rajeev chandrasekhar's letter to the cbi on illegal grants by dot

8/6/2019 Rajeev Chandrasekhar's Letter to the CBI on illegal grants by DoT

1/14

R A JE E V C H AN D RA S EK H ARM EM BER O F PA RL IA MEN T

R A JY A S AB HAMember of Standing Committee on Information Technology

Member of Consultative Committee on FinanceMember of Parliamentary Forum on Youth

Co-Chairman, Vigilance & Monitoring Committee, Bangalore Urban District

20 June, 2011

Dear Shri Priyadarshi,

Sub: Evidence with regard to illegal acts by DoT during 2007 ~08 (illegal grant ofGSM Stortup spectrum in violation of the TRAI Act and the First Come, FirstServed policy) - thus causing a loss to the Exchequer as articulated in theCAG Report of 16.11.2010, Chapters 5 and 6 (Rs . 37,154 crores lossattributable from dual technoloqv alone).

This is fu rther to my meeting with you on 14,06.2011. This submission is specifica Ilyaimed at assisting the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction to the CBlin its order dated16.1.2.2010, Section (i), which states:'The CBIshall conduct thorough investigation into various issues highlighted in the reportof the Central Vigl'ianceCommission which was forwarded to the Director, CBI vide letterdated 1210.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have prima facie found seriousirregulanfies in the grant of licenses to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to beineligible, the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licenses and huge loss to thepublic exchequer running into several thousand crores. The CBI should also probe howlicenses were granted to large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsiblefor the same and why the TRAIand the DoT did not toke action against those licens'eeswho sold their stakes/equities for many thousand crores and also against those who failedto fulfilrollout obligations and comply withother conditions of license N.This letter and the evidence I present does not cover the issue of grant of GSM spectrumto dual technology operators through DoT octions before 18.1 0.2007 ~ a day beforeduel technology policy was announced ~ because the Supreme Court has already orderedani ndependent investigation into this matter on 16.1 2 .2 01 0 ,

211 North Avenue, New Delhi-l1 0001 IndiaTel: + 91-11-23094044 Fox: + 9'1-11-23094042

E-mail: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]://www.rojeev.in/http://www.rojeev.in/mailto:[email protected]


2/14

2 00 7 -0 8 O I legal g rant o f G SM s pectrum to the T atas gran ted v id e their app lication d ated2 2.1 0. .20 07 fo r 20 n ew circles ):

It seems that the prevailing view with regard to theissuonce of GSM Startup spectrum tothe Tatas under the dual technology policy is that it was in accordance with TRAIrecommendations of 28.08.2007 on dual technology (Chapter 4 and Sections 6.20 -6.27):

'W(]garoinginter se priority for spectrum allocation, when the existing licensee becomeseliglhle for allocation of additional spectrum specific to the new technology, such alicensee has to be treated liKe any other existing licensee in the queue and the inter sepriority of allocation should be based on the criteria that may be determined by theDepartment of Telecommunications for the existing licensee.The licensee will maintain separate detail of the subscriber number data for the purposesof spectrum allocation but the AGR willbe the combined AGR of both the technologies. Itis the combined AGR which will determine the license fee.In order to ensure that the additional spectrum is efficiently and properly utilized in atimely manner: the license should also be required to fulfil the contingent rol! outobligation.The present provisions of roll out obligations should not be changed for all the accessservice providers". .

H owe ve r, th e re ality is :1) The contention that the policy of 19.10.2007 implemented the TRAI

recommendations dated 28.08.2007 (Chapter 4 and Sections 6.20 - 6.27) iswrong and incorrect.

2) Further, that the inter se priority was granted to the Tatas based on the said TRAIrecommendations, Section 6.23, is also entirely incorrect and being deliberatelymisinterpreted by ignori ng the very 1 0 nguage whieh guides the 'pu rposive instruction'of that section.

2


3/14

Before presenting brief argum.ents In favour of the above, it IS crucial to highlight thefollowing licensing/policy issues:i) For any applicant (existing, dual or new) to make claim to spectrum, it is critical that

their license / policy regime meets the test of legol tenability" If dual technologypolicy foils such a test, then all other claims, including, those of inter se victimization,are mere squabbles amongst wrongdoers. If the dual technology policy is inviolation of TRAI Act, the policy is illegol and the licenses/spectrum granted underthat policy is also illegol.

a. For any licenses to be granted, the policy/guidelines issued have to meet thetest of legality, and unless it passes thot test, any other claim or consumerinterest argument connot make up for the lack of legality. There are severalsettled Suprem.e Court judg ments in this reqo rd.

ii ) Dual technology operators, especiollv Tatas, were seeking exactly the same startupGSM spectrum that was being sought by old operators, operators with pendinglicenses since 2006 and the 575 UASL applicants who had applied aheod of Tatas-on or before 01.10.2007.o. The phrase 'additional spectrum' in the TRAI, recommendations has to be seen

in the context that it has been used. To state thot 'additional spectrum' equals'startup spectrum' in dual technology is incorrect because there had beendistinct procedures/eligibilities laid down for ecch.

b. Any party, including Tatas, that stands aggrieved by any other company thatmay have received licenses before the announcement of the' policy, does notnecessarily make them a victim, They must, on their own, poss the test oflegal ity a nd propriety, It is entirely possible that the Tatas mayor may not bevictims vis-a-vis other dual technology operators, but equally, they may havetrornpled over the rights of others who stood in queue ahead of them on anFCFS basis. A victim can also be a beneficiary - and both of those need to bedealt with separately.

c. The critical question is about the inter se priority decision of Tatas applicationdated 22.10.2007 vis-a-vis the 575 applications received on or before01 , 10,2007, of wh ich only 122 were gro nted licenses and the remaini ng 345(beyond 26.09.2007) were rejected even thoug h they had applied 21-25 daysahead of Tatas. This, in spite of no recommendation from the TRAI or legalopin ion in the DoT.

3


4/14

With the above background as a basis of evaluating the contention of the potentialaccused/involved parties, kindly evaluate the following evidence:

I. Dual technolo9Y policy decision announced vide Press.Release of 19.10.2007 wasille9al since it violates the TRAI Act ~ because the DoT unilaterally modified. TRAI'srecommendations without anyreference back to the TRAI

a. DoT Changed TRAl recommendations on rollout obligations for dual technologyoperators (Chapter 5 read with Chapter 4 and specifically Sections 6.26 and6.27):The dual technology decision announced by the DoT on 191 h October 2007 isillegal and void ab initio. This is clear from the fact that the policy has beenannou need in blatant violation of the TRAI Act, Section 11(1){a){ii}, Fifth Proviso,which makes it mandatory for the DoT to re-refer the matter back to the TRAI inthe event it plons to modify or deviate from the recommendations of the T'RAI.In the said instance, the TRAI, in its recommendations dated 28th August 2007,Section 6.26 read with Section 6.27, states in no uncertain terms that a dualtechnology licensee would be required to fulfil: contingent rollout obligations andthat such rollout obligations should not be changed for all. access providers.However, in the policy announced on 19th October 2007, the DoT removed anyprovisions for rollout obligations without the mandatory compliance with Section11(1)(a}(ii), Fifth Proviso of the TRAI Act. .It is pertinent to point out that the DoT's move to remove rollout obligations fromdual technology operators is strikingly consistent with Tata Tele's reply to theconsultation process which eventually led to the TRAI recommendations of28.08.2007 in which Totes, in Question 18, stated that, JI There should be norollout obligations specifically linked to alternate technology which existingoperators have decided to use."The DoT, in flagrant violation of law, announced the policy that was consistentwith Tatas' submission on the rollout obligations, thus depriving the nation andits public of the very basic requirements of Government policy i.e., to ensureteledensity and access through network rollout which was the key reason forall.owing dual technology policy in the first place

4


5/14

b. DoT modified the TRAI recommendations on calculation of spectrum chargelicense fee based on 'com bined spectrum ', and rather used 'sepa.rate stream s' -th us u nila te ra lly mod ify in g TRA I's re commend atio ns a nd b y c on se qu en ce c au sin ga m ass iv e lo ss to th e E xc heq uer:TRAl,in its recommendations of 281~August 2007, Section 6.24 (detailed inSection 4.30) clearly articulated that lithe AGR wi/I be the combined AGR ofmultiple technologies and it is the combined AGR which will become the basis oflicense fee" - which includes spectrum charge. The illegol. dual technologydecision on nou need on 191 h October 2007, was in blatant violation of th isrecommendation and aimed at granting hundreds of crores of benefit to dualtechnology ope rotors, such as Tatas, by chang in9 the 'combi ned AGR'recommendation of the TRAI to 0 calculotion based on 'separate streams' (pressrelease of 19th October 2007, Para 4, last line), .I'For the purposes of payment oflicense fee and spectrum charge, the stream wise revenue of differenttechnologies shall be considered." This was done without a mandatory re-reference to the TRAI under Section 11(1)(a)(iiJ, Fifth Proviso. The consequence ofthis is hundreds of crores of losses to the exchequer and corresponding gains todual technology operators. The two parameters that especially impact increase inpayment to the exchequer are:i) Spectrum allocated - which only increases through the term of the license,

andii) AGR - which also only increases during the term of the licenseBased on the above violotions alone, the entire decision of dual technology of191 h October 2007 is deemed illegol ond void ab initio.

TRA I V s. D oT TR AI R ecommendation V s. D oT D ecision C om pliancewith Sect ion1 1 (1)(a)(ii) .F if th Proviso

TRAI Recommendation, "T he AGR willbe the c omh in ed AGR of28.08.2007, Section 6.24 multiple technologies and it is thecombined AGR which willbecome thebasis of license fee" NoDoT Decision, 19.10.2007 /IFor the purposes of payment of license

fee and spectrum charge, the streamwise revenue of different technologiesshall be considered.

5


6/14


7/14

Consequently, the only companies that stand in a queue for startup spectrum orenew UASL applicants. The recommendation, when reod in its totality, o'iong with'like any other existing licensee in the queue' is clearly not referring to startupspectrum for dual technology operators, since there is no queue for existingoperators (Bharti, Vodafone, Idea) in the first place.

Further, the recommendation also states, 1/ the inter se priority of allocafionshould be based on a criteria that-may be determined by Do T for the existinglicensee." Clearly, this cannot refer to startup spectrum for the simple reason thatthe DoT does not have to deterrn ine the inter se priority for stortup spectrum -since that (till the date of this recommendation) was based on the FCFS process.However, it is the 'additional spectrum beyond the contracted amount' for whichthe DoT was required to make a final decision on inter se priority/subscriber-based allocation etc.

In conclusion, Sedion 6.23 of the TRAI recommendation, in its entirety, under nocircumstances, can be read to mean that additional spectrum is the same asstartup spectrum for dual technology operators such as Tatas. Finally, it is alsodear from the TRAI recommendations that no criterion had been allocated infovou r of Tatas to iurnp the queue of the waiting 575 applicants. In fact, it wasnot even deolt with - either in Chapter 4 or in Chapter 6 of the saidrecommendations. In fact that is the only reason why the DoT had to seek alegal opinion on this matter (not vis-a-vis existing operators or licensees awaitingsince 2006 but vis-a-vis the 575 appl iconts) vide their letter to the MLJ dated26.11..2007.

b. All DoT officials (relevant to the case) including members' of the TelecomCommission, and the then MoC&IT, Shri A . Ro]o, agreed on 24.10.2007 thatno priority for dual technology has been indicated by the TRAI in favour of Teres(dual technology) vis-e-vis the 575 applications that were pending since01.10.2007:A reading of the notes in the Secret File No. 20-100/2007 /AS-I shows clearlythat neither Section 6.23 nor any other section of the TRAl's recommendationsindicate any priority fo r duo I tech nology appl icants such as Tatas over the 575waiNng applicants for startup spectrum. This is dear from a note written by ShriN.itin Jain dated 24th October 2007, Section 3, which states:"Subsequently on 22. 10.2007 Mis. TATAwho are VASL operators in 20 serviceareas have also applied for Dual Technology spectrum (I: e. for GSM in additionto COMA technology). A decision is requ;red to he taken in this case".

7


8/14

Further, it also states in Section 4:uYou may request ld. SG to provide his opinion on methodology proposed byDoT with regard to grant of new VASl license and usage of dual technologyspectrum, based on availability"'.The note is approved by Shri AK. Srivastava, DOG (AS), by Member ( T ) , by ShriO.S. Mathur, Secretary (T) and by Shri A Rajo, the then MoC&IT, on 25 October2007. This means that the then MoCiT was dear that there was no existing policywith regard to dual technology where allocation of spectrum was concerned andspecif co Ily with regard to Totos who hod a ppi ied afte r 19 adobe r 2007. The rewas no priority since there was no policy/recommendation from the TRAI vis~a-visthe existing 575 applications.This file was signed by DOG (AS), Member (Telecom) and Secretary (Telecom) on24th October 2007, and by the then MoClT, Shri A Ro]o on 25th October 2007.Had the TRAI recommendations been explicit in favour of Tatas, this note wouldneither have been prepared nor opproved nor signed by members of theTelecom Commission and the then MoOT. Also, it shows no dissent amongst thecurrent accused and witnesses as per the C B I charge sheet.

c. Justice Shlvro] Patil OMC Report, Annexure 43 shows that in absence of TRAIrecommendations on how to treat Totos' cpplicoflons vis-a-vis the 575applications, a case for legal opinion was prepared and sent by Shri K. Sridhorc,Member ( T ) on 26.10.2007 which, inter alia, states the following:"Sub..Seeking opinion of Learned Attorney General of India/Solicitor General ofIndio on grant of new Unified Access Service (UAS) Licenses and approval for useof Dual Technology Spectrum by UAS Licensee(s).1 / 5 . Subsequently on 22.10.2007 Mis. TATA who are UASL operators in 20service areas have also applied for Dual Technology spectrum (/ e for GSM inaddition to CDMA technology). A decision is required to be taken in this case."10. M/s. TATA are existing operator using COMA technology in 20 serviceareas and their request for alternate technology spectrum in GSM was receivedby DoT on 22. 70.2007; The dote of priority for spectrum allocation may be thedate of payment of required fee for each service area. Their request forpermission shall be token up alongwdh new applicants as in para 11 below.~/3. Issue of lols to M/s. TATA and others for usage of Dual Technologyspectrum based on their applications received after I B -1 O~2007. Whether(I ) To treat their request prior to existing applicants

or(ii} To treat their request after processing 011575 applications

8


9/14

"74, Opinion Sought: Opinion of Learned Attorney General of India/SolicitorGeneral of India is solicited on dlHerent alternatives mentioned in para 10 to1 3. //Clearly, if Section 6.23 was to be interpreted as giving Tatas priority over thepending 575 applications, then such a question would not be posed for a legalopinion as in Section 13 above ..Moreover, like the [ile nolings on 24.10.2007,the legal opinion was based on a note prepared by Shri AK. Srivastava on26.10.2007 which was approved by Member (T) and the then MoClT, Shri A .Raia. So unless it is sorneone's contention that they were all conspiring, such anote could not have been written.In any event, this proves beyond a doubt that no recommendation was receivedfrom the TRAI on how to prioritize dual technology operators where allocation ofstartup spectrum was concerned vis-a-vis the 575 waiting applicants.IdeoIly, the DoT sh0uId have sent the matter back for re-referenee to the TRAIsince such a provision exists under the TRAIAct, Section 11(1)(a)(ii), Fifth Proviso.However, it instead sought a legal opinion which is the next best alternative Inany event, Section 6.23 cannot be used to justify Tatas' trompling over the rightsof the 575 applicants, including the 345 whose applications have never receivedspectrum since they applied between 26.09.2007 and 01,10.2007, but aheadof Tatas by 21 - 25 days.It is well known that on 01.1 1.2007, M L J refused legal opinion and insteadsuggested that the matter be sent to an EGoM - a decision that was rejected byShri A Raja.

d. DoT file nolings show that in absence of TRAI recommendations and rejection ofa legal opinion b y the MU, DoT offidals/Shri A . Ro]o decided to await theTDSAT judgment on how to deal with Tata applications - file notings of02.11.2007 and 07.11 .2007 (also mentions RTL):Since there was no explicit recommendation from the TRAI nor was a legalopinion forthcoming on the matter, DoT officials, including Director (AS-I), DOG(AS), Member (T}, Secretory (T) and the then MoOT, Shri A Raja, agreed thatspectrum priority for Tatas can only be decided after the TDSAT judgment (this isconfirmed on 02.11.2007 and then reconfirmed in a second note doted07.11.2007 - Secret File No. 20-100!2007-AS-I, Annexure 47 of the OMCReport).

9


10/14

e. DoT took a U-turn 5 days later, pretending to place dual technology operatorssuch as Totos etc. last in priority but surreptitiously destroying the F C F S to placethem first and ahead of 57 5 applications, all of which were waiting ahead of theTata applications:On 12.11.2007, while rejecting the entire note on file to determine inter seprio rity betwee n Toto sand the pe nd i ng 575 a p pi icati ons, a n a ffi do v it was fi ledby the DoT (Sedion 4.1 (xii) - Notes 118 of OMC Report), In Petition No.286/2007, where DoT pretended to give Tatos the last priority vis-a -vis olddemand for spectrum and startup spectrum for December 2006 licenses, butsurreptitiously, and in toto I violation of FCFS, gave them the first priority over the575 woiting applicants - some of whom had applied up to a year before theTata applications and all of whom had applied even before the dual technologypolicy was announced on 19.10.2007.This affidavit, combined with the massive favours granted to dual technologyoperators (illegal removal of rollout obligations and change of revenue shareAGR from 'combined stream' to 'separate streams of spectrum') was theequivalent of perpetrating multiple illegalities to favour a private company - allotthe cost of causing a massive loss to the exchequer and consequent gain to theprivate companies while writing and approving. one set of notes on the file, andtaking actions which were exactly the reverse.To re-emphasize, there is nota single word in the said TRAI Recommendationson the inter se priority between dual technology applications and 575applications, which in effect, were received ahead of dual technologyapplications, especially those filed by Tatas.Since the TRAI Recommendations are silent on the issue of inter se prioritybetween dual technology spectrum and new 575 waiting applicants, any DoTdecision leading to the affidavit of 12.1 1.2007 should have been eithersupported by TRAI Recommendations or a sound legal opinion or a court order.This is important because spectrum was limited and the following people weredemanding it (in the order of FCFS):

Old operators demanding additional spectrum licensees since December 2006 demanding startup spectrum UASL applicants since 2006 waiting for startup spectrum Dual technology operators awaiting stortup spectrum.Note : Some UASL applicants had applied even before the DoT reference of13.04.2007 regordinginter olio the issue of dual technology was made to theTRAI, leave alone consultotion or recommendations. l.ostlv, the executivedecision announced vide Press Release of 19.10.2007. So inter se priority was

10


11/14

" " "

not a simple matter of right for anyone if FCFS had to be followed, especiallysince ollocation of spectrum is linked to processing of application - which isentirely discretionary, and therefore, subject to abuse.To support a legally defendable decision on inter se spectrum priority betweendual technology and 575 applications, at least one of the following would bemandatory, but none existed:i_ No TRAI Recommendations

There are no TRAI Recommendations to decide inter se priority for dualtechnology operators vis-e-vis 575 applicants, especially since the FCFS rulecomes in the way of treating the oppllcotions of Totcs received on22.10.2007 vis-a-vis the 575 received on or before 01.10.2007.

II. MU refused legQ!IopinionThere is no legal. opinion on this matter even though one was sought on26.10.2007. MU refused a leqol opinion even thoug:h this issue wasspecifically poised as a question in Section 13 of the said cose for opinion.

III. No court orderIn the said matter, there is no court order to support allocation of spectrum todUQ!I technology operators ahead of 575 applicants, especially since theartificial advancement of cut-off date has already been declared illegal by theHon'ble Delhi High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in itsJudgement of 12.03.2010. Moreover, the 575 applicants were not a partyto the petition filed in the TDSAT, and therefore, TDSAT could not havedecided against the interest of parties who were not even in the case. Thesecompanies are still not party to the case which is now pending in the Hon'bleSupreme Court.

The duol technology versus 575 inter se priority is also crucial since bothrecommendotions came through on the some doy, i.e., 28082007, and wereimplemented on the some day i.e., 10.01.2008. Nothing separates these twoexcept the presence of one of the above three.In conclusion, DoT had no legQ!I basis for making a decision that would at bestbe qualified as arbitrary, but circumstantial evidence would suggest it Q!Smalafide.

11


12/14

f. Chairman of Tata Group write~ a 'thank you' handwritten letter the very next dayto the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister:l.t is no coincidence that the exact next doy, rather thon being disoppoi nted atbeing placed th i rd in spectru m priority, Sh ri Raton Tata (who knows that he hadjumped ahead of 575 applications before the Tatas) writes a 'thank you' I.etter(now in the public domain), specifically complimenting 'legal soundness, fairnessand consistency' of Shri A Raja in a letter that was hand-carried by Ms. NiiraRadio.The only decisions taken till date in the dual technology areas were: Announcement of the illegal dual technology policy in violation of the TRAI

Act. Maior benefit to Tatas by ma n ipu loti ng the defin ifion of AGRls pectru m

charges for revenue share. Removal of rollout obligations, saving hundreds of crores of infrastructure

investme nt. Pretending to place the Tataslast in priority vide an affidavit dated

12.11.2007, but in fact letting them jump the queue of 575 applicants,notwithstanding the absence of any TRAI recommendations or legal opinionor TDSAT order in this matter.

g. On 1 0.01 .2008, Tatas a 10ng with the other 12 2 applicants, we re 9 ranted a 50-called 'DoT response':Curiously, the press releases that were released on that day .are silent aboutallotment of spectrum to the dual technology operator - presumably to confusethe waiting 345 applicants who were the only ones who could have legallychallenged such an allotment ahead of them.Note:Again, since CBI is independently investigating the case of other dual technologyoperators - this particular letter does not emphasize all such issues and passesno judgment on the legality or illegality of any operator(s). The ccse of Tatas hasbeen highlighted since under the FCFS process, the date of application for GSMspectrum is also linked to payment etc. (mentioned in the DoT Press Release of10.01 .2008) .. Conseque ntly, the FCFS process is certai nly coiled into question,uniquely in case of T atas as they were the very lost application for the startup 2GGSM spectrum received till date. No company that filed such an applicationafter them had been granted spectrum, or else, that company would have to betreated with the same lens as the Tatas. To a very significant extent, thissubmission argues the violation not [us! of the TRAI Act, but also the so-celledFCFS policy which was implemented based on a priority assigned to "date ofapplication."

12


13/14

Conclusion:The claim by some private companies that they have been victimized by other dualtechnology operators might well be true and that is a matter of an independentinvestigation. However, it is undeniable there is not a single word in any section of theTRAI recommendation of 28.08.2007 that sets out the inter se priority between them andthe waiting 575 applications. This is the exact reason why all DoT officials, including theMinister, first sought legal opinions (24.10.2007 and 26 10 2007) and later when deniedthe opinion, agreed to await TDSAT's [udqment - file notes of 02.11.2007 and07.11.2007. The U-turn was suddenly taken within 5 days and while pretending to placethe Tatas behind existing operators with old demand and awaiting licenses sinceDecember 2006 - in complete violation of all internal notes, Tatas jumped over the 575appl ica nts.Please remember all 575 applicants qualified for UAS .licenses!2G spectrum under apolicy announced/amended on 11.11.2003 based on guidelines announced on11.11.2003 and re-announced on 14.1.2.2005. In comparison, the dual technologypolicy itself was announced on 19.1 0.2007. It cannot be anybody's case that thecompany can get priority on startup spectrum ahead of those (575 applicants) who hadapplied even before the dual technology policy was conceived. It cannot be certainly thecase that the TRAl's recom mendation would have co u sed such a distortion of interests offair ploy and natural [ustice and cause damage to the ~45 applicants who should havereceived spectrum ahead of the T atas under the FCFS policy, but couldn't because of thisset of complex machinations to place one company ahead of them.Copies of all. relevant annexures are being attached herewith for your ready reference.hope you will study and pursue this evidence to ensure that interests of-justice and truthare served and all Illegal actions of the DoT and beneficiaries are identif ied withoutexception.Yours Sincerely,

~~RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR

Sh ri V ivek PriyadarshiSuperintendent of PoliceCentral. Bureau of InvestigationCGO Complex, Lodi RoadNew Delhi

End. : List of Annexures and Actual Annexures

13


14/14

L i s t o f AnnexuresAnnexure Description

1 DoT Reference dated 13.04.2007 on capping of service providers, dual technologyand other issues such as rollout oblig.ations etc.TRAI Reco mme ndati on s dated. 28.08.2007 on "Review of license terms and2 , conditions and copping of number of access providers' (including dual technology)

3 Press Note dated 2409.2007 on "Cui-off Date for Applications for Unified AccessServices Licenses'4

DoT file Noting dated 24.09.2007 on "Cut off date for receiving applications forUAS Licenses'

5 Decision of the Government on TRAYsRecommendation dated 28.08.2007Letter from Shr.i N. Misra, Cbcirmon- TRAI to Shri D.S. Mathur, Secretory-DoT dated

6 15.10.2007 on legal provrsions In the TRAI Act for implementing TRAIReco m mendo tio ns

7 DoT Press Release dated 19.10.2007 onnouncinq the decision of the Governmentto issue spectrum under duol technology In violotion of the TRAI ActLetter by Shri N. Misra, Chairman - TRAI to S h r i D.S. Mathur, Secretary - DoT

8 objectinq to the manner in which the DoT was imple menting TRAIRecommendations on dual technology vide its Press Release of 19.10.2007

9 DoT's Case for Opinion from AG/SG on legal Issues inter. alia how to treat Totoduo I technology appl ications vis-e-vis the pend ing 575 UASL appl ications10 Note / Memo from Hon'ble MU dated 01.11.2007 reiusinq legal opinion on DoT'sreq uest inter alia on Tata dua I tech versus 575 applications

Copy of the Secret file No. 20- 100/2007 -AS-I dated 24.10.2007 on gront of new'1 1 UASL licenses and dual technology spectrum - Critical file notings on 24.10.2007,

26.10.2007, 02.11.2007 and 07 11.2007Letter from Shri A . ROids doted 26.12.2007 to the Hon'ble Prime Minister conveying

12 spectrum prio rity fa r Tatas a h eod of the woiting 575 UAS licensees while adm.ittingthat the dual technology decision was pending both in TDSAT and Delhi High Court

13 Press Release doted 10.01.2008 announcing allocation of UASL licenses (withoutony mention of dual technology spectrum)14 Second Press Release doted 10.01.2008 issued hours before grant of Lois onlyreferri ng to duaI tech naI.ogy by way of ''DoT Respo ns8'

14

rajeev chandrasekhar's letter to the cbi on illegal grants by dot

Documents