667. The allegation in the charge sheet is that after the
execution of agreement for sale of 100% equity of Aircel
Televentures Limited in Aircel Limited was executed, there was
a change in the attitude of the two accused, that is, Dr. J. S.
Sarma and Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, towards various pending
applications of UAS licences and other proposals of Aircel
Limited, Aircel Cellular Limited and Dishnet DSL Limited. It is
alleged that thereafter, regulatory approvals became very
smooth for the companies.

Page 379 of 424
668. However, the agreement of sale was executed on
26.12.2005, which was to be effective from 30.12.2005.
669. The approval in the instant case was granted on
10.11.2005 by Dr. J. S. Sarma much before the sale. This
circumstance is thus contrary to the allegation in the charge
sheet as this happened much before the execution of the
agreement. It strikes at the very root of the charge sheet. There
is no merit in this circumstance also.
v. Allocation of start-up spectrum to Dishnet DSL

Limited in Bihar telecom circle
670. The application dated 24.05.2004 (page 96, D-35)
of Dishnet DSL Limited for allocation of start-up spectrum
4.4+4.4 MHz in Bihar service area was being processed in file
D-35. The allegation is that the file was called by Dr. J. S.
Sarma, the then Secretary (T), in January 2006 and it was put
to him by Wireless Advisor on 02.02.2006 and the same was
approved by him on 03.02.2006.
671. However, the said file was with Wireless Advisor
from 24.08.2005 to 13.01.2006. There is nothing on the file
except the oral statement of Sh. P. K. Garg. This statement is
contrary to the record as contained in the file D-35. There is no
other material on record except oral statement of Sh. P. K.
Garg.
672. This fact has already been discussed in detail while
dealing with delay in the grant of initial spectrum in Bihar
service area. The question put by Dr. J. S. Sarma related to roll
out plan of the company. While recording his note dated

Page 380 of 424
01.02.2006, at 14/N, Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg had
clearly indicated that the service provider also informed that it
has firm plans for rolling out the network. This indicates that
the query put by Dr. J. S. Sarma was satisfied by the service
provider. This also nullifies the oral statement of Sh. P. K. Garg
that the query about roll out plan put up by Dr. J. S. Sarma was
not justified. Once the query was satisfied or properly
answered, there was no reason to hold up the file. The charge
sheet also does not say as to what question or query could have
been put by Dr. J. S. Sarma. Accordingly, this circumstance also
does not have any merit.
vi. Allocation of additional spectrum to Aircel

Cellular Limited in Chennai Metro
673. As already noted, this issue was dealt with in file D-
37 from 16.02.2005 to 18.01.2006 from 1/N to 9/N.
674. The allegation is based on the fact Dr. J. S. Sarma
called for the file in the month of January 2006 and the same
was put up by the Wireless Advisor on 17.01.2006 and was
approved by the Secretary (T) on 18.01.2006. It is the
contention of the prosecution that it was smooth approval post
transfer of the company to Maxis.
675. As noted earlier, the file was with Wireless Advisor
from 23.07.2005 to 31.12.2005. The statement of the Wireless
Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg is contrary to the record. There is no
other material on the file in this regard, except the oral
statement of Sh. P. K. Garg.
676. Furthermore, on the margin of 7/N, there is a note

Page 381 of 424
in pencil of Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha dated 18.07.2005, which is as
under:
WA/ Member (T) & Secretary (T) on tour abroad.
Thus, the senior officers including Dr. J. S. Sarma
may not be knowing about this file at all, as it reached the
Wireless Advisor when they were abroad, but by oral statement
he is being blamed.
677. Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha states in his statement dated
21.11.2011 about this as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
The case has been submitted to the then DWA (V)
Sh. B. Gunasekar, who marked the file to me on
15.07.2005. I sent the file to the then WA on
23.07.2005. I had also mentioned on 18.07.2005 on
page 7/N of note, by pencil, in the side margin of the
not sheet that WA/Member (T) & Secretary (T) on
tour abroad.
As per diary No. of 1079/JWA (N) dated

25.07.2005, this file was sent to WA vide diary No.
982/WA/05 dated 25.07.2005. As per diary No.
3129/WA/05 dated 31.12.2005 the file was sent to
me which was received in my office on 03.01.2006
vide diary No. 51/JWA (N) dated 03.01.2006.
There was a white paper stapled with the note on
page 7/N mentioning Let us wait for the decision
of higher authorities on the note regarding
spectrum availability initialed by Sh. P. K. Garg,
the then WA. I also put my initial dated 03.01.2006
on stapled white paper in lower portion of page 7/N.
The case was resubmitted as desired on 13.01.2006

by Sh. Dinesh Jha, the then AWA (V). He marked
the file to the then DWA (V) Sh. Gunasekar, who put
his signature and sent the file to me on 13.01.2006.
On the same day i.e. 13.01.2006 I signed and sent

Page 382 of 424
the file to the then WA.
On page 9/N of the note sheet, a case was initiated

by Wireless Adviser himself on 17.01.2006 for
allocation of addition GSM spectrum 1.8 + 1.8 MHz
in 1800 MHz (out of the available spectrum), to M/s
Aircel Cellular Ltd. for Chennai Metro mentioning
in the note that M/s Aircel Ltd. had reached a
subscriber base of 6.54 lakh in Chennai in end
December 2005 as per COAI figures. Thus, they
meet the criteria (5 lakh subscribers) for getting 1.8
MHz of additional GSM spectrum, beyond 6.2+6.2
MHz. The proposal by Sh. Garg for allotment of
1.8+1.8 MHz spectrum in 1800 MHz GSM band to
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. for Chennai was approved
on 18.01.2006 by the then Secretary (T) Sh. J. S.
Sarma. Accordingly, the earmarking letter for the
additional GSM spectrum to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd.
for Chennai Metro was issued by the then AWA (V)
Sh. D. Jha on 20.01.2006.
...........................................................................
678. Thus, the day the file was marked to the Wireless
Advisor, the three senior officers were not in India and, as such,
the Secretary (T) may not be knowing about this file at all.
Wireless Advisor, by making oral statement contrary to record,
is trying to shift the blame to Secretary (T), though he himself
sat on the file. Once the file was marked to Secretary (T) on
17.01.2006 by the Wireless Advisor, on what ground he could
have withheld the same. The charge sheet is silent on this point.
In the processing of this file in its entirety, there is no
interference either by the Minister or Secretary (T). Once the
file reached Dr. J. S. Sarma, he had no option but to approve it
as it was a query-free file. I do not find any objection recorded
anywhere by anyone, except by Sh. P. K. Garg himself when he

Page 383 of 424
noted on 31.12.2005 that the decision of higher authorities
regarding spectrum availability be awaited. Accordingly, this
approval does not indicate anything incriminatory against the
accused. Accordingly, there is no merit in this circumstance
also.
vii. No query/ objection was raised by Sh. D. Maran,

the then MOC&IT to the proposal of foreign
investment of M/s Global Communication Services
Holdings Limited, Mauritius, in Aircel Limited
(D-39)
679. The proposal for approval of foreign investment of
Global Communication Services Holdings Limited was
processed in D-39. In the first note, it was recorded by Sh. J. B.
Dobhal on 16.02.2006, at 2/N, that FIPB, DEA, has forwarded
the proposal of foreign investment of M/s Global
Communication Services Holdings Limited, Mauritius, seeking
approval for enhancing its direct and indirect investment in
Aircel Limited from 26% to 73.99% and had requested for the
comments of DoT on the proposal. He marked the file to DDG
(IP).
680. This was processed again by Sh. N. P. Singh, DDG
(IP), who supported the proposal vide his note dated
24.02.2006, at 4/N, and marked the file to Joint Secretary (T).
Sh. M. S. Sahu, Joint Secretary (T), also supported the
proposal vide his note dated 01.03.2006 at 6/N and marked the
file to Additional Secretary (T). He (AS (T)) put up a question
regarding management control issues and marked the file again

Page 384 of 424
to Joint Secretary (T)/ DDG (IP). Sh. N. P. Singh, DDG (IP),
again recorded a note on 04.03.2006 at 7/N, clarifying the
issue and seeking support for the proposal and again marked
the file to JS (T), who agreed to the same and marked the file to
AS (T). AS (T) recorded his note on the same day, that is,
04.03.2006, 7/N, supporting the proposal and marked the file
Secretary (T), who also agreed to it on the same day and
marked the file to MOC&IT.
MOC&IT Sh. Dayanidhi Maran granted his approval on
06.03.2006 at 7/N.
A bare perusal of this file shows that it is also a query-
free/ objection-free file. No objections were raised by any
officer at any level from Section Officer to Secretary (T).
681. The case of the prosecution is that no query was
raised by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, though earlier he was raising
queries when change of equity was sought by Sh. C.
Sivasankaran in the month of August 2004.
682. Now the question is: How anyone can be expected
to put a query in an environment when nothing is faulted or
objected to by anyone from any quarter? It may be noted that
the proposal put forward by Sh. C. Sivasankaran regarding
transfer of equity to Aircel Digilink India Limited was in
violation of licence agreement as far as Chennai service area
was concerned and the equity structure of Aircel Digilink India
Limited was not clear to the department as far as Tamil Nadu
service area was concerned. As such, there is no comparison
between the two issues. The allegation, as such, is wholly
unfounded and baseless. Accordingly, there is no merit in this

Page 385 of 424
also.
viii. Dilution of Terms of Reference (ToRs)

683. The allegation of the prosecution is that in
November 2005, a Group of Ministers (GoM) was constituted
by the Prime Minister for looking into the issues relating to
allocation of spectrum to mobile operators. It is further alleged
that proposed terms of reference (ToRs) of the GoM included
spectrum pricing policy and spectrum allocation policy and this
was approved by the PMO on 14.02.2006. However, Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran wrote DO letter dated 16.11.2006 to the
Prime Minister asking for exclusion of spectrum pricing from
ToRs and this was approved. It is alleged that this was got done
by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to help Maxis Communication in the
allocation of spectrum.
684. PW 9 Sh. P. K. Garg has stated about constitution of
GoM and its terms of reference in his statement dated
24.05.2012. He states that he had proposed terms of reference
for the GoM, which included spectrum pricing and its
allocation. Planning Commission also suggested inclusion of
spectrum pricing in the terms of reference in its letter dated
10.01.2006. He further states that late Dr. J. S. Sarma wanted
their exclusion. Thereafter, Dayanidhi Maran also wrote a letter
dated 11.01.2006 to the PM. Subsequently, correspondence
continued between PMO, Cabinet Secretariat and DoT.
However, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran again wrote a letter dated
28.02.2006 to the PM. Sh. Dayanidhi Maran again wrote a
letter dated 16.11.2006 to the PM, in which the thrust was on

Page 386 of 424
vacation of spectrum.
685. He further states at page 13 that Ministry of Finance
wanted issue of spectrum pricing to be retained in the ToRs for
the GoM while Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT, was
insisting that it was the normal work of DoT and should be
excluded from the ToRs. He further states at page 15 that
spectrum pricing is a dynamic issue depending on number of
factors, hence spectrum pricing is part of day-to-day functions
of WPC.
686. In his statement dated 24.05.2012, running into 26
pages, he has given detailed narration of the constitution of
GoM and its terms of reference. However, it all appears to be
about official correspondence in which MOC&IT, Planning
Commission, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of
Finance, Cabinet Secretariat and PMO were involved. In his
entire statement, I do not find anything, which may indicate
anything wrong in the Minister making efforts to have
spectrum pricing policy within his domain on the ground that it
was part of normal work of DoT.
687. There is no material to indicate any mala fide
intention of the Minister in this regard except that he was
making efforts to retain spectrum pricing within his area of
responsibility.
688. However, subsequent to the modification of ToRs,
Minister had allocated the spectrum in Kolkata service area and
additional spectrum beyond 8.8 MHz in Chennai service area.
The same is discussed below to find out if there is any mala fide
by the Minister by giving benefit to Maxis in the allocation of

Page 387 of 424
spectrum.
Kolkata service area (initial spectrum): Post-Maxis

events (D-50)
689. The allocation of initial spectrum to Dishnet
Wireless Limited in Kolkata service are was dealt with in file D-
50 (Main case).
690. Allocation of initial spectrum to Dishnet Wireless
Limited in Kolkata service area was approved to be allocated on
05.04.2007 at 6/N in D-50. The relevant note sheet is dated
04.04.2007 recorded by Sh. D. Jha, which is as under:
PUC is a request for initial GSM 1800 MHz
spectrum of 4.4+4.4 MHz under UASL from M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. (5th operator) in Kolkata
Metro telecom service area. Recently they had
signed UASL Licence Agreement with DOT and
applied for initial spectrum.
2. M/s Dishnet have stated in their recent letter

that they have cellular GSM service in West Bengal
but they do not have GSM spectrum in Kolkata
Metro. Kolkata being state capital, there is lot of
movement of subscribers between West Bengal and
Kolkata. So, M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. are unable
to provide single rate facility (without roaming
charges) to their customers. Other service providers
have their services both in West Bengal and Kolkata
Metro. Hence, they have requested for early
allotment of spectrum for Kolkata Metro service
area.
3. Another request for additional spectrum 2+2

MHz beyond 8+8 MHz is also pending i.r.o. M/s
Bharti Airtel Ltd., vide their application dated
04.12.2006. However, due to some ambiguity in
their subscriber data, it is being verified.

Page 388 of 424
3.1 The request of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. for
additional spectrum, as per eligibility criteria, will
be considered after verification of their subscriber
data and traffic.
4. The GSM spectrum of 5+5 MHz is available in

1800 MHz band for Kolkata Metro area. We may
consider the request of M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
and earmark 4.4+4.4 MHz GSM spectrum in 1800
MHz band as per their service licence condition.
Submitted for kind consideration.
691. He marked the file upward and it was agreed to by

Wireless Advisor and Member (T). The file reached Secretary
(T) Sh. D. S. Mathur, who approved it on 05.04.2007.
692. Four witnesses have been examined on this point,
namely, Sh. D. Jha; Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless Advisor; Sh. K.
Sridhara, Member (T); and the then Secretary (T) Sh. D. S.
Mathur. The relevant parts of their statements are as under:
693. Sh. D Jha, PW 16, in his statement dated
22.01.2013, at pages 2 and 3, states as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. vide their letter dated
03/04/2007 (at page 117) requested Wireless
Advisor to allocate 4.4.+ 4.4 MHz in Kolkata Metro
Circle which will facilitate them a single rate across
West Bengal and Kolkata Telecom Circle (without
roaming charges). He actually discussed the matter
with Sh. B. Gunasekhar, the then DWA (V) who then
asked me to put up the file for startup spectrum for
M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. immediately.
Accordingly, on 04/04/2007, I put up the case of
allocating 4.4 +4.4 MHz. initial spectrum to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. which was concurred by Sh.

Page 389 of 424
B. Gunashekhar, the then DWA (V), Sh. P.K. Garg,
the then WA, Sh. K. Shridhara, Member (T). Sh.
D.S. Mathur, the then Secretary (T) while approving
the case on 05/04/2007 mentioned that it was
discussed with Honble MOC & IT.
On being asked I state that I am of the opinion that

since the case of M/s Bharti Airtels claim for
additional spectrum was still under consideration
subject to verification, their interest should be
protected while allocating spectrum to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. which was not done on that date.
The representatives from TEC and WPC wing jointly

verified the data of Bharti, BSNL and Hutch for
additional spectrum and submitted the report on
23/04/2007. The case for allocating additional
cumulative spectrum of 2+2 MHz (0.6+0.6 MHz
from coordinated spectrum and 1.4+1.4 MHz on
trial basis) to M/s Bharti was put up by me on
08/05/2007. The case was approved by DWA (V),
JWA (F) and WA. However, the then Member (T)
Sh. K. Shridhara returned the case with the remarks
please discuss to WA who discussed the matter on
10/05/2007.
In this case, on being asked I am of the opinion that

since the claim of M/s Bharti was entirely in order
after the verification of their subscriber and traffic
data, it should have been approved.
On 03/07/2007, the case was again submitted by

me for allocating additional spectrum to M/s Bharti
which was approved by the then DWA (V), JWA (L),
WA, Member (T), Secretary (T). However, the case
was not approved by MoC & IT with comments that
MoC & IT has desired that the file may be
submitted after policy for additional spectrum is
reviewed.
694. PW 9 Sh. Pawan Kumar Garg, Wireless Advisor, in

Page 390 of 424
his statement dated 22.10.2012, page 2, states as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
On being asked I state that M/s Dishnet Wireless
Ltd. sent other request letters dated 19.02.2007 and
21.03.2007 requesting for allocation of startup
spectrum in Kolkata telecom circle. M/s Dishnet
again sent a request letter dated 03.04.2007
wherein it was stressed that as a result of services
not being available in Kolkata, their subscribers
were not able to avail the facility of single rate
(without roaming charges). This request letter
dated 03.04.2007 was processed in the above
referred file by Sh. D. Jha on 04.04.2007. Sh. D.
Jha, recommended for allocation of startup
spectrum of 4.4+4.4 MHz in 1800 MHz to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Kolkata metro area. Sh. D.
Jha also noted that the request of M/s Bharti Airtel
Ltd. for allocation of additional spectrum, as per
eligibility criteria, would be considered after
verification of their subscriber data and traffic, for
which there was some ambiguity. He marked the file
to Sh. B. Gunasekar, who signed the notesheet on
04.04.2007 and sent the file to me on the same day
as Sh. Kushwaha, the then JWA was on leave. I also
signed the notesheet and sent the file to Sh. K.
Sridhara, the then Member (T), who also signed the
notesheet and sent the file to Sh. D.S. Mathur, the
then Secretary (T). Sh. D.S. Mathur, the then
Secretary (T) approved the allocation of startup
spectrum of 4.4 MHz in 1800 MHz in Kolkata metro
to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. On 05.04.2007, Sh.
Mathur noted that this was discussed with Honble
MoC&IT.
..................................................................................
..............................................
695. Sh. K. Sridhara, PW 56, has stated in his statement

that no undue favour was shown to Dishnet in the matter of
allocation of start-up spectrum in Kolkata metro service area.

Page 391 of 424
The relevant part of his statement is as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
Now, I state that today I have been shown a copy of
file of WPC bearing No.L-14047/16/2006-NTG
(marked as D-50) and state that Sh. D. Jha, the then
Assistant Wireless Advisor (V) initiated a note vide
2/N on 21.12.2006. M/s Bharti had applied for
earmarking of additional spectrum beyond 8+8
MHz in Kolkata circle vide letter dated
14/17.11.2006. Sh. D. Jha the then AWA, after
examining the application noted vide note dated
04.01.2007 that Bharti had submitted
contradictory figures in respect of traffic data dated
01.11.2006.(vide their letter dated 14.11.2006 and
04.12.2006). Therefore, it was proposed that TEC
may be requested to verify the data physically from
their NMS (Network Management System). M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. had also applied for
earmarking of startup spectrum 4.4 MHz in Kolkata
metro circle vide letter dated 18/19.12.2006.
Sh. D. Jha vide his note dated 04.04.2007, reported
that due to some ambiguity in the subscriber data of
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. the request for allocation of
additional spectrum 2+2 MHz beyond 8+8 MHz is
pending. He recommended for allocation of startup
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Kolkata metro area. He
marked the file to Sh. B. Gunasekar, who signed the
notesheet on 04.04.2007 and sent the file to Sh. P.
K. Garg on the same day as Sh. Kushwaha, the then
JWA was on leave. Sh. P. K. Garg also signed the
notesheet and sent the file to me. I considered and
concurred with the recommendation of Sh. D. Jha
and sent the file to Sh. D.S. Mathur, the then
Secretary (T). Sh. D.S. Mathur, the then Secretary
(T) approved the allocation of startup spectrum of
4.4 MHz in 1800 MHz in Kolkata metro to M/s
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. On 05.04.2007, Sh. Mathur
noted that this was discussed with Honble MoC&IT.
From the above it is evident that no undue favour

Page 392 of 424
was shown to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in the
matter of allocation of start-up spectrum in Kolkata
Metro circle.
696. Sh. D. S. Mathur, PW 13, states on this point as

under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
Now, I state that today I have been shown a copy of
file of WPC bearing No.L-14047/16/2006-NTG
(marked as D-50) and state that Sh. D. Jha, the then
Assistant Wireless Advisor (V) initiated a note vide
2/N on 21.12.2006. M/s Bharti had applied for
earmarking of additional spectrum beyond 8+8
MHz in Kolkata circle vide letter dated
14/17.11.2006. Sh. D. Jha the then AWA, after
examining the application noted vide note dated
04.01.2007 that Bharti had submitted contradictory
figures in respect of traffic data dated 01.11.2006
(vide their letter dated 14.11.2006 and 04.12.2006).
Therefore, it was proposed that TEC may be
requested to verify the data physically from their
NMS (Network Management System). M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd. had also applied for earmarking of
startup spectrum 4.4 MHz in Kolkata metro circle
vide letter dated 18/19.12.2006.
Sh. D. Jha vide his note dated 04.04.2007, reported
that due to some ambiguity in the subscriber data of
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. the request for allocation of
additional spectrum 2+2 MHz beyond 8+8 MHz is
pending. He recommended for allocation of startup
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Kolkata metro area.
Here it is clarified that due to ambiguity in the
figures/data submitted by M/s Bharti, the case for
allocation of additional spectrum was not
considered. He marked the file to Sh. B. Gunasekar,
who signed the notesheet on 04.04.2007 and sent
the file to Sh. P. K. Garg on the same day as Sh.
Kushwaha, the then JWA was on leave. Sh. P. K.

Page 393 of 424
Garg also signed the notesheet and sent the file to
Sh. K. Sridhara, the then Member (T), who
considered and concurred with the recommendation
of Sh. D. Jha and sent the file to me. I approved the
allocation of startup spectrum of 4.4 MHz in 1800
MHz in Kolkata metro to M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
on 05.04.2007. In fact, before approving the
allocation of startup spectrum to M/s Dishnet
Wireless Ltd., I alongwith Sh. K. Sridhara, Member
(T), Sh. P.K. Garg, Wireless Advisor discussed the
matter with Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then
MoC&IT. Sh. K. Sridhara explained and apprised
the Minister about the facts of both the applicants.
During discussion it was decided to allocate startup
spectrum i.e. 4.4+4.4 MHz in 1800 MHz band to
Dishnet Wireless Ltd. in Kolkata metro telecom
service. Accordingly, I approved the same on
05.04.2007 on the file and also noted about the
discussion which took place with the then MoC&IT.
..................................................................................
...........................................................
697. Perusal of the entire record shows that PW 9 Sh. P.

K. Garg, PW 56 Sh. K. Sridhara and PW 13 Sh. D. S. Mathur
have stated that the spectrum was allocated to Dishnet correctly
on the recommendation of Sh. D. Jha. Sh. K. Sridhara has
specifically stated that no undue favour was shown to Dishnet
Wireless Limited.
698. Only Sh. D. Jha has stated that the interest of Bharti
Airtel Limited should have been protected. He opined that
claim of Bharti was entirely in order. However, this is contrary
to the note sheet recorded by him on 04.04.2007. He had
specifically recorded in para 4 that:
We may consider the request of Dishnet Wireless
Limited and earmark 4.4+4.4 MHz GSM spectrum
in 1800 MHz band as per their service licence

Page 394 of 424
condition.
699. In this allocation of spectrum to Dishnet Wireless

Limited, post-acquisition by Maxis, no mala fide intention can
be attributed to anyone including the Minister.
Grant of additional spectrum beyond 8.8 MHz to Dishnet in

Chennai (D-37)
700. The issue of additional spectrum beyond 8.8 MHz
in Chennai service area was dealt with in file D-37, page 10/N
onwards.
701. The note dated 14.07.2006, 10/N, of Sh. D. Jha,
Assistant Wireless Advisor (V) reads as under:
The case relates to requests from M/s Aircel
Cellular Ltd. and M/s Bharti for earmarking of
additional spectrum beyond 8+8 MHz in 1800 MHz
band in Chennai Metro. All GSM service providers
have 8+8 MHz GSM spectrum earmarked in
Chennai Metro service area.
2. JCES had coordinated 15+15 MHz spectrum

in 1800 MHz band out of which only 1.4+1.4
MHz GSM spectrum is available. The status of
spectrum availability in Chennai Metro is placed
below.
3. Both M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s
Bharti have submitted active subscribers (VLR)
data) as well as peak traffic averaged over a month.
Both of them are meeting the criteria of active
subscribers as well as peak traffic averaged over a
month. M/s Aircel has average VLR figure 6,00,848
for the month of April 2006 whereas M/s Bharti has
VLR figure of 6,30,896 for a month from 12.05.06
to 11.06.06. Both have peak traffic meeting the
criteria. It is not clear who has met the criteria first
since M/s Bharti has not submitted the VLR data for

Page 395 of 424
the month of April 06.
4. In view of the above, the case is submitted

for kind consideration of GSM spectrum earmarking
between the two eligible operators.
702. The file was marked to DWA (T), who recorded note
dated 17.07.2006, 10/N, which is as under:
1. Out of Spectrum coordinated for Chennai,
only 1.4 MHz is available for allocation.
2. Both M/s Aircel & M/s Airtel have met the
criteria for allotment beyond 8 MHz.
Submitted for advise.
703. The file was then marked to JWA Sh. R. J. S.

Kushvaha, who recorded note dated 20.07.2006, 10/N, which is
as under:
For further direction in the matter, so that case
could be processed accordingly.
704. Thereafter, the file reached Wireless Advisor Sh. P.

K. Garg, who asked Joint Wireless Advisor to speak to him and
after speaking, he recorded note dated 22.07.2006, 10/N,
Discussed. We may seek clarification regarding
peak radio traffic V/s peak traffic (switch) from
Aircell.
705. Thereafter, DWA (T) Sh. D. Jha recorded note dated

25.07.2006, 10/N, as under:
We may seek clarification as per draft placed below.
706. Thereafter, through proper channel, the file again

Page 396 of 424
reached DWA Sh. D. Jha, who recorded note dated 18.08.2006,
11/N, which reads as under:
With reference to minutes of WA on prepage the
clarification was obtained from M/s Aircell. They
have clarified that Peak Hour Radio Traffic is the
sum of traffic in each cell during its peak hour and
as such has stated that peak hour radio traffic
should be taken as total traffic. With this
clarification, they meet the criteria for additional
spectrum.
M/s Bharti has also submitted the VLR and
peak traffic data for the month of March-April 06
and meet the criteria.
In view of the above, the case is resubmitted
for consideration please.
707. The file was marked to JWA Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha,

who recorded on 25.08.2006, 11/N, as under:
The clarification provided by M/s Aircel indicates
average peak hour traffic as 21,403 and average
peak hour radio traffic as 24879. It may be recalled
that as per order of 29 March, 2006, peak hour
traffic averaged over a month is required alongwith
subscriber base in VLR.
2. Besides requirement of M/s Aircel 'X' above is
also for kind consideration.
708. Thereafter, the file was marked to Wireless Advisor

Sh. P. K. Garg, who recorded a note dated 29.09.2006, 12/N,
The case relates to allotment of GSM spectrum
beyond 8 MHz (paired) for M/s Bharti Enterprises
Ltd. in Chennai Metro telecom service area.
They have reportedly crossed the active

subscriber base (VLR) of 6 Lakh and peak traffic of
24,000 Erlangs, required for allotment of 2 MHz

Page 397 of 424
(paired) spectrum beyond 8 MHz in Chennai Metro
telecom service area.
Incidentally, there was another request from

M/s Aircell, Chennai for additional spectrum
beyond 8 MHz (paired). However, as per their
recent clarification, their peak traffic, averaged over
a month, does not meet the criteria of 24,000
Erlangs. Hence, their request can not be acceded to
at present.
Coordinated spectrum of 1.4 MHz (paired) in

1800 MHz band is available in Chennai area. Hence,
the allotment of available 1.4 MHz (paired) in 1800
MHz GSM band (beyond 8 MHz paired) to M/s
Bharti Cellular Ltd is being made for Chennai Metro
service area as per the request of the service
provider.
For kind perusal.
709. Thereafter, file was marked to Member (T), who

recorded note dated 04.10.2006, 12/N, as under:
As discussed pl. confirm that traffic figures of M/s
Airtel also refer to Av TCBH.
710. The file again reached Assistant Wirless Advisor Sh.

D. Jha, who recorded a note dated 03.11.2006, 13/N, which
reads as under:
With reference to minutes of Member (T) on
prepage:
The clarifications were obtained from M/s
Bharti Airtel and their reply is placed at S.No.27 (R).
They have stated that the subscriber and traffic
figures submitted vide their letters dated
13.06.2006 and 11.07.2006 were as per WPC Order
dated 29.03.2006 for allotment of additional
spectrum. However, vide their letter dated

Page 398 of 424
27.10.2006, they have submitted required data for
the month of Sept 2006 and accordingly their
subscribers (VLR) figures and Peak Traffic in
Earlangs (from NMS) (TCBH at 19:00-20:00 Hrs)
are respectively 7,57,761 and 28,564 respectively.
2. Meanwhile M/s Aircel has also submitted their

claim for additional spectrum beyond 8+8 MHz vide
their letter dated 11.10.2006 addressed to
Chairman, Telecom Commission and Secretary (T).
Their subscribers (VLR) figures and Peak Traffic in
Earlangs during TCBH are respectively 6,99,064
and 26,729 respectively for the month of Sept. 2006.
3. It may be mentioned here that only 1.4+1.4

MHz GSM spectrum in 1800 MHz band is
available in Chennai Metro service area and both
M/s Bharti Airtel and M/s Aircel has 8+8 MHz
spectrum assigned in the service area and they meet
the criteria for GSM spectrum upto 10+10 MHz as
per their subscriber data of Sept. 2006.
The case is submitted please.
711. The file again reached JWA Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha,

who recorded note dated 03.11.2006, 13/N, which reads as
under:
Adequate spectrum is not available to meet the
requirements of both operators. It is for kind
consideration whether available spectrum (i.e.
1.4+1.4 MHz) could be divided (say 3 carriers each)
between both the operators?
712. He marked the file upward and when the file

reached Member (T), he asked for a discussion on 07.11.2006
and after discussing the matter, recorded the note dated
08.11.2006, which reads as under:

Page 399 of 424
Discussed. 'X' proposed above may kindly be
approved.
713. 'X' here refers to note of Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha

recommending equal division of spectrum.
714. He marked the file to the Secretary (T), who
approved it on 13.11.2006.
715. Thus, the spectrum was recommended to be equally
divided between Bharti and Aircel and the same was approved
by the Secretary.
716. Sh K. Sridhara, PW 56, states in his statement dated
07.11.2012 at page 2 as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
The above referred letters of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.
and M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. were processed in the
above referred file by Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA on
03.11.2006. The file was put up to me by Sh. Ashok
Kumar, the then JWA (F) on 07.11.2006. I sent
back the file to Sh. P.K. Garg, Wireless Advisor
directing to have a discussion on the subject. I
discussed the matter with Sh. P.K. Garg. During
discussion I remember that I was informed that
1.4+1.4 MHz spectrum in 1800 MHz band is
available in Chennai Metro and both operators are
eligible and they need badly to improve the
network, it was decided that we distribute the
spectrum of 1.4 equitably between the two operators
i.e. three carrier each operator. In fact, it was
earlier suggested by Sh. R.N. Kushwaha, the then
JWA (N) on 03.10.2006. I sent the file to Sh. D.S.
Mathur, the then Secretary (T) who approved for
allocation of three carriers each to both operators
on 13.11.2006.
From the above, it is evident that no favour
was shown to M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. in the
matter of grant of additional spectrum

Page 400 of 424
beyond 8 MHz in Chennai Metro Circle.
...............................................................................
.....................................................
717. Sh. D. S. Mathur, PW 13, states in his statement

dated 06.12.2012 as under:
....................................................................................
...............................................................................
Now, I have been shown one original file of WPC
Wing bearing No.L-14043/3/2005-NTG and state
that a copy of order dated 29.03.2006 issued under
the signature of Sh. Sukhpal Singh, Assistant
Wireless Advisor is available at 2/C of the above
referred file. This order relates to subscriber base
criteria for allotment of GSM spectrum. This order
is self explanatory. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. had
applied to Wireless Advisor, WPC Wing for
allocation of additional spectrum of 2.0 MHz
beyond 8 MHz in GSM 1800 MHz band for use in
Chennai Metro. The said request letter dated
22.04.2006 of M/s ACL was received in WPC Wing
on 26.04.2006 and processed in the above referred
file.
On the other hand M/s Bharti had also applied to
Wireless Advisor, WPC Wing for allocation of
additional spectrum of 2 MHz beyond 8 MHz for
use in Chennai Metro. The said request letter dated
13.06.2006 was received in WPC Wing on
14.06.2006.
Sh. D. Jha, the then Assistant Wireless Advisor (V)
examined the above referred two applications and
put up a note on 14.07.2006 wherein inter alia he
has recommended/noted as under:-
1. JCES had recommended 15+15 MHz spectrum
in 1800 MHz band out of which only 1.4+1.4 MHz
GSM spectrum is available in Chennai metro.
2. Both M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s Bharti
are meeting the criteria of active subscribers as well
as peak traffic average over a month.
3. M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. has average VLR

Page 401 of 424
figure 6,00,848 for the month of April, 2006
whereas M/s Bharti has VLR figure of 6,30,896 for
a month from 12.05.2006 to 11.06.2006.
From the above it is evident that M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd. met the criteria first for allotment of additional
spectrum beyond 8 MHz in Chennai metro service
area because it had reached the criteria in the
month of April, 2006 whereas M/s Bharti had
reached the criteria subsequently during 12.05.2006
to 11.06.2006.
It is not clear as to under what circumstances Sh. D.
Jha noted that it was not clear who met the criteria
first. It appears that on the basis of April, 2006
data, Aircel Cellular Ltd. had qualified for allotment
of additional spectrum in Chennai metro.
On being asked I state that on 29.09.2006, Sh. P. K.
Garg, the then WA had recommended for allotment
of 1.4 MHz (paired) in 1800 MHz GSM band
(beyond 8 MHz paired) to M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd.
for Chennai Metro service area. Here Sh. P.K. Garg
had also mentioned that coordinated spectrum for
1.4 MHz (paired) in 1800 MHz band is available in
Chennai area. Hence, in place of 2 MHz (paired),
Sh. P. K. Garg recommended for allocation of 1.4
MHz (paired) to M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. in Chennai
Metro. In fact, Sh. P. K. Garg in his note dated
29.09.2006 had mentioned that M/s Aircel does not
meet the criteria of their peak traffic, average over a
month. On the other hand he did not mention the
same fact in respect of M/s Airtel. He mentioned
about the peak traffic only.
Meanwhile, one another request letter dated
11.10.2006 was received from M/s Aircel Cellular
Ltd. requesting for allocation of additional spectrum
of 2 MHz beyond 8 MHz in Chennai Metro.
On being asked I state that the above referred file
was put up before me for the first time by Sh. K.
Sridhara, the then Member (T) on 08.11.2006. He
had concurred with the recommendation with Sh.
Kushwaha, the then JWA (N) who had
recommended for equal division of available
spectrum among M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s

Page 402 of 424
Bharti. The said file remained with me during the
period from 08.11.2006 to 13.11.2006 when I
approved the allocation of additional spectrum to
M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and M/s Bharti as
recommended by Sh. K. Sridhara, the then Member
(T).
Here it is clarified that I alongwith Sh. K. Sridhara,
Member (T) and officers of the WPC namely Sh.
Kushwaha had discussed the matter with Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran, the then MoC&IT. He was
apprised of the fact that M/s Aircel Cellular Ltd. and
M/s Bharti meet the eligibility criteria for allotment
of additional spectrum beyond 8 MHz in Chennai
metro as per the data available for the month of
September, 2006. He concurred with the
recommendation of WPC Wing and Member (T)
and accordingly I had approved the allocation of
additional spectrum.
On being asked I state that Wireless Advisor was
competent to grant spectrum to new licencees and
additional spectrum grant cases were through the
Secretary (T) brought to the notice of the Minister
of the department. Therefore, this case of equal
division of spectrum between Bharti Airtel and
Aircel was brought to the notice of the Minister and
after that approval was recorded on the file by me.
This was the understanding in the department since
long that additional spectrum allocation cases
would be brought to the notice of the Minister.
718. Sh. D. S. Mathur and Sh. K. Sridhara have stated

that spectrum was allocated to both the operators after
discussion and on the recommendation of Sh. R. J. S.
Kushvaha. Sh. K. Sridhara is quite categorical in his statement
to the effect that no undue favour was shown to Aircel Cellular
Limited.
719. Sh. D. S. Mathur has faulted Sh. P. K. Garg on this
point regarding his note dated 20.09.2006 on the ground that

Page 403 of 424
Sh. P. K. Garg had recorded that Aircel does not meet the
criteria of their peak traffic, averaged over a month, but he did
not mention this fact in respect of Airtel. This also indicates as
to how WPC Wing works. It can deny grant of spectrum by
putting any unwarranted question. It also reflects on the
working of Sh. P. K. Garg.
720. Sh. D. Jha, who has been examined as PW 16, in his
four statements has not stated anything on this point. I also
could not find anything in this regard in the statements of Sh.
P. K. Garg and Sh. R. J. S. Kushvaha.
721. From the above material, no mala fide can be
attributed to anyone including the Minister.
722. Hence, there is no material on record to indicate
that the terms of reference were got changed by Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran with mala fide intention to help Maxis.
Post-Maran Events imputed to Maran (D-50)

723. As per charge sheet, accused Dayanidhi Maran was
MOC&IT fro, 26.05.2004 to 17.05.2007.
724. However, it is quite interesting to take a look of the
statement of Sh. D. S. Mathur dated 06.12.2012, page 4, which
reads as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
On 03.07.2007 Sh. D. Jha, the then AWA (V)
initiated a note recommending for earmarking of
additional spectrum of 0.6+0.6 MHz on regular
basis and 1.4+1.4 MHz on trial basis to M/s Bharti
in Kolkata metro. This proposal was concurred by
Sh. Kushwaha, JWA, Sh. P. K. Garg, Wireless
Advisor and Sh. K. Sridhara, Member (T). I also

Page 404 of 424
concurred and recommended for the same on
05.07.2007 and sent the file to the office of
MoC&IT. However, the proposal was not approved
by Sh. D. Maran, the then MoC&IT and the said file
was returned by the office of MoC&IT to me on
14.08.2007 mentioning that 'MoC&IT has desired
that file may be resubmitted after the policy for
allotment of additional spectrum is (not legible)'.
On being asked I state that I do not remember
if the policy for allotment of additional spectrum
was under review/ consideration at that point of
time.
725. Sh. Dayanidhi Maran ceased to be the Minister on

17.05.2007, but the events of August 2007 are also being
imputed to him.
726. Similarly, PW 16 Sh. D. Jha in his statement dated
22.01.2013, page 3, states as under:
....................................................................................
................................................................................
The representatives from TEC and WPC wing jointly
verified the data of Bharti, BSNL and Hutch for
additional spectrum and submitted the report on
23/04/2007. The case for allocating additional
cumulative spectrum of 2+2 MHz (0.6+0.6 MHz
from coordinated spectrum and 1.4+1.4 MHz on
trial basis) to M/s Bharti was put up by me on
08/05/2007. The case was approved by DWA (V),
JWA (F) and WA. However, the then Member (T)
Sh. K. Sridhara returned the case with the remarks
please discuss to WA who discussed the matter on
10/05/2007.
In this case, on being asked I am of the
opinion that since the claim of M/s Bharti was
entirely in order after the verification of their
subscriber and traffic data, it should have been
approved.
On 03/07/2007, the case was again submitted
by me for allocating additional spectrum to M/s

Page 405 of 424
Bharti which was approved by the then DWA (V),
JWA (L), WA, Member (T), Secretary (T). However,
the case was not approved by MoC & IT with
comments that MoC &IT has desired that the file
may be submitted after policy for additional
spectrum is reviewed.
727. Thus, the two witnesses have been made to say

things against accused when he was no longer in the office.
This file was returned by the then MOC&IT on 14.08.2007. This
shows the anxiety of the investigating officer to somehow
implicate the accused.
728. Thus, the conclusion is that after withdrawal of the
application for transfer of Chennai and Tamil Nadu licence to
Aircel Digilink India Limiter and further post-acquisition of
Aircel Limited by Maxis, the issues had become from simple.
The aforesaid approvals cannot by any stretch of imagination
be considered as smooth or granted for extraneous reasons. The
charge sheet does not mention anywhere as to how these
approvals could have been refused by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or
Dr. J. S. Sarma, post-acquisition by Maxis, more so, when the
issues raised by the Minister no longer survived for the reasons
already noted above.
D. Receiving of illegal gratification in the garb of share

premium in M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Limited promoted
by Sh. Kalanithi Maran, brother of Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran, the then MOC&IT, from M/s South Asia
Entertainment Holdings Limited, Mauritius, (100%
subsidiary of M/s Astro All Asia Networks of Plc., UK).

Page 406 of 424
Advocate/ Spl. PP, that by delaying the grant of new UAS
licences to Dishnet DSL Limited and withholding various
regulatory approvals to Aircel Limited, Aircel Cellular Limited
and Dishnet DSL Limited, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran forced the exit
of these companies from the telecom sector resulting into the
sale of the companies to Maxis. It is further submitted that
when the companies were sold to Maxis, grant of new licences
and other regulatory approvals were smoothly done by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran. It is further submitted that as quid pro quo
for these actions of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, an amount of Rs. 549
crore was invested by Maxis through its subsidiary Astro All
Asia Network in South Asia FM Limited. It is further submitted
that further a sum of Rs. 193 crore was invested through other
subsidiaries, namely, AH Multisoft Limited and South Asia
Multimedia Technologies Limited in South Asia FM Limited. It
is further submitted that Sun Direct TV (P) Limited and South
Asia FM Limited are the companies promoted by Sh. Kalanithi
Maran, who is real brother of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is further
submitted that there was no reason for Maxis to invest in these
two companies, except for the delaying tactics and subsequent
smooth approvals by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is repeatedly
submitted by him that these two investments are nothing but
blatant acts of corruption. My attention has been invited to the
various documents showing the flow of money. My attention
has also been invited to the three valuation reports, that is,
ENAM Securities (P) Limited, BOB Capital Markets Limited
and Tata Sky Limited. It is repeatedly emphasized by him that

Page 407 of 424
there is enough material on the record to indicate that the
alleged investment was nothing but bribe and bribe alone.
730. In the end, he has repeatedly emphasized that there
is enough incriminating material on record warranting framing
of charge against the accused. My attention has been invited to
the relevant case law and legal provisions. It is emphatically
submitted by him that at this stage only a prima facie view is
required to be taken and the case of the prosecution is
presumed to be true.
731. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for defence that there is absolutely no material on
record to indicate that aforesaid investment was in any way
linked to the alleged acts of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran. It is
repeatedly submitted that the case of the prosecution is not
only speculative, but is wholly based on presumptions and
assumptions. It is the case of the defence that there is no legally
admissible evidence on record in this regard. During long
winding arguments, it has been the case of the defence that the
valuation reports cited in support of the investment being a
bribe carry no value in the eyes of law as the same are based on
various assumptions and presumptions, which cannot be legally
proved. It is repeatedly submitted that the three valuation
reports carry no value in the eyes of law and, as such, are
meaningless. My attention has been invited to various
documents, statements and legal provisions for emphasizing
that there is no incriminating material on record warranting
framing of charge. It is repeatedly submitted that the entire
case is just a figment of imagination, simply for the reason that

Page 408 of 424
investment has been made in the companies incorporated by
the brother of Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, the then MOC&IT. It is
repeatedly submitted that since there is no legally admissible
evidence on record, all accused may be discharged.
732. It is the case of the prosecution that Astro Asia
Network, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, subscribed to
equity shares of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited at a premium and
equity shares of South Asia FM Limited at par. It is the case of
the prosecution that these two companies were promoted by
Kalanithi Maran. It is further alleged that in fact illegal
gratification in the garb of share premium of Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited was received by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran through his
brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran on investment being made by
South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited (SAEHL), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Astro Overseas Limited, which, in turn, is
wholly owned subsidiary of Astro All Asia Network Limited, in
which Sh. T. Ananda Krishnan has an indirect shareholding of
42.49%. It is further alleged that investment made by Astro All
Asia Network, through its subsidiaries, namely, South Asia
Software Technology Limited, Mauritius, and South Asia
Multimedia Technology Limited, in South Asia FM Limited was
also illegal gratification. It is alleged that these illegal
gratifications were in the nature of quid pro quo for approvals
granted by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran to Maxis Communications
during his tenure as MOC&IT, after it acquired Aircel Limited,
Dishnet Wireless Limited and Aircel Cellular Limited.
733. FIPB approval for the investment was granted on
22.02.2007 by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and

Page 409 of 424
approval letter was issued to Sun Direct TV (P) Limited on
02.03.2007. The Shareholders Agreement (D-316) and Share
Subscription Agreement (D-317) were executed for investment
in Sun Direct TV (P) Limited on 05.04.2007. It is the case of the
prosecution that SAHEL invested Rs. 549 crore in Sun Direct
TV (P) Limited from 10.12.2007 to 30.09.2008.
734. Now the question is: How this investment of Rs. 549
crore can be termed as bribe or illegal gratification meant for
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran? It is the case of the prosecution that no
valuation of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited was conducted prior to
entering into Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement
dated 05.04.2007. It is their case that such a big deal cannot be
entered into without prior valuation by qualified professionals.
It is further their case that valuation carried out by ENAM
Securities (P) Limited (D-310 to 312) is of no consequence as it
was conducted subsequent to the date of agreements, that is,
05.04.2007. Further, the report itself specified that the opinion
of ENAM is based on business plan of the company and they
did not make any independent verification of the same. Hence,
of no use.
735. It is further case of the prosecution that they got the
valuation of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited conducted during
investigation from BOB Capital Market Limited, a SEBI
registered category-I merchant banker, as on 01.04.2007 and it
gave its report on 02.09.2013. It is the case of the prosecution
that BOB Capital Market Limited in its report opined that post-
money equity valuation of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited as on
01.04.2007 was Rs. 1833.8 crore and pre-money valuation of

Page 410 of 424
the company was Rs. 1284.80 crore and the price of equity
comes to Rs. 53.15 per share. It is their case that on the other
hand, Share Subscription Agreement dated 05.04.2007 (D-316)
had put the post-money valuation of the company at Rs. 2745
crore and price of equity per share at Rs. 79.57.
736. In brief, the case is that post-money value of a share
of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited as on 01.04.2007 was Rs. 79.57,
whereas as per BOB report it was Rs. 53.15. It is their case that
either the entire amount of Rs. 549 crore was bribe as it was not
a purely business driven investment or at least a portion of the
premium of Rs. 26.42 per share was unjustified/ overvalued,
which was paid in the garb of equity subscription.
737. It is further their case that during March 2007,
Tamasek Capital Limited, an investing company of Singapore,
valued the equity shares of M/s Tata Sky Limited, which was
also engaged in the same business as Sun Direct TV (P) Limited
to provide Direct-to-Home services to its subscribers, at Rs.
26.24 per share. It is further their case that Tamasek Capital
Limited subscribed to shares of Tata Sky at a price of Rs. 30 per
share (D-265). M/s Baytree was investing company and it
invested Rs. 154.44 crore in Tata Sky in order to own 10% of the
increased share capital. It is also their case that another
investor NDDS also subscribed to 20% shareholding of Tata
Sky at the price of Rs. 30 per share, in the month of May 2007.
It is their case that, post-money valuation of Tata Sky was Rs.
30 per share.
738. Hence, based on the two valuations, the overvalued
share premium for investment in Sun Direct TV (P) Limited

Page 411 of 424
was quid pro quo.
739. However, it is not clear to the prosecution as to
whether the entire investment made in Sun Direct TV (P)
Limited was illegal gratification or the overvalued share
premium was illegal gratification or at least a portion thereof,
that is, of Rs. 26.42, was illegal gratification. Be that as it may.
740. It may be noted that except these two reports, there
is no other evidence prima facie indicating that the investment
was, in fact, illegal gratification for the approvals granted by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran during his tenure as MOC&IT.
741. I have carefully gone through the valuation reports
of ENAM Securities (P) Limited, BOB Capital Market Limited
and Tata Sky Limited. These reports are subject to numerous
limitations and qualifications and are based on several
assumptions and presumptions. This is illustrated by the
following portion of report of BOB (D-568):
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
AFFECTING THE VALUATION RESULTS
Our Report is subject to the scope limitations

detailed hereinafter.
The Report has been prepared on the
request of Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Report may not be disclosed, in whole
or in part, to any third party or used for any
purpose whatsoever other than those
indicated in the Engagement and Report
itself. The Report is to be read in totality,
and not in parts, in conjunction with the
relevant documents referred to in this
Report.
Valuation methodology and results are
specific to the purpose of valuation and the
Relevant Date mentioned in the Report and

Page 412 of 424
as per terms of our Engagement. It may
not be valid for any other purpose or as at
any other date. A valuation of this nature
involves consideration of various factors
including those impacted by industry
trends prevailing around the Relevant Date.
The actual financial results of the Company
may be different from our estimates as our
forecast is specific to the factors prevalent
around the Relevant Date. Further, we also
do not express any opinion on the
achievability of the projections in the
future.
The Report does not constitute an audit,
due diligence or certification of the
financial statements of the business
referred to in this Report. We have relied
on the documents made available by CBI.
We have also placed reliance on industry
reports sourced by us. We have not
checked or independently verified the
completeness and/or accuracy of the
information given by CBI and the industry
reports. We have also not had any
discussions with the Company's
management concerning the history and
nature of its business, its financial
conditions and its future prospects. It must
be recognized that events of which we have
no actual to constructive knowledge
affecting the Transaction may have a
bearing on the valuation worked out by us
as contained herein and that we have no
obligation to update or to revise or to
reaffirm the conclusion of our Report.
Our scope of work involves giving a Report
on valuation of equity shares of Sun Direct
as of the Relevant Date and in connection
with the Transaction. However, we were
not part of any negotiation or decision
making at the time of signing of SSA
between SAEHL, Maran Group and the

Page 413 of 424
Company. For the purpose of this Report,
we have assumed that the Company is a
going concern and will continue to be so
after the date of this Report.
No investigation of the claim to title of
assets of the Company has been made for
the purpose of this Report and the
Company's claim to such rights has been
assumed to be valid. We have not verified
or examined or reviewed the title of any
property or shareholding in any company
during the course of exercise.
We take no responsibility for matters of
legal nature. We were not required to carry
out a legal due diligence review. It is
further clarified that, any advice or views
expressed or information rendered by us
shall be deemed as financial opinion only
and should not be considered as opinions
regarding legal, accounting, regulatory, tax
matters etc.
Valuation is not a precise art and the
conclusion arrived at will be subjective and
dependent on the exercise of individual
judgment.
....................................................................
......................................
(All underlinings by me for supplying emphasis.)
742. The reports of ENAM Securities (P) Limited and

Tata Sky Limited are also subject to similar limitations and
qualifications. A bare perusal of these reports would reveal that
they are based on too many assumptions and presumptions.
These reports assume too much and prove too little. There is
hardly any fact in these reports which can be put to legal proof.
Linguistically these reports are highly hedged in the sense that

Page 414 of 424
they neither affirm nor deny anything. In simple words, in legal
terms, contents of these reports neither mean 'yes' nor 'no'.
There is no firm commitment to any statement of fact
contained in these reports. On the basis of these reports, in the
eyes of law, no definitive view can be taken, even prima facie.
As far as law is concerned, they are of no value. These reports
may be good for economic/ business projections as they are
only indicative in nature. There are no definitive/ quantitative
statements in these reports. These reports do indicate the
estimated price of the shares on the relevant date, but these
prices are only indicative of the price on the relevant date. One
may get only an indication as to whether the shares were
correctly valued or over-valued, but no definitive view. In such
a situation they may offer a guide to the investigator to
investigate the matter further and collect legally admissible
evidence. I have no hesitation in recording that these reports by
themselves do not constitute legal proof, for or against anyone,
even prima facie.
743. Further, Man does not always work rationally. In
market situation, there is no computer like thinking or
precision. Human beings are also influenced by non-economic
considerations.
744. In view of this discussion, I am of the firm opinion
that these reports do not constitute any legally admissible
evidence but can certainly furnish a ground for investigation for
collecting legally admissible evidence.
745. Apart from these reports, as already noted above,
there is no other material on record to indicate that the entire

Page 415 of 424
investment or premium on the shares or even a portion of the
premium was bribe. It remains only a matter of perception or
suspicion and in the absence of legally admissible evidence,
perception or suspicion means nothing in law.
Investment in South Asia FM Limited

746. The case of the prosecution is that South Asia
Software Technologies Limited, a subsidiary of Astro All Asia
Network, through its subsidiaries South Asia Multimedia
Technologies Limited and AH Multisoft Limited, also invested a
sum of Rs. 193.54 crore in South Asia FM Limited from
20.02.2007 to 20.12.2010 for purchasing its equity shares at
par value of Rs. 10 per share. It is their claim that it was not a
business driven investment, but illegal gratification for Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran.
747. However, there is absolutely no material on record
to arrive at such a conclusion. No document has been pointed
out at the bar to arrive at such a conclusion. It is simply an ipsi
dixit of the investigating officer without any factual or legal
basis. However, if an overall view of the prosecution case is
taken, this investment is sought to be linked to the alleged
tactics of delay by Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and subsequent
smooth approvals, as noted above. However, allegations
relating to these have already been found to be incorrect. In
such a situation, it cannot be said that the amount of
investment was an illegal gratification.
748. Furthermore, if the two investments of Rs. 549
crore and Rs.193 crore were not business driven investments,

Page 416 of 424
but were something else, then the question is: How to connect
Sh. Dayanidhi Maran with that? As per allegations in the charge
sheet, both brothers, that is, Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and Sh.
Kalanithi Maran, share economic interests through some of
their companies like Sun Academic (P) Limited, DMS
Entertainment Limited, HFO Entertainment Limited, DK
Enterprises Limited and a partnership firm S.S. Textile, which
is run by wives of both the accused. It is further their case that a
letter dated 19.03.2007 issued by Sh. Ashish Dutta, Under
Secretary, Ministry of I&B, and addressed to Kalanithi Maran,
conveying approval of FIB and CCA was got collected by Sh.
Dayanidhi Maran through his stenographer Sh.
Balasubramanian.
749. It may be noted that Sh. Dayanidhi Maran or his
wife Priya Dayanidhi had no stake in Sun Direct TV (P) Limited
or South Asia FM Limited.
750. However, in the eyes of law, these grounds
themselves are not enough to connect the money received in the
company of Kalanithi Maran to Dayanidhi Maran. The three
simple and ordinary facts that they are real brothers or that
both are shareholders in some companies or that Sh. Dayanidhi
Maran got a letter addressed to his brother Sh. Kalanithi Maran
collected through his stenographer are by themselves not
indicative of any conspiracy between the two on this point.
They may indicate their close association but nothing beyond
that. These may create a perception or a suspicion that the
money received in the company of Sh. Kalanithi Maran was
meant for Sh. Dayanidhi Maran, but perception or suspicion

Page 417 of 424
are not enough for criminal prosecution. The perception or
suspicion is required to be investigated and supported by
legally admissible evidence, which is wholly lacking in this case.
Scared, submissive and obstructive bureaucracy: A threat to

constitutional democracy and rule of law
751. Some comments on the conduct of the senior
officers involved in the processing of the files are not out of
context. In processing file D-2, the role of Sh. P. K. Mittal is writ
large on the face of record. It is he who directed that the issue of
signing of seven licences be de-linked from the issue of
extension of time for compliance of LOI for MP service area and
for grant of LOI for UP(E) and UP(W) service area. Similarly,
the officers of LF branch were questioning the financial
capacity of the company as well as indicating that there is no
guideline for extension of time for LOI, but he was ignoring all
these issues. It is he who ultimately forced the LF branch to give
up the issues relating to the business plan and financial
capacity of the company in the processing of file D-2, but in oral
statement he blames the Minister for putting frivolous
questions. Perhaps the officers of LF branch were submitting
Dishnet DSL Limited to higher scrutiny due to its earlier
adverse track record, as already noted above in detail.
752. Similarly, in the processing of file D-4 relating to
licences in Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Kolkata service areas,
the footprint of Sh. P. K. Mittal are writ large everywhere. The
type of questions put by him have also been already extracted
above. The perusal of the file reveals that he was putting all sort

Page 418 of 424
of questions like Is shareholding pattern directly or indirectly
provided. Again when the file reached him, he put a question
Is non-resident individual same as non-resident Indian. Pls.
clarify. When the issues clarified, he again records Pls. ask
clarification and accordingly a letter was written to the
company. Thereafter, when the file is further processed, he
introduces the idea that latest FDI is yet to notified etc. The
perusal of the file reveals that the file was pending due to
impending FDI policy. However, in the oral statements, he
blames Sh. Dayanidhi Maran and note dated 30.03.2005 of Sh.
Nripendra Mishra. Similar is his attitude regarding processing
of the representations, which were also dealt with in this file as
well as in file D-5. As per record, the representations of Sh. V.
Srinivasan was brought to the notice of Sh. Nripendra Mishra,
but in oral statement he states that these representations were
not brought to the notice of Secretary (T). The most astonishing
and disturbing part is that the then Additional Secretary (T) Sh.
Yashwant Bhave also blames Dr. J. S. Sarma by making an oral
statement, which is wholly contradictory to the official record.
753. Similarly, in file D-41, as already noted above, the
role of Sh. P. K. Mittal is all pervasive and the type of questions
put by him and his acts have already been noted above. He
himself linked this file with other file, but by resorting to oral
statement, he blames Sh. Dayanidhi Maran for the delay.
754. Similarly, in processing of file D-30 after discussion
with Secretary (T) on 05.08.2004, equity structure of various
companies involved was called for and was supplied by the
companies and this was taken note of in the next note sheet.

Page 419 of 424
However, Dr. J. S. Sarma called for further examination of the
equity structure of the companies to understand it, as the same
was appearing to be complex, his report has been questioned by
the oral statements. At every step, the DoT was repeatedly
asking for equity structure of the companies.
755. As far as issue of de-linking is concerned, which was
dealt with in file D-43, the role of Sh. P. K. Mittal is writ large
on the face of the record. Perusal of the file reveals that he
himself was responsible for this, but by oral statement he
blames Dr. J. S. Sarma for this. In the end, the decision appears
to be result of a joint discussion amongst the senior officers of
the department, but by oral statement, the blame is laid on Dr.
J. S. Sarma. In all these files, it was incumbent upon the officers
to record in the note sheets the instructions of the senior
officers, but nowhere it has been done.
756. Similarly, in the case of allocation of initial
spectrum in Bihar service area, perusal of the file reveals that it
was Wireless Advisor Sh. P. K. Garg who was doing everything,
but by oral statement, wholly blames Dr. J. S. Sarma. Similarly,
in the allocation of additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz to
Aircel, which was dealt with in D-37, the record shows that Sh.
P. K. Garg was wholly responsible for everything, but by making
oral statement, he blames Dr. J. S. Sarma.
757. Similarly, as per provisioning of POIs is concerned,
the perusal of file D-121(i) reveals that everything was the doing
of Sh. Mahipal Singh and Sh. K. S. Guliani, but by making oral
statements, they shift the blame on CMD (BSNL) Sh. A. K.
Sinha.

Page 420 of 424
758. A perusal of these files reveals that the concerned
officers were doing all the acts relating to the issues dealt with
therein and were either stalling or expediting the same on their
own initiative, but by making oral statements blame Dr. J. S.
Sarma for the same. Now the question is: If such oral
statements, which do not flow from the record or find
corroboration from anywhere from any circumstance, are given
judicial recognition, what shall be the fate of the rule of law?
These oral statements are in violation of the official rules and
procedures which mandate that instructions of the senior
officials are to be recorded on the file. If such a practice is
allowed, anybody and everybody in the Government can be
made to face prosecution. No Minister or Secretary would
remain safe or for that matter anyone working in the
department. The official record which is deemed to be correct
and true shall loose all importance and wrong doers would have
a hay day as by making oral statement they can accuse anyone
and themselves go scot-free. In the instant case, everyone who
was responsible for any delay, wrong doing or obstructive
questions have been made a witness and has thus, readily and
willingly made an oral statement, fully and wholly contrary to
the official record. This is a dangerous trend and can strike at
the root of rule of law and the constitutional democracy as
wrong doers can gang up against those, who, by the perusal of
record, are innocent.
759. It has been the case of the prosecution that such
oral statements are to be accepted at the face value at the stage
of charge. There can be no dispute about this proposition.

Page 421 of 424
However, this is not a rigid rule and depends upon the facts of
the case. When an oral statement is contrary to official record,
unreasonable as it does not find any support from any quarter
or circumstance, and verges on absurdity, the same can be
ignored and should be ignored to save the innocents from
needless prosecution. Of course, in the instant case, there are so
many other factors to reject the case of the prosecution, as has
been noted above in detail.
760. I have no manner of doubt that these officers were
timid and obstructive at the time of preparation of record as
well as subsequently when making the statement to the CBI,
wherein they readily shifted the blame to others.
761. In contrast to these officers, there is a Secretary Sh.
Nripendra Mishra who performed his duties with due diligence
and confidence and never shied away from recording his views
on the file. The transfer of shares of Aircel Cellular Limited to
Aircel Digilink India Limited was being recommended by lower
level officers, including up to the level of Member (P), which
was in violation of competition clause in the agreement.
However, it stopped when the file reached Sh. Nripendra
Mishra on 05.08.2004. Similarly, in file D-40, when the
Minister asked AS(T) on 15.09.2004 to go through the files and
submit a note, despite the recommendation up to the Secretary
(T), Sh. Nripendra Mishra was forthright in recording his
disapproval by observing in writing that My recommendations
are available on the file and AS(T) please comply with the
orders of the MOC&IT and submit to MOC&IT for superior
order. Furthermore, when Dr. J. S. Sarma put up his note, Sh.

Page 422 of 424
Nripendra Mishra was again forthright in asking for legal
opinion on that. Thus, he did not hesitate in expressing his
views and that too in writing.
762. However, he also understood that in constitutional
democracy, the views of the Minister are to be obeyed and
respected and on 30.03.2005, after speaking to the Minister
complying with his orders, he recorded the following note:
763. This note is in consonance with the guidelines and

proforma of application for UASL, as noted and extracted above
in detail. This shows that when an officer wishes to work
independently, he is free to do so. Everywhere, he is recording
his note in writing and quite forthrightly. Furthermore, he did
not make any statement under Section 161 CrPC which is
contrary to official record.
764. On the other hand, the conduct of Sh. Yashwant
Bhave, Sh. P. K. Mittal, Sh. P. K. Garg, Sh. Mahipal Singh and
Sh. K. S. Guliani is totally in violation of official procedures and
rules. It is strange that an Additional Secretary to Government
of India is so scared of his Secretary that he readily agrees to do
an illegal act. When Secretary (T) Sh. Nripendra Mishra himself
was forthright in expressing his views, what prevented these
senior officers from recording their own.
765. In view of the above discussion I am satisfied that

Page 423 of 424
the entire case is based on the misreading of the official files,
contradictory statements of the witnesses as well as
speculations and surmises of Sh. C. Sivasankaran. I have no
hesitation in recording no prima facie case warranting framing
of charge against any of the accused is made out.
766. Accordingly, all accused stand discharged.
767. File be consigned to Record Room. Since most of

the files are official files of DoT, the department is at liberty to
seek their return after time of filing of appeal is over.
Announced in open Court (O. P. Saini)

today on February 2, 2017 Spl. Judge/CBI(04)
(2G Spectrum Cases)/ New Delhi

Page 424 of 424

2G Court Discharge Order On Marans in Aircel-Maxis Case Feb 2, 2017

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

2G Court Discharge Order On Marans in Aircel-Maxis Case Feb 2, 2017

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

IN THE COURT OF O. P. SAINI: SPL.

JUDGE, CBI (04)

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

(ii) Delay in grant of approval for change in equity of M/s

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Files being called by the Minister

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Case of Essar Spacetel (P) Limited

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

B. Allegations relating to transfer/ acquisition of

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Contact by Standard Chartered Bank and negotiations

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Intervention by Maran brothers

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Structure of companies to be sold

Aircel Televentures Limited

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Negotiations with Ralph Marshall and signing of agreements

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Investment made by M/s Maxis Communications Bhd.,

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

C. Allegations relating to smooth approvals

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

D. Allegations relating to payment of bribe

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

81. As per the said agreement (clause F, page 4),

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Conclusion from the reports by CBI

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

Details of allotment of shares of Sun Direct TV (P) Limited to

Valuation of Tata Sky by CBI: A comparison

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others

CBI Vs. Dayanidhi Maran & others