1. You Are At:
  2. Home
  3. India News
  4. Full Text Of Delhi Special Judge O P Saini's Order

Full Text Of Delhi Special Judge O P Saini's Order

New delhi, feb 4: Following is the full text of Delhi Special CBI Judge O P Saini's order today dismissing Subramanian Swamy's petition to make Home Minister P chidambaram co-accused in the 2G scam:  IN

India TV News Desk [ Updated: February 04, 2012 18:11 IST ]
full text of delhi special judge o p saini s order
full text of delhi special judge o p saini s order

New delhi, feb 4: Following is the full text of Delhi Special CBI Judge O P Saini's order today dismissing Subramanian Swamy's petition to make Home Minister P chidambaram co-accused in the 2G scam: 


(2G Spectrum Cases), NEW DELHI.

CC No. 01(A)/11

Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja & others


Present: Complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy in person with Sh. Tarun Goomber, Mrs. (Dr.) Roxna Swamy and Sh. P. N. Mago Advocates.


This order shall dispose of plea of the complainant for
summoning Sh. P. Chidamabaram, the then Finance Minister, as an
accused in this case.

2. The complainant claims to be a public spirited citizen, well
versed in advanced economics, finance and mathematics, and he is also
familiar with the current legal, social and political paradigm. He
further claims that being a law abiding citizen, he bonafide believes
that it is his duty to set into motion the legal process whenever
instances of grave corruption impinging on national interests come to
his attention. It is further claimed that the complainant wants the
punishment of the offender in the interest of the society, being one
of the objects behind the penal statutes for the larger good of the

3. It is alleged that accused A. Raja was Union Minister of
Communications and Information Technology (he ceased to be by way of
his resignation from the post on November 14, 2010), and other known/
unknown accused persons who are/ were involved in this larger
conspiracy which was a skulduggery to take wrongful gain for
themselves and to give the wrongful loss to the nation not only in
monetary terms but also to pose a threat to India's national security.
The above stated accused persons in connivance with presently unnamed
others and some other unknown persons dishonestly and fraudulently
misappropriated the nation's resources and wealth to take the wrongful
gain for themselves and to give the wrongful loss to the nation by
willful misallocation of 2 G Spectrum belonging to the nation and
entrusted to accused A. Raja, which was under his control as Minister
of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT), hence a public
servant, by corrupt or illegal means by misusing his position, as a
public servant, obtained for himself and for the other accused persons
pecuniary advantage. All the accused persons are involved in these
serious and grave offences and are liable to be tried and punished
under the various provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
[for brief 'PCA'].

4. It is further alleged that the documents with the Petitioner, some
of them included and published in his recent book "Corruption and
Corporate Goverance in India: Satyam, Spectrum and Sundaram (Har Anand
Publishers, 2009), as well as those available as public documents from
the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), ED (Enforcement
Directorate), CVC (Central Vigilance Commissioner) and CAG
(Comptroller and Auditor General) and from RTI (Right to Information)
applications, make out a strong prima facie case of corruption, of
fraud and gross illegalities carried out by accused No. 1 A. Raja
[alongwith his co-conspirators] as per CAG Report.

5. It is further alleged that : (a) at all releavant times in
2007-2008, accused A. Raja was Union Minister of Communications and
Information Technology. He ceased to be so when he resigned from the
post on Nobember 14, 2010, and which was immediately accepted by the
President of India on recommendation of the Prime Minister.

(b) Thus, at all relevant times till resignation, accused A. Raja was
a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988, more particularly Section 2(c)(i) and (viii).

(c) On 14.11.2010, the accused ceased to be a Union Minister and
hence, no more entitled to the safeguard of Sanction under Section 19
of the PCA.

6. It is further alleged that the matter comes within the scope of
Sections 13(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the PCA. It arises primarily from
the awarding by accused A. Raja and his co-conspirators, of new
Unified Access Service (UAS) Licences (Licences for allotment of 2G
Spectrum), to two unqualified and undeserving Real Estate Companies,
Swan Telecom (now renamed Etisalat DB) and Unitech Wireless (renamed
as Telenor operating as Uninor). This arose in the following manner:

(1) The Department of Telecommunications [DoT], is a department of
the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government
of India, which Ministry at the relevant time in 2007-2008, was headed
by accused A. Raja.

(2) On or about 24.09.2007, while inviting applications for these
licences, DoT had announced that such applications would not be
considered as were made after the cut-off date of 01.10.2007.

(3) The number of licence available for 2G spectrum (a scarce and
extremely valuable national resource) was 122, spread over 22 service
areas, called circles.

(4) By the cut-off date, the number of applications received was 575,
made by some 41 corporations. Thus, it was necessary for DoT to evolve
and execute a fair procedure for the allotment of these 122 licences
among the 575 applications. Such fair procedure must necessarily
promote the public interest.

(5) DoT had also to determine and announce the price at which these
licences would be allotted. Earlier in 2001, the price prevailing had
been determined by auction.

(6) But in 2001, there had been only approximately 4 million mobile
telephones in operation, whereas by 2007-2008, the estimated number of
mobiles was 350 million, and this number was growing at the rate of
10% per month.

(7) Thus, obviously allotting licences on the basis of 2001 prevailing
prices would enable the allotees to make windfall profits, at the cost
of the public exchequer: the public exchequer would only collect the
2001 price of spectrum, while the allotees would have the worth of
2008 market price of spectrum which judged by objectives standards was
several multiples of the 2001 price.

(8) All concerned authorities: the Law Ministry, the Finance
Secretary, the Secretary of the Ministry of Telecommunications, the
Member (Finance) of DoT, and finally on 02.11.2007, even the Prime
Minister, had expressed their views to accused A. Raja,
recommending/directing consideration of:

(i) auction of licences wherever legally and technically feasible;

(ii) upward revision of entry fee, presently benchmarked at 2001 prices.

(9) The Law Minister, on being applied to for his advice had directed
that in view of the importance of the case and various options
indicated in the statement of the case, the whole issue must be first
considered by an empowered Group of Ministers.

(10) By virtue of the mandatory Transaction of Business Rules, it was
imperative for the First Accused to refer the matter to the Cabinet
for a decision.

(11) As the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed while hearing this matter,
that accused A. Raja even disregarded the written advice of the Prime
Minister in an intemperate language.

7. It is further alleged that for no convincing reason at all,
accused A. Raja ignored/ disobeyed all the directions/ advice set out
in the previous paragraph subparas (8) and (9).

8. It is further alleged that both personally and through directions
to his subordinates in DoT, accused A. Raja managed to get DoT to
allot the aforesaid sought licences and the subsequent allotment
thereon of Spectrum, on a fraudulently contrived basis of
"first-come-first-served" at 2001 prices.

9. It is further alleged that the manouevres set out above, are made
good from the documents available with the Complainant, which are
copies of documents, the originals of which are with various
Government agencies such as from the offices of the CVC (Chief
Vigilance Commissioner), the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General),
the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation), the ED (Enforcement
Directorate) and the Registrar of Companies at Delhi, Mumbai and

10. It is further alleged that a strong prima facie case for what is
set emerges from the Performance Audit Report on the Issue of Licences
and Allocation of 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, a Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, prepared in 2010, submitted
to the President of India and placed on the Table of both Houses of
Parliament on 16.11.2010. Hereinafter, this report is referred to for
brevity as the CAG Report.

11. It is further alleged that the "first-come-first-served" basis
(hereinafter referred to as FCFS) of the allotment was not recommended
in the instant facts and circumstances, by any regulatory body of the
Telecom industry, and, in fact, the validity of such a basis has been
rejected by a judgment of the Delhi High Court in 1993 [(1993) III AD
Delhi 1013].

12. It is further alleged that in his capacity as Minister of
Communications and Information Technology, accused A. Raja personally
intervened and insisted (in definace of the recommendations/
directions of the functionaries enumerated in para 4 (8)) that the
FCFS was adopted as the basis for allocation of limited and scarce 2G

13. It is further alleged that this basis itself was further rigged
by accused A. Raja and his co-conspirators: it was interpreted to mean
that all applicants would be considered not in the chronological order
of their date of application, but in the order in which they fulfilled
all the requirements contained in their letters of Allotment.

14. It is further alleged that accused A. Raja favoured two
companies, Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd., and Unitech Wireless Ltd., which
not only had no experience in the field, but were actually ineligible
to apply, e.g. they were not even registered, (as required by the
rules), as Telecom companies at the time of allotment of the scarce 2G
Spectrum; and their actual shareholding also made them ineligible to
apply. The details of this manouevre are set out in detail in the CAG
Report, which prima facie substantiates these details.

15. It is further alleged that the CAG Report has also found that no
tender was invited or public auction was made nor a proper public
notification was issued in this respect.

16. It is further alleged that in his D.O. No. 20-100/2007-AS.I dated
02.11.2007 to the Prime Minister, accused A. Raja even rejected the
direction of the Law Minister that in view of the importance of the
case and various options indicated in the Statement of the case, the
whole issue must be first considered by an empoered Group of

17. It is further alleged that under the Transaction of Business
Rules of Government (Rule 7), it was required that when two Ministers
disagree on a policy question, the matter be referred by the
initiating Minister (in this case accused A. Raja) to the Cabinet for
a decision. This accused A. Raja did not do.

18. It is further alleged that instead by his D.O No.
260/M(C&IT)/VIP/ 2007 dated 26.12.2007, accused merely informed the
Prime Minister that the then Minister of External Affairs and the
Solicitor General [who as Law Officer in this matter went against the
Law Minister's decision] had encouraged him to go ahead and adopt the
aforesaid FCFS basis; whereafter, in defiance of the Prime Minister's
request that he delay the matter for a few days, the accused went
ahead with the allotment.

19. It is further alleged that there is no ground for the accused to
state, (as he does), that everything that he did in regard to the
method of allotment of 2G spectrrum, and in regard to the
determination of the rate at which it was alloted, was with the
knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister.

20. It is further alleged that there was no urgency in the matter:
the demand and applications for fresh spectrum had been pending since
March 2006, yet, the necessary Cabinet approval was not taken for
making allotment on a private basis. There is also no record that in
the absence of a prior Cabinet approval, the action of the Minister
had the categorical approval of the Prime Minister. In fact, on the
contrary, by his letter dated 02.11.2007, the Prime Minister had
suggested an auction of the 2G Spectrum and not its allotment on a
FCFS basis, at the price prevailing for 1G spectrum in 2001 (when the
mobile cell phone usuage was in its infancy).

21. It is further alleged that the entire episode of allotment of
licences was conducted with subterfuge and in a hurry, when no such
urgency can be seen by any person of prudence and integrity. All these
skulduggery are documented in the CAG Report.

22. It is further alleged that this has resulted in a loss in revenue
to the Government which the office of the Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG) of India in his Performance Audit Report No. 19 of
2010-11 has estimated at Rs. 1,76,000 crores, thus making it perhaps
the largest scam in India's history, if not in that of the world.

23. It is further alleged that accused A. Raja caused this loss,
first by limiting the number of licences to be awarded by advancing
the cut-off date to September 25, 2007 (that is, prior to the earlier
cut-off date of October 1, 2007), by personally getting issued a press
note on January 10, 2008, which was posted only in the Ministry
website. Second, by adopting the scheme of allocating the licences on
the basis of first-come-first-served (FCFS) at an arbitrarily fixed
lower price benchmarked to the price prevailing in 2001, instead of
much higher price determined by an option in 2008.

24. It is further alleged that : (a) As far as the first step cited
above is concerned, the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench and subsequently
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held in 2009 that
the advancing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, unreasonable and
illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter, declined to interfere with
the judgment which thus has become final.

(b) As far as the FCFS basis for licence award is concerned, it was
not recommended by any regulatory body of the telecom industry, and in
fact, the validity of such a basis has been rejected by a judgment of
Delhi High Court in 1993 [(1993) III AD Delhi 1013]. But, on accused
A. Raja's insistence, not only the FCFS was adopted as the basis for
allocation of limited and scarce 2 G Spetrum but the basis itself was
rigged to favour two companies, Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless
which had no experience in the field and were not even registered (as
required by the rules) as telecom companies at the time of allotment
of the scarce 2 G Spectrum.

25. It is further alleged that in fact, the CAG report holds at least
85 of the 122 licences granted are illegal and void.

26. It is further alleged that the Central Bureau of Investigation
had registered an FIR on the alleged commission of the aforesaid
offence but has not named any accused including the first accused
herein. Despite this, complainant bringing this aspect to the notice
of Director of the CBI, the agency has so far failed to perform its
statutory duty under the law.

27. It is further alleged that the above facts make out the
ingredients of Section 13 (1) (d) of the PCA that:

(i) Accused A. Raja while holding office as a public servant

(ii) obtained for some other person/ converted for the use of any other person

(iii) valuable thing/ pecuniary advantage, the aforesaid licences
(spectrum property),

(iv) entrusted to him/ under his control as a public servant

(v) and he did so dishonestly/ fraudulently and without any public interest.

28. It is further alleged that within a few months of the allotment
of 2G Spectrum licences to them, these two favoured companies, Swan
Telecom (P) Limited and Unitech Wireless Limited sold their
controlling shares, at about seven to eight times what they had paid
to the Government as fees for allotment of both licence and 2G
Spectrum. On this basis, it is possible to get a measure of the loss
in revenue that the public exchequer incurred by adopting the FCFS
basis and pegging the entry fees at 2001 prices.

29. It is further alleged that a thorough technical analysis done by
Dr. Rohit Prasad and published as ''Value of 2 G Spectrum in India''
in Economic and Political Weekly January 23, 2010, vol. XLV, No. 4,
reveals that the market price of spectrum calculated on widely varying
assumptions significantly exceeds the upfront fees charged from the
operators, especially Swan Telecom (P) Limited, and Unitech Wireless
Limited. The CAG, however, using different techniques has estimated
presumptive loss of Rs. 140,000+ crores, the '+' including the CDMA
conversion etc. The total presumptive loss is placed at Rs. 1.76

30. It is further alleged that all the above paras relevant to the
ingredients are prima facie established in the CAG Report.

31. It is further alleged that reading the Executive Summary, the
CAG, a Constitutionally empowered body, has found prima facie that
accused personally got issued the Letters of Intent to 85 applicants
who were not qualified and were not-eligible to receive these licences
in the first place and that this caused a total national loss of Rs.
1,76,000 crores in revenue foregone.

32. It is further alleged that there is also evidence that accused
had an indirect personal/ family pecuniary interest in some of the
aforesaid sales:

(a) Swan Telecom (P) Limited was earlier owned by the corporate house
and subsidiaries of Mr. Anil Ambani and was known as Swan Capital (P)
Limited, incorporated on May 3, 2006. Swan Capital applied for GSM
circle licence in January, 2007. It already held the CDMA licence
then. In February 13, 2007, it changed its name to Swan Telecom (P)

(b) In October 2007, after Mr. A. Raja as Minister of Communications
and Information Technology announced the Dual policy enabling
conversion of CDMA to GSM, Anil Ambani sold his controlling shares to
two Maharashtra based real estate operators, viz., Mr. Shahid Balwa
(Managing Director) and Vinod Kumar Goenka (Director), who had taken
over the charge of the company, but which was back dated to be
incorporated in July 2007.

(c) Since at the time of the application for licence by Swan Telecom
(P) Limited, this Corporate House had an interest of more than 10% in
Swan Telecom (P) Limited, this made Swan Telecom (P) Limited,
ineligible to apply at all for the licence; yet it did so apply. In
October 2007, Anil Ambani -owned subsidiary of Reliance Communications
quit Swan Telecom (P) Limited, after the DoT announced a new telecom
policy to permit CDMA to cross over to GSM.

(d) In January to March 2008, Swan Telecom (P) Limited, with the
connivance of accused, bagged an allotment of licences in 13 circles
worth Rs. 1537 crores..

(e) Within weeks of the allotment, the new owners of Swan Telecom (P)
Limited., ''sold'' a 45% stake in the company to Etisalat (a UAE giant
corporation with Pakistan Telecom and Communication Ltd.-PTCL share
holding) for approximately Rs. 4,500/- crore. The ''sale'' was
disguised in the form of a merger of Swan Telecom (P) Limited and
Etisalat. Earlier such mergers were not permitted to allottees; but
by his Office Note, accused personally altered this requirement to
enable merger to be permitted if duly applied for.

(f) On December 17, 2008, the now much expanded Swan Telecom (P)
Limited allotted Rs. 380 crore worth of shares to the Chennai based
Genex Exim Ventures, a company floated only just four months before
the deal, with a meager capital of Rs. One Lakh. There is no record
of Genex making any payment for the share acquisition.

(g) According to the documents available with the Registrar of
Companies, Chennai, Genex Exim Ventures was incorporated on September
17, 2008 with two directors Mr. Mohammed Hassan (58) and Mr. Ahamed
Shakir (41)- who came from Kilukarai, a small coastal village in
Ramanathapuram district in Tamil Nadu. Ahmed Syed Salahuddin (32) who
represented the company on the board of Swan Telecom (P) Limited also
came from the same village.

(h) There is more indication of a Tamil Nadu link especially when the
corporate veil is pierced, and which ultimately leads to the family
members of the DMK President Mr. Karunanidhi. Mr. Ahmed Syed
Salahuddin, represented the company on the board of Etisalat DB, the
new name of Swan, and not the Genex Directors. Ahmed is the younger
son of Mr. Syed Mohammed Salahuddin, an NRI businessman who heads the
Dubai-based real estate conglomerate ETA Ascon Star Group.

(i) The elder Salahuddin figures in a racket to defraud public funds
that was inquired into by Justice Sarkaria Commission in 1976, and the
said Commission held that he and Mr. Karunanidhi had entered into a
conspiracy to defraud public funds by favouring him to build a flyover
at the Gemini crossing, in return for purchasing distributing rights
to a film produced by Mr. Karunanidhi.

(j) This group, the ETA Star Group, began its Indian operations in
2006 by floating several real estate firms across the State. At that
time, accused was Union environment Minister and his party DMK had
assumed power in Tamil Nadu.

(k) ETA signed an MoU with the Tamil Nadu Government for setting up
an IT Special Economic Zone worth Rs. 3,750 crore when Mr. A. Raja
became Telecom Minister in May, 2007. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr.
Karunanidhi was present at the MoU singing ceremony for the proposed
project at Kancheepuram, near Chennai, on a nearly 500 acre plot. Mr.
Salahuddin was also awarded the contract to build the new TN
Legislative Assembly building.

(l) This fact requires investigation that thus a large business group
entered the Board of Swan Telecom (P) Limited, through a company with
a meager Rs. One Lakh paid up capital. Incidentally, Genex Exim has
not filed any documents with the authorities to show its source of
income, even after acquiring Rs. 380 crore worth of shares from Swan
Telecom (P) Limited.

(m) At other times too, accused, as Union Minister of Communications
and Information Technology, had blatantly favoured Swan Telecom (P)
Limited. This is evidenced, for example, from a most unusual deal
struck between the said company and the state-owned BSNL, as follows:-

(I) The ''intra-circle roaming deal'' signed between the company
and BSNL on September 13, 2008, was literally silent when it comes to
money. According to the MoU, Swan Telecom could use spectrum,
communication towers and the entire network of BSNL free of cost.

(II) Though the BSNL management suggested charging 52 paise per
call, this clause was mysteriously absent in the MoU. BSNL was forced
to sign this deal just 10 days before the sale of Swan's shares to
Etisalat. It is not clear why an amount was not specified in the MoU
and in the absence of a consideration what is the position of the
Agreement entered into between the Company and BSNL. The arrangement
helped swell Swan's coffers without the company investing a single

(III) BSNL Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. Kuldeep Goyal
sought to quell the trouble by coining a new word for the agreement
between Swan and BSNL as ''Limited MoU'', while they have never
entered into an agreement in respect of ''intra-circle roaming deal''.
The very description of ''Limited MoU' itself is fishy and confusing.

(n) It was also in ''The Pioneer'' newspaper that Swan Telecom (P)
Limited had planned to invest on a dictated price of Rs. 1,000 crore
(i.e. 49% stake) in Green House Promoters, in which the family members
of the accused have a controlling stake. However, they have had to
shelve it since the scam controversy broke out.

(o) After the accused became a Union Minister of Environment and
Forests in 2004, many of his close relatives floated real estate
companies, Green House Promoters, Equass Estates and Kovai Shelters
Promoters all of which have brothers, nephews and nieces of accused as
directors on their boards. It is to be noted that such real estate
companies require clearance from the Environment Ministry for their
real estate projects.

(p) Mrs. M. A. Parameswari, wife of accused, joined as director of
the company Green House Promoters after three years of its
incorporation i.e., in February, 2007. The Minister has not disclosed
this fact to the Prime Minister nor disclosed the source of income and
asset allocation and thereby has committed a breach of Conduct Rules.

(q) Mrs. M. A. Parameswari, the aforesaid wife of accused, resigned
from the Board of Green House Promoters on February, 2008, as part of
a damage control process envisaged by the accused. However, Mrs.
Parameswari could not transfer her holding/ stake from the company on
the said date of resignation, giving room for investigators to show
explicit violation of the service rules. On a later day, the said
shares were transferred to the nephew of accused A. Raja, who is also
a Government Pleader in Tamil Nadu.

(r) Besides amounts deposited therein from various sources in India,
the account in Canada Bank, T. Nagar Branch, Chennai, of Green House
Promoters has received considerable sums from abroad. The authorities
have not been given any proof or clarity on the sources of the fund
and its remittances.

(s) In 2006, Green House Promoters also opened a branch office at
Singapore in order to avoid or escape public scrutiny and cut down
direct flow of funds into its Indian counter-part. For this purpose,
accused A. Raja and his family members not only violated the existing
rules in respect of Green House Promoters (P) Limited, but also
promoted another company through his kith & kin viz., Equass Estate
(P) Limited. The said company's turnover was Rs. 755 crore on
completion of just one year. The company has not filed any proper
documents with Registrar of Companies, as required under Form No. 23AC
(to be filled by privately owned companies specifying information on
sale of goods manufactured, sale of goods traded, sale of supply of
services, etc.).

(t) Accused A. Raja has failed to disclose the business interest of
his wife and other relatives in the areas/ subjects falling under his
jurisdiction as a Minister of Environment and Forests and also now as
Minister of Communications and information Technology.

33. It is clear from the taped telephonic conversations made by the
DGIT and now in the custody of the CBI, of Ms. Niira Radia, with one
of the wives of Mr. Karunanidhi, regarding the Telecom Ministership
for accused A. Raja after the 2009 General Elections to Lok Sabha,
that there was a clear nexus for sharing the bribe arising from the
sale of licences for 2 G Spectrum.

34. It is further alleged that:

(a) Accused as a Union Minister, has also misled Parliament by
stating that his decision on 2G Spectrum allocation were never
objected to by TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) or the
Finance Ministry. By this, he has also committed breach of
Parliamentary Privilege, which is also a matter of great collateral
importance to this Complaint.

(b) Although, the Prime Minister was aware of the corrupt ways of the
accused, it was perhaps the compulsions of coalition politics that
kept the Prime Minister away from stepping in and setting things

(c) The Press has reported that whenever the accused was summoned by
the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr. Karunanidhi
(whom the accused has frequently announced to be his ''Beloved
Leader'' and ''Mentor''), used to fly from Chennai and sort things out
with the Congress leadership.

(d) While serving as Minister for Environment and Forests, accused's
nephew Dr. R. Sridhar was selected as Deputy Director in the same
Ministry by flouting the Norms of Appointment. He back-dated his
resignation letter from the post since ''The Pioneer'' news daily
revealed that he was holding 15% shares in a real estate company
incorporated as Kovai Shelters (P) Limited. Accused A. Raja's two
nieces R. Anandabhuvaneshwari and R. Sanatanalakashmi held another 15%
each. The MD of Kovai, C. Krishnamoorthy was charged by the CBI in a
mark-sheet fraud in the Pondicherry University, and is an accused on
bail in the murder of the whistle blower employee of the University.
A judge of the Madras High Court went public that a Central Minister
[presumed as accused Raja] had telephoned him to grant bail to the
murder accused Krishnamoorthy.

(e) An investigation report published by the Newspaper ''Pioneer'',
brings out the names of the following persons involved in the 2G
Spectrum Scam or in the Misuse of Power by the Minister. All these
persons are either related or closely associated with Mr. Raja as
noted below:-

Persons involved are:-

Mrs. M. A. Parameswari (wife of the accused)

Mr. A. M. Sadhik Batcha [from same town of Perambaur as the accused]

Mrs. Reha Banu (wife of Sadhik Batcha)

Mr. R. P. Paramesh Kumar (Nephew of the accused)

Mr. A. Kaliaperumal (Brother of the accused), [already
questioned by the CBI in January 2010, on an FIR filed following the
directions of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner on this matter].

Mr. B. Ram Ganes [son of Mr. Ramachandran elder brother of the accused].

Smt. Malarvizhi Ram [Niece of the accused].

35. It is further alleged that: (a) Unitech, another real estate
company, got 22 licences for 22 circles, for a total of Rs. 1651
crore. After acquiring these licences, Unitech sold them for a huge
sum of Rs. 6120 crore to a Norwegian company, TELENOR, which is a
major telecom player in Pakistan & Bangladesh. The company had
applied for licences in several names. Unitech Infrastructure,
Unitech Builders and Estates, Aska Projects, Nahan Properties, Hudson
Properties, Volga Properties, Adonis Projects and Azare Properties
among them. They were able to merge all their licences when the
accused as Telecom Minister, signed another dubious notification
allowing this to happen.

(b) In the above deal the entry of a foreign firm having wide
operations in Pakistan and Bangladesh into Indian Telecom Industry has
been facilitated, which could evidently pose a threat to India's
National Security. It is significant that the Union Home Ministry has
raised objection regarding the unacceptable foreign links of Mr.
Shahid Balwa of Swan/ Etisalat DB and of Syed Salahuddin to Genex.
The Home Ministry points to the suspected links of these two key
players to Pakistan and the Chinese Army. This is, however, a matter
for another complaint.

36. It is further alleged that even his party chief, mentor and
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. M. Karunanidhi rubbished the allegations
against the accused, saying that leaders of certain political parties
could not tolerate the rise of a Dalit. This scurrilous comment
indicates that Mr. Karunanidhi is abetting the accused to evade the

37. It is further alleged that all the facts stated in above
paragraphs, are culled from the Records available with the Registrar
of Company Affairs which make out (along with the earlier paragraphs)
that all the ingredients of Section 13(1) (e) of the PCA are present:

(i) the accused, by corrupt or illegal means

(ii) obtained for himself/ other persons a valuable thing/
pecuniary advantage.

(iii) he did so by abusing his position as a public servant.

Furthermore alternately, above paragraphs also make out that

(iv) the accused dishonestly/ fraudulently misappropriated/
otherwise converted for his own use/ allowed any other person so to

(v) property entrusted to him/ under his control as a public servant.

38. Furthermore alternately, above paragraphs also make out that:

(vi) the accused/ any person on his behalf, is in possession/
has been at any time during the period of his office, in possession
of pecuniary resources/ property;

(vii) and the accused cannot satisfactorily account for these
pecuniary resources/ property;

(viii) and these pecuniary resources/ property are
disproportionate to his known sources of income.

39. The Government has so far not proceeded to prosecute the case
Court. Therefore, as a public spirited citizen the complainant wishes
to take up the matter and to initiate prosecution proceedings against
the accused.

40. That therefore:

(1) As summarized in above paras, the offences
committed by accused A. Raja come under Section 13(1) (c), (d) and
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act;

(2) The facts of these offences committed by the
accused A. Raja are already prima facie established from the CAG
Report annexed herewith besides the facts and evidence submitted
herewith, and fortified by the documents in the custody of the CBI,
CVC, ED and the Registrar of Companies.

41. Hence, it is prayed that this Court, being Special Judge, under
the Prevention of Corruption Act

Write a comment