Monthly Archives: August 2012

WP.40994/2002.Date of order 24/08/2012

High Court of Karnataka
Daily Orders of the Case Number :
WP  40994/2002  Date of order 24/08/2012

Honble Justice RAM MOHAN REDDY & H.BILLAPPA
24/08/2012
Order in WP  40994/2002

Sri. M. Shivaprakash, learned Counsel to comply with office objections on I.A.2/12 and 3/12 and ensure service of copies on the learned Counsel for the parties who are permitted to file objections.

2. In compliance with the order dt. 27/7/2012, the respondent  BBMP files a report along with enclosures. The abstract of the percentage of utilization of land for formation of layout in respect of 181 acres and 39.25 guntas (including un-acquired land), discloses shortfall of 20.20% in CA, parks and open spaces and excess of 4.42% against roads and 15.78% towards sites. Report is taken on record. Parties are entitled to file objections if any.

3. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent  BDA files a memo enclosing a photocopy of the notification dt. 12/10/1984 along with the Zonal Regulations approved under the Comprehensive Development Plan, in compliance with the order dt. 27/7/2012.

4. The 4th respondent  Society, in compliance with the order dt. 27/7/2012 files a memo enclosing the sketch prepared by a private surveyor, in respect of 156 acres 26.75 guntas of land and its utilization both in percentages and areas in Sq.Meters and Sq.Feet. According to the Society, 60.13% constitutes residential area; while 5.53% is relinquished in favour of BBMP; and roads including roads in un-acquired land constitute 34.34%. The enclosures include photocopies of orders passed by the Bangalore Development Authority imposing penalty in respect of areas in excess utilized for sites in a layout formed by MPM Housing Society and regularizing the layout.

5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Society presents a memo enclosing a map of layout signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sr. Superintendent of Land Records and countersigned by the Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk, indicating that an extent of 154 acres 11¿ gunta is acquired while 28 acres 6¿ guntas is the un-acquired portion, totalling to 182 acres and 18 guntas, and that an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas, is in unauthorised occupation while 7 acres 11 guntas is said to be un-utilized by the Society. Also enclosed to the memo is a photocopy of a portion of the Zoning Regulations of the year 2015 providing prescription of 55% of sital area; 15% of civic amenities and parks, in a layout, and exemption to be accorded in the event of short fall in the CA site area.

6. Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned Sr. Counsel for the Society, seeks time to secure instructions over the reduction of the excess sital area so as to decrease the short fall in civil amenities, parks and open space.

List on 31/8/2012.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

WP 40994/2002 for the date of order 24/08/2012. . Daily Orders of the Case

 Number : WP  40994/2002 for the date of order 24/08/2012 High Court of Karnataka – Principal Bench at Bangalore
WP 40994/2002

CASE PENDING

Petitioner/Appnt. Name (Click)
Respondent/Defnt. Name
Petnr./Appnt. Advocate
Respnt./Defnt. Advocate
Date Filed Classification:
District
Stage  Last Posted for
Last Action Taken     Last Date of Action    Next hearing date
Before Hon’ble Judge/s

 Details of the Daily Order ..
(Click on date of order to get full order)

Sl.No. Honble Judge Date of Order
1 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 14/01/2011
2 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 10/06/2011
3 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 24/06/2011
4 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 28/06/2011
5 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 13/01/2012
6 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 24/02/2012
7 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 09/03/2012
8 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 27/07/2012
9 HONBLE RMRJ,HBJ 24/08/2012

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Honorable Supreme Court Order dt.24/08/2012 in SLP(Crl.)No.1688 of 2012 and I.A.No.34 of 2012 In C.A.No . 10660 of 2010 Subramanian Swamy Vs. A. Raja (2G Spectrum Case)

August 24, 2012

Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.1688 of 2012
and
I.A . No. 34 of 2012
In
CIVIL APPEAL No . 10660 of 2010
Subramanian Swamy Petitioner/
Appellant(s)
Versus
A. Raja Respondent
O R D E R
K.S . RADHAKRISHNAN , J .
1. Common questions arise for consideration in both
these applications, hence they are being disposed of by a
common order. SLP (Crl.) 1688 of 2012 arises out of an
order dated 04.02.2012 in CC No.01(A)/11 passed by the
Page 2
Special Judge, CBI (04) (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi.
I.A. No. 34 of 2012 has been filed by the appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 claiming almost identical reliefs.
2. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the petitioner in special
leave petition filed a criminal complaint on 15.12.2010
before the Special Judge, CBI of Central/Delhi to set in
motion the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act (for
short ‘the PC Act’) against A. Raja, the then minister of
Telecommunications and to appoint him as a prosecutor
under Section 5(3) of the PC Act. The complaint was
numbered as CC No.1 of 2010 and was heard on several
occasions. The case was later transferred to the Special
Judge, CBI (04)(2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi. CBI, after
investigation, filed a charge sheet in that complaint on
2.4.2011 regarding commission of offences during 2007-
2009 punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC
and also punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, against A. Raja and others. Special
Judge took cognizance on 2.4.2011. CBI’s further
investigation disclosed that the monetary involvement was
much more and charge was laid. Special Judge took
2
Page 3
cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet on 25.4.2011.
Both the charge sheets were clubbed together vide order
dated 22.10.2011 under Section 120B read with Sections
409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and day to day trial began from
11.11.2011. Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s complaint case
No.CC 01/2011 was also taken on file and renumbered as
CC.No.1(A)/2011.
3. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the petitioner, herein, while
he was being examined under Section 200, Code of Criminal
Procedure in CC No. 01(A)/11 had deposed on 17.12.2011
as well as on 07.01.2012 that Shri A Raja, the first accused,
could not have alone committed the offences alleged against
him, but for the active connivance of Shri P. Chidambaram,
the then Finance Minister. So far as the various charges
were concerned, it was alleged that both Shri A. Raja and
Shri P. Chidambaram were jointly and severely responsible.
Reference was also made to documents including Ext. CW
1/1 to CW 1/28 with an emphasis that all those acts were
done by the accused – Shri A Raja in connivance, collusion
and consent of Shri P. Chidambaram and hence Shri P.
3
Page 4
Chidambaram was also guilty of commission of the offences
under the P.C. Act for which Shri A. Raja was already facing
trial. Further, it was also pointed out that Shri P.
Chidambaram was also guilty of breach of trust on the
question of national security for not disclosing that Etisalat
and Telenor were black-listed by the Home Ministry.
Further, it was pointed out that there was enough
incriminating materials on record for carrying out the
investigation against Shri P. Chidambaram and for making
him an accused in the case. Further, it was also alleged
that Shri P. Chidambaram had played a vital role in the
subversion of the process of issuance of Letter of Intent (for
short ‘LOI’), Unified Access Service (for short ‘UAS’) Licences
and allocation of spectrum in the year 2007-08. Further, it
was also alleged that Shri P. Chidambaram was also
complicit in fixing the price of the spectrum licence at 2001
level and permitting two companies, which received the
licence that is Swan Tele Communication (P) Ltd. (for short
‘Swan’) and Unitech (T.N.) Ltd. (for short ‘Unitech’) and to
dilute their shares even before roll-out of their services.
4
Page 5
4. Learned Special Judge, after referring to the various
documents, produced found no substance in the allegations
raised against Shri P. Chidambaram and found that he had
no role in the subversion of the process of issuance of the
LOI, UAS Licences and allocation of spectrum in the year
2007-08. Learned Judge concluded that there was no
evidence on record that he was acting in pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy, while being party to the two decisions
regarding non-revision of the spectrum pricing and dilution
of equity by the two companies. Consequently, the prayer
made for carrying out the investigation against Shri P.
Chidambaram and to make him an accused was rejected
vide order dated 04.02.2012, against which SLP (Crl.) No.
1688 of 2012 has been filed.
5. Dr. Swamy appeared in person and elaborately
referred to Annexure P-1 Final Report dated 03.04.2011
submitted by CBI before the Special Judge especially Para
E, charge dealing with “Cheating the Government
Exchequer by Non- Revision of Entry Fee”. Reference was
also made to the summary of his arguments raised before
5
Page 6
the Special Judge for carrying out investigation against Shri
P. Chidambaram and to array him as an accused in the
pending criminal case. Reference was also made to the
meetings that Shri P. Chidambaram had with Shri A. Raja
on 30.01.2008, 29.05.2008, 12.06.2008 and later with the
Prime Minister on 04.07.2008 and submitted that in those
meetings both of them conspired together for a common
object and purpose in fixing the pricing of spectrum at the
year 2001 level and permitting distribution equally by two
companies Swan and Unitech. Further, it was also pointed
out that Shri P. Chidambaram was fully aware, at least, on
09.01.2008 as to what Shri A Raja was planning to do on
10.01.2008. Referring to several documents placed on
record, it was pointed out that in fact Shri P. Chidambaram
did not pay heed to the opinions expressed by the officials of
his own Ministry and abeted to commit various illegal acts.
6. Dr. Swamy referred to various ingredients of Section
13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act and pointed out that a bare reading of
the above mentioned provision shows that mens rea or
criminal intent was not an essential ingredient of that
6
Page 7
Section. Reference was made to the judgment of this Court
reported in Indo China Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjeet
Singh [1964(6) SCR 594], State of Maharashtra v. Hans
George [1965 (1) SCR 123] and R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax
Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit Mills Ltd. and
Another [1977 (4) SCC 98] and submitted the ratio of above
judgments indicate that certain criminal offences imposing
punishment of incarceration need not require mens rea
instead strict liability as enumerated in the statute itself.
Dr. Swamy pointed out that the above mentioned statutory
provision would indicate that the emphasis is on “obtains”
and “public interest”. Dr. Subramanian Swamy submitted
that the learned trial judge had failed to notice those vital
aspects and has wrongly rejected the prayer for conducting
investigation against Shri P. Chidambaram and to array him
as an accused.
7. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the applicants in I.A. No. 34 of 2012 has indicated the
necessity of conducting a thorough investigation by the CBI
into the role of the then Finance Minister Shri P.
7
Page 8
Chidambaram in the matter of fixing the spectrum pricing
and allowing the sale of equity by Swan and Unitech.
Learned counsel pointed out that in that process, Shri P.
Chidambaram had over-ruled the officers of his own
Ministry who favoured auction / market-based pricing of
spectrum and instead allowed various companies to make
windfall profits. Further, it was also stated that he had
allowed the above-mentioned companies to sell off their
shares without charging any Government’s share of its
premium on account of spectrum valuation and without
enforcing his own agreement with the then Telecom
Minister.
8. Learned counsel made specific reference to para
2.1.2(3) and submitted that the Group of Ministers (GoMs)
had in their recommendation dated 30.10.2003 stated that
the Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Ministry of
Finance (MoF) would discuss and finalise spectrum pricing
formula which would include incentive for efficient use of
spectrum as well as disincentive for suboptimal usages.
Learned counsel pointed out that the above
8
Page 9
recommendation would clearly indicate that MoF officials
were fully aware that unless such ‘concurrence’ based on
discussion and finalization of spectrum pricing formula
between the DoT and the MoF had been established, the
DoT could not have moved ahead and spectrum could have
been allocated at 2001 rates in the year 2007-08.
9. Learned counsel also referred to the “Position Paper on
Spectrum Policy” prepared by the Department of Economic
Affairs (revised on 03.01.2008) which was forwarded along
with covering letter dated 09.01.2008. The Telecom
Commission meeting which was to take place on
09.01.2008 was postponed to 15.01.2008. Further, it was
pointed out that before the scheduled meeting of the
Telecom Commission on 15.01.2008, DoT had already
issued 122 LOIs for UAS licenses on 10.01.2008 and that
LOIs were converted into licenses during 27.02.2008 to
7.3.2008 and the spectrum allocation was started from
22.4.2008 and completed 6.5.2009. Learned counsel
pointed out that, the then Finance Minister had enough
9
Page 10
time to stop the scam, since the price was not fixed by the
DoT and MoF as authorized by the GoMs (2003).
10. Further, it was also stated that before the Telecom
Commission could meet, then Finance minister made a note
on 15.01.2008 to the Prime Minister of India pointing out
that the note did not deal with the need, if any, to revise
entry fee or the rate of revenue share, and also indicated the
said note dealt with spectrum charges for 2G spectrum.
Further, it was also stated by Shri Prashant Bhushan that
then Finance Minister and Shri A Raja had met on
30.01.2008 to discuss the issue of licensing and spectrum
pricing. In that meeting, then Finance Minister had
announced the issue of revising entry fee of 122 LOIs
already issued by DoT and that they were not seeking to
revisit the current regimes for entry fee or for revenue share.
11. Shri Bhushan also referred to the approach paper by
Department of Telecom Commission, which was forwarded
by the Secretary, DoT to the Finance Secretary, MoF, which
would indicate that the officials of Finance Ministry were
10
Page 11
keen to stop the allocation of spectrum of 4.4 MHz and were
suggesting the allocation of spectrum by way of auction.
12. Learned counsel also referred to the sequel note to the
Department of Economic Affairs dated 11.02.2008 which
according to the learned counsel, would indicate that the
MoF had deferred from the position of DoT and stated that
there was no contractual obligation to allot a start-up
spectrum of 4.4 MHz to every licencee free of cost and that
the entire range of the spectrum allotted should be priced
and that the issue of level playing field could be addressed
by charging the price even on existing operators. Learned
counsel pointed out that in spite of objection raised by the
officials of Ministry, the Finance Minister acted in
connivance with Shri A Raja and Shri A Raja went ahead
and issued 122 licences which could have been prevented
by Shri P. Chidambaram, had he stood with the views of his
officials.
13. Learned counsel also referred to note dated
07.04.2008 sent by the Finance Secretary after discussion
11
Page 12
with the Finance Minister wherein it was noticed that DoT
was agreeable for pricing of spectrum beyond 4.4 MHz but
wanted that to be deferred till auction of 3G and WIMax was
completed. Reference was also made by the learned
counsel to the note dated 03.04.2008 of the Additional
Secretary (EA) and pointed out that then Finance Minister
had agreed that spectrum usage charge should be increased
reflecting the scarcity value of spectrum as indicated in
their note dated 11.02.2008. Further, the note also
indicated the Finance Minister’s view that they should
insist, in principle, on pricing spectrum beyond 4.4 MHz
although details could be worked out after the auction of 3G
spectrum.
14. Shri Prashant Bhushan also referred to the Office
Memorandum, MoF dated 8.4.2008 prepared by Shri
Govind Mohan, Director which, according to the learned
counsel reflected the MoF’s original position of 11.2.2008 on
the issue of subjecting the entire spectrum to specific
pricing. Learned counsel alleged that the note issued was
later withdrawn and the officer was reprimanded and a
12
Page 13
fresh Office Memorandum was issued by the same Director.
Learned counsel compared the original Office Memorandum
dated 08.04.2008 and the new Office Memorandum and
submitted that the original Office Memorandum had
required the entire range of spectrum to be specifically
priced and the revised Office Memorandum which was
prepared on 9.4. 2008 had presented with a date of
8.4.2008, specifically sought to exclude start-up spectrum
upto 4.4 MHz from being specifically charged, ensuring the
entry fee of 2001 that was fixed by the then Telecom
Minister in 2008, was not revised. Shri Bhushan submitted
that the officer had to apologize for his deeds and on
16.04.2008, the then Finance Minister accepted the apology
of the officer.
15. Learned counsel also referred to letter dated 21.4. 2008
sent by the then Finance Minister to Shri A Raja and
submitted that the spectrum issue “non paper” was silent
on the issue of entry fee for start-up spectrum for 122
licences already issued and the discussion mainly
concentrated on the charging for spectrum beyond 4.4 MHz.
13
Page 14
Reference was also made to the Finance Secretary’s updated
note dated 29.04.2008 which, according to the learned
counsel, reflected the same position preferred by MoF. Both
Shri A Raja and Shri P. Chidambaram met on 29.05.2008
as well as on 12.06.2008. Learned counsel also pointed out
that on 4.7.2008, the then Finance Minister, Shri A Raja
along with Finance Secretary met the Prime Minister. By
the time, LOIs were already issued which were converted to
licences, allocation of start-up spectrum was started.
Learned counsel also made reference to the CAG report and
the pointed out the reference made to Shri P.
Chidambaram. Reference was also made to the briefing
made by the Prime Minister, to the Media on 16.2.2011 and
also the address made by the Prime Minister in Rajya Sabha
on 24.2.2011.
16. Learned counsel also pointed out that there was no
justification, in any view, in allotting the start-up spectrum
4.4 MHz to every licensee free of cost and submitted that
the entire range of spectrum allotted should have been
priced. Learned counsel pointed out that one price of
14
Page 15
spectrum between 4.4 MHz and 6.2MHz and different price
for spectrum between beyond 6.2 MHz would be nontransparent
and illegal. Learned counsel pointed out that in
fact the MoF had initially objected the above stand of DoT
but subsequently yielded after the meeting Shri P.
Chidambaram had with Shri A Raja.
17. Learned counsel pointed out all those facts which
would clearly indicate that Shri P. Chidambaram the then
Finance Minister was also equally responsible. Non-revision
of spectrum price though specifically recommended by the
GoMs in the year 2003 would indicate, according to the
counsel, that Shri P. Chidambaram colluded up with Shri A
Raja in non-auctioning of the spectrum and went on for
allotment of first come first served basis at 2001 rates.
Further, it was also pointed out that Shri P. Chidambaram
had not revised his position from giving away 4.4 MHz of
spectrum at 2001 prices and giving away 6.2 MHz of
spectrum at 2001, thus causing huge loss to the exchequer.
Further, he was also instrumental along with Shri A. Raja
for allowing companies like Swan and Unitech to sell off
their shares without charging any Government’s share of its
15
Page 16
premium. Counsel therefore prayed for a direction of CBI to
conduct a thorough investigation / further investigation into
the role of Shri P. Chidambaram in 2G spectrum scam
under the close scrutiny of this court.
18. We heard Dr. Subramnian Swamy, appearing in
person and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel at
length. Arguments raised give rise to the following
questions:
(1) Whether Shri P. Chidambaram has conspired with
Shri A Raja in fixing the price of the spectrum at
2001 level thereby committed the offence of criminal
misconduct.
(2) Whether Shri P. Chidambaram by corrupt and
illegal means obtained for himself or for Shri Raja
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
(3) Whether Shri P. Chidambaram has deliberately
allowed dilution of equity by Swam Telecom Pvt. Ltd.
and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. at the cost
of public exchequer.
(4) Whether Shri P. Chidambaram has conspired with
Shri A. Raja in fixing one price of spectrum between
4.4 MHz and 6.2 MHz and another price for
spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz for unlawful gain, for
benefiting the licensees.
16
Page 17
(5) Whether the above mentioned acts fall within the
scope of Section 13(1)(d)(i) to (ii) of the P.C. Act and
the materials on record are sufficient to conclude so.
19. Shri P. Chidambaram was the Finance Minister of the
Union of India from 22.5.2004 to 31.11.2008. Brief
reference to facts prior to 22.5.2004 has already been made
by this Court in its judgment in Centre for Public Interest
Litigation and Others etc. v. Union of India and Others
(2012) 3 SCC 1 and hence not repeated, but reference to few
facts is necessary to appreciate and understand the alleged
involvement of Shri P. Chidambaram in the 2G Scam
20. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short
‘TRAI’), a statutory authority constituted under the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short “1997
Act”), had made certain recommendations on 27.10.2003 on
UAS Licence for the allocation of spectrum under Sections
11(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iv) and (vii) of the 1997 Act. Para 7.30 of the
recommendations emphasized the necessity of efficient
utilisation of spectrum by all service providers and indicated
that it would make further recommendations on efficient
utilisation of spectrum, spectrum pricing, availability and
17
Page 18
spectrum allocation procedure and that the DoT might issue
spectrum related guidelines based on its recommendations.
21. A GoMs was constituted on 10.9.2003 with the
approval of the then Prime Minister to consider various
issues as to how to ensure release of adequate spectrum for
the telecom sector, including the issues relating to merger
and acquisition in the telecom sector and to recommend
how to move forward. GoMs made detailed
recommendations on 30.10.2003. Para 2.1.2(3) of the
recommendations reads as follows:
“(3) The Department of Telecom and
Ministry of Finance would discuss and finalise
spectrum pricing formula which will include
incentive for efficient use of spectrum as well as
disincentive for sub-optimal usages.”
Para 2.1.2(4) stated that the allotment of additional spectrum
would be transparent, fair and equitable, avoiding
monopolistic situation regarding spectrum allotment usage.
Para 2.4.6(ii) of the recommendations reads as follows:
“(ii) The recommendations of TRAI with regard
to implementation of the Unified Access Licensing
Regime for basic and cellular services may be
accepted.”
18
Page 19
22. The recommendations of the GoMs were accepted by the
Council of Ministers on 31.10.2003, the meeting of which
was chaired by the then Prime Minister. The then Minister of
Communications on 24.11.2003 accepted the
recommendations that entry fee for new UAS licensees would
be the entry fee of the fourth cellular operator and where
there was no fourth cellular operator, it would be the entry
fee fixed by the Government for the basic operator. A
decision was also taken by the then Minister for
Communications for the grant of spectrum licenses on firstcome-
first served basis. Shri Dayanidhi Maran became the
Minister for Telecommunications on 26.5.2004.
23. TRAI later made comprehensive recommendations on
13.5.2005 on various issues relating to spectrum policy i.e.
efficient utilisation of spectrum, spectrum allocation,
spectrum pricing, spectrum charging and allocation for other
terrestrial wireless links. On 23.2.2006, the Prime Minister
approved the constitution of a GoMs consisting of the
Minister of Defence, Home Affairs, Finance, Parliamentary
Affairs, Information and Broadcasting and Communications,
to look into issues relating to vacation of spectrum. Deputy
19
Page 20
Chairman, Planning Commission was a special invitee. The
Terms of Reference of GoMs, inter alia, suggested a spectrum
pricing policy. Shri Dayanidhi Maran, the then Minister of
Telecommunications wrote a letter dated 28.2.2006 to the
Prime Minister indicating that the terms of reference of the
GoMs would impinge upon the work of his Ministry since
wider in scope and requested that they be modified in
accordance with the draft enclosed along with his letter. The
draft forwarded by the Minister, however, did not contain any
formula for spectrum pricing. However, on 7.12.2006, the
Cabinet Secretary conveyed the approval of the Prime
Minister to the modified terms of reference which did not
contain any formula for spectrum pricing.
24. DoT, later, vide its letter dated 13.4.2007 requested
TRAI to furnish its recommendations under Section 11(1)(a)
of the 1997 Act on the issues of limiting the number of
access providers in each service area and for the review of
the terms and conditions in the access provider licence
mentioned in the letter. Shri Dayanidhi Maran had by the
time resigned on 14.5.2007 and Shri A. Raja became the
Minister for Telecommunications on 16.5.2007.
20
Page 21
25. TRAI made its recommendations on 28.8.2007. One of
the recommendations made by TRAI was that in future all
spectrums excluding the spectrum in 800, 900 and 1800
MHz bands in 2G services should be auctioned. Para 2.73 of
the recommendations is of some importance and hence
extracted hereunder:
“2.73. ………….The Authority in the context of
800, 900 and 1800 MHz is conscious of the legacy
i.e. prevailing practice and the overriding
consideration of level playing field. Though the dual
charge in present form does not reflect the present
value of spectrum it needed to be continued for
treating already specified bands for 2G services i.e.
800, 900 and 1800 MHz. It is in this background
that the Authority is not recommending the
standard options pricing of spectrum, however, it
has elsewhere in the recommendation made a
strong case for adopting auction procedure in the
allocation of all other spectrum bands except 800,
900 and 1800 MHz.”
Paras 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78 and 2.79 are also relevant
for determining the various issues which arise for
consideration in this case and hence given below for ready
reference:
“2.74 Some of the existing service providers
have already been allocated spectrum beyond 6.2
MHz in GSM and 5 MHz in CDMA as specified in
the license agreements without charging any extra
one time spectrum charges. The maximum
21
Page 22
spectrum allocated to a service provider is 10 MHz
so far. However, the spectrum usage charge is being
increased with increased allocation of spectrum.
The details are available at Table 8.
2.75 The Authority has noted that the
allocation beyond 6.2 MHz for GSM and 5 MHz for
CDMA at enhanced spectrum usage charge has
already been implemented. Different licensees are at
different levels of operations in terms of the
quantum of spectrum. Imposition of additional
acquisition fee for the quantum beyond these
thresholds may not be legally feasible in view of the
fact that higher levels of usage charges have been
agreed to and are being collected by the
Government. Further, the Authority is conscious of
the fact that further penetration of wireless services
is to happen in semi-urban and rural areas where
affordability of services to the common man is the
key to further expansion.
2.76 However, the Authority is of the view
that the approach needs to be different for
allocating and pricing spectrum beyond 10 MHz in
these bands i.e. 800, 900 and 1800 MHz. In this
matter, the Authority is guided by the need to
ensure sustainable competition in the market
keeping in view the fact that there are new entrants
whose subscriber acquisition costs will be far higher
than the incumbent wireless operators. Further, the
technological progress enables the operators to
adopt a number of technological solutions towards
improving the efficiency of the radio spectrum
assigned to them. A cost-benefit analysis of
allocating additional spectrum beyond 10 MHz to
existing wireless operators and the cost of deploying
additional CAPEX towards technical improvements
in the networks would show that there is either a
need to place a cap on the maximum allocable
spectrum at 10 MHz or to impose framework of
pricing through additional acquisition fee beyond 10
MHz.
22
Page 23
The Authority feels it appropriate to go in for
additional acquisition fee of spectrum instead of
placing a cap on the amount of spectrum that can
be allocated to any wireless operator. In any case,
the Authority is recommending a far stricter norm of
subscriber base for allocation of additional
spectrum beyond the initial allotment of
spectrum. The additional acquisition fee beyond 10
MHz could be decided either administratively or
through an auction method from amongst the
eligible wireless service providers. In this matter,
the Authority has taken note of submissions of a
number of stakeholders who have cited evidences of
the fulfillment of the quality of service benchmarks
of the existing wireless operators at 10 MHz and
even below in almost all the licensed service areas.
Such an approach would also be consistent with the
Recommendation of the Authority in keeping the
door open for new entrant without putting a limit on
the number of access service providers.
2.77 The Authority in its recommendation on
“Allocation and pricing of spectrum for 3G and
broadband wireless access services” had
recommended certain reserve price for 5 MHz of
spectrum in different service areas. The
recommended price are as below:
Service areas Price (Rs. in
million) for 2
MHz x 5 MHz
Mumbai, Delhi and
Category A
800
Chennai, Kolkata and
Category B
400
Category C 150
The Authority recommends that any licensee
who seeks to get additional spectrum beyond 10
MHz in the existing 2G bands i.e. 800,900 and 1800
23
Page 24
MHz after reaching the specified subscriber
numbers shall have to pay a onetime spectrum
charge at the above mentioned rate on prorata basis
for allotment of each MHz or part thereof of
spectrum beyond 10 MHz. For one MHz allotment in
Mumbai, Delhi and Category A service areas, the
service provider will have to pay Rs. 160 million as
one time spectrum acquisition charge.
2.78 As far as a new entrant is concerned,
the question arises whether there is any need for
change in the pricing methodology for allocation of
spectrum in the 800, 900 and 1800 MHz
bands. Keeping in view the objective of growth,
affordability, penetration of wireless services in
semi-urban and rural areas, the Authority is not in
favour of changing the spectrum fee regime for a
new entrant. Opportunity for equal competition has
always been one of the prime principles of the
Authority in suggesting a regulatory framework in
telecom services. Any differential treatment to a new
entrant vis-a-vis incumbents in the wireless sector
will go against the principle of level playing
field. This is specific and restricted to 2G bands
only i.e. 800, 900 and 1800 MHz. This approach
assumes more significance particularly in the
context where subscriber acquisition cost for a new
entrant is likely to be much higher than for the
incumbent wireless operators.
2.79 In the case of spectrum in bands
other than 800, 900 and 1800 MHz i.e. bands that
are yet to be allocated, the Authority examined
various possible approaches for pricing and has
come to the conclusion that it would be
appropriate in future for a market based price
discovery systems. In response to the consultation
paper, a number of stakeholders have also
strongly recommended that the allocation of
spectrum should be immediately de-linked from
the license and the future allocation should be
based on auction. The Authority in its
24
Page 25
recommendation on “Allocation and pricing of
spectrum for 3G and broadband wireless access
services” has also favored auction methodology for
allocation of spectrum for 3G and BWA services. It
is therefore recommended that in future all
spectrum excluding the spectrum in 800, 900 and
1800 bands should be auctioned so as to ensure
efficient utilization of this scarce resource. In the
2G bands (800 MHz/900 MHz/1800 MHz), the
allocation through auction may not be possible as
the service providers were allocated spectrum at
different times of their license and the amount of
spectrum with them varies from 2X4.4 MHz to
2X10 MHz for GSM technology and 2X2.5 MHz to
2X5 MHz in CDMA technology. Therefore, to decide
the cut off after which the spectrum is auctioned
will be difficult and might raise the issue of level
playing field.”
26. The Internal Committee of DoT considered the above
recommendations made by TRAI and its report was placed
before the Telecom Commission on 10.10.2007. The Finance
Secretary and other three non-permanent members were not
informed of that meeting, but attended only by the officials of
DoT and the report of the Internal Committee was approved
by the Telecom Commission. Shri A. Raja accepted the
recommendations of Telecom Commission. Consequently,
the recommendations of TRAI dated 28.8.2007 stood
approved by the Internal Committee of DoT, Telecom
Commission and DoT. DoT, it may be noted, did not get in
25
Page 26
touch with the Ministry of Finance to discuss and finalise the
spectrum pricing formula which had to include incentive for
efficient use of spectrum as well as disincentive for
suboptimal usage in terms of the Cabinet decision of 2003.
27. Above facts would indicate that neither Shri P.
Chidambaram nor the officials of MoF had any role in the
various decisions taken by TRAI on 28.8.2007, decision
taken by the Internal Committee of DoT and the decision of
the Telecom Commission taken on 10.10.2007.
28. DoT then went ahead to process applications received
for UAS licences. Between 24.9.2007 and 1.10.2007, over
300 applications were received. The Member (Technology),
Telecom Commission and ex-officio Secretary to the
Government of India sent a letter dated 26.10.2007 to the
Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and
Justice seeking the opinion of the Attorney General of
India/Solicitor General of India for dealing with those
applications for licences. The Law Secretary placed the
papers before the Minister of Law and Justice on 1.11.2007
who had recommended that the entire issue be considered by
26
Page 27
an Empowered GoMs and, in that process, opinion of the
Attorney General of India be obtained. When the note of the
Law Minister was placed before Shri A. Raja, he recorded a
note on 2.11.2007 calling for discussion. Shri A. Raja,
however, on the same day, ordered the issuance of LoIs to
new applicants as per the then existing policy and authorised
Shri R. K. Gupta, ADG (AS-1) for signing the LoIs on behalf of
the President of India. Shri A. Raja had also ordered for the
issuance of LoI to the applicants whose applications had
been received up to 25.9.2007 and also sent a letter bearing
DO No. 20/100/2007-AS-I dated 2.11.2007 to the Prime
Minister and took strong objection to the suggestion made by
the Law Minister by describing his opinion as totally out of
context.
29. The Prime Minister, however, vide his letter dated
2.11.2007 had requested Shri A. Raja to give urgent
consideration to the various issues raised with a view to
ensuring fairness and transparency and requested him to
inform the Prime Minister of the position before taking any
further action. On the same day, Shri A.Raja sent a reply to
the Prime Minister brushing aside the suggestions made by
27
Page 28
the Prime Minister pointing out that it would be unfair,
discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious to auction the
spectrum to new applicants as it would not give them a level
playing field. The relevant portion of Para 3 of Shri A. Raja’s
letter is extracted below:
“3. Processing of a large number of
applications received for fresh licenses against the
backdrop of inadequate spectrum to cater to
overall demand
The issue o f auction o f spectrum was
considered by the TRAI and the Telecom
Commission and was not recommended as the
existing licence holders who are already having
spectrum upto 10 MHz per Circle have got it
without any spectrum charge . It wil l be unfair ,
discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious to auction
the spectrum to new applicants as it wil l not give
them leve l playing field .
I would like to bring it to your notice that DoT
has earmarked totally 800 MHz in 900 MHz and
1800 MHz bands for 2G mobile services. Out of
this, so for a maximum of about 35 to 40 MHz per
Circle has been allotted to different operators and
being used by them. The remaining 60 to 65 MHz,
including spectrum likely to be vacated by Defence
Services, is still available for 2G services.
Therefore, there is enough scope for
allotment of spectrum to few new operators even
after meeting the requirements of existing
operators and licensees. An increase in number of
operators will certainly bring real competition
which will lead to better services and increased
teledensity at lower tariff. Waiting for spectrum for
long after getting licence is not unknown to the
28
Page 29
Industry and even at present Aircel, Vodafone,
Idea and Dishnet are waiting for initial spectrum
in some Circles since December 2006.”
30. Shri P. Chidambaram, it is seen, had no role in the
exchange of those communications or the expression of
opinions of the decisions taken between Shri A. Raja and the
Prime Minister’s Office, a situation created by Shri A. Raja
and the officials of DoT. Neither Shri P. Chidambaram nor
the officials of the MoF did figure in those communications
and hence the allegation of involvement of Shri P.
Chidambaram in the 2G Scam has to be examined in that
background.
31. The Secretary, DoT made a presentation of the
spectrum policy on 20.11.2007 to the Cabinet Secretary.
Finance Secretary, Dr. Subbarao, who had witnessed the
presentation sent a letter dated 22.11.2007 to the Secretary,
DoT to know whether proper procedure had been followed
with regard to financial diligence. The operative portion of
the letter reads as follows:
“2. That purpose of this letter is to confirm if
proper procedure has been followed with regard to
financial diligence. In particular, it is not clear
how the rate of Rs.1600 crore, determined as far
29
Page 30
back as in 2001, has been applied for a license
given in 2007 without any indexation, let alone
current valuation. Moreover, in view of the
financial implications, the Ministry of Finance
should have consulted in the matter before you
had finalized the decision.
3. I request you to kindly review the matter
and revert to us as early as possible with
responses to the above issues. Meanwhile, all
further action to implement the above licenses
may please be stayed. Will you also kindly send
us copies of the letters of permission given and the
date?”
32. DoT replied to the Finance Secretary vide letter dated
29.11.2007. the operative portion of the same reads as
follows:
“As per Cabinet decision dated 31st October,
2003, accepting the recommendations of Group of
Ministers (GoM) on Telecom matters, headed by the
then Hon’ble Finance Minister, it was inter alia
decided that “The recommendations of TRAI with
regard to implementation of the Unified Access
Licensing Regime for basic and cellular services may
be accepted. DoT may be authorized to finalize the
details of implementation with the approval of the
Minister of Communications and IT in this regard
including the calculation of the entry fee depending
on the date of payment based on the principle given
by TRAI in its recommendations…….”
33. DoT also pointed out in that letter that the entry fee was
also finalised for UAS regime in 2003 based on the decision
of the Cabinet and it was decided to keep the entry fee for the
30
Page 31
UAS license the same as the entry fee of the fourth cellular
operator, which was based on a bidding process in 2001.
Further, it was also pointed out that the dual technology
licenses were licenses based on TRAI recommendations of
August 2007 and that TRAI in its recommendations dated
28.8.2007 had not recommended any changes in entry fee/
annual license fee and hence no changes were considered in
the existing policy.
34. Shri A. Raja then sent a letter dated 26.12.2007 to the
Prime Minister, Paras 1 and 2 of that are extracted below:
“1. Issue of Letter of Intent (LOI): DOT
follows a policy of First-cum-First Served for
granting LOI to the applicants for UAS licence,
which means, an application received first will be
processed first and if found eligible will be
granted LOI.
2. Issue of Licence: The First-cum-First
Served policy is also applicable for grant of
licence on compliance of LOI conditions.
Therefore, any applicant who complies with the
conditions of LOI first will be granted UAS licence
first. This issue never arose in the past as at one
point of time only one application was processed
and LOI was granted and enough time was given
to him for compliance of conditions of LOI.
However, since the Government has adopted a
policy of “No Cap” on number of UAS Licence, a
large number of LOI’s are proposed to be issued
simultaneously. In these circumstances, an
applicant who fulfils the conditions of LOI first
31
Page 32
will be granted licence first, although several
applicants will be issued LOI simultaneously. The
same has been concurred by the Solicitor General
of India during the discussions.”
DDG (AS), DoT, after a few days, prepared a note
incorporating therein the changed first-come-first-served
policy to which reference was made in the letter addressed to
the Prime Minister.
35. We have no information as to whether the PMO had
replied to the letter dated 26.12.2007 sent by A. Raja. After
brushing aside the views expressed by Dr. D. Subbarao in
his letter dated 22.11.2007, views expressed by the Minister
of Law and Justice on 1.11.2007, as well as the views
expressed by the Prime Minister on 2.11.2007, A. Raja and
the officials of DoT went ahead in implementing the policy of
first-come-first-served basis for the grant of UAS licenses for
which it is seen, no further objection had been raised by the
Prime Minister’s Office.
36. Telecom Commission meeting was then scheduled to be
held on 9.1.2008 to consider two important issues i.e.
performance of telecom sector and pricing of spectrum but
32
Page 33
the meeting was postponed to 15.1.2008. But, on 10.1.2008,
a press release was issued by DoT stating that TRAI on
28.8.2007 had not recommended any cap on the number of
access service providers in any service area. Further, it was
also stated that the Government had accepted the
recommendations of TRAI and that DoT had decided to issue
LoIs to all the eligible applicants on the date of application
who applied up to 25.9.2007. Further, it was also stated in
the press release that DoT had been implementing a policy of
first-come-first-served for grant of UAS licences under which
initially an application which was received first would be
processed first and thereafter if found eligible would be
granted LoI and then whosoever complied with the conditions
of LoI first would be granted UAS licence.
37. Another press release was issued on 10.1.2008 by DoT
requesting the applicants to submit compliance with the
terms of LoIs. Soon after obtaining the LoI, three of the
successful applicants offloaded their stakes for thousands of
crores in the name of infusing equity, the details are as
under:
33
Page 34
“(i) Swan Telecom Capital Pvt. Ltd. (now
known as Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd.) which was
incorporated on 13.7.2006 and got UAS Licence by
paying licence fee of Rs. 1537 crores offloaded its
45% (approximate) equity in favour of Etisalat of
UAE for over Rs.3,544 crores.
(ii) Unitech which had obtained licence for
Rs.1651 crores offloaded its stake 60% equity in
favour of Telenor Asia Pte. Ltd., a part of Telenor
Group (Norway) in the name of issue of fresh
equity shares for Rs.6120 crores between March,
2009 and February, 2010.
(iii) Tata Tele Services transferred 27.31% of
equity worth Rs. 12,924 crores in favour of NTT
DOCOMO.
(iv) Tata Tele Services (Maharashtra)
transferred 20.25% equity of the value of Rs. 949
crores in favour of NTT DOCOMO.”
38. Materials made available would not indicate any role
played by Shri P. Chidambaram on the steps taken by Shri
A. Raja and DoT, reference of which have elaborately been
made in the previous paragraphs of this judgment. The
views expressed by Dr. D. Subbarao in his letter dated
22.11.2007 were already brushed aside by A. Raja and DoT
officials and a communication dated 29.11.2007 was
already sent to Dr. Subbarao followed by a letter to the
Prime Minister on 26.12.2007.
34
Page 35
39. MoF then sent a letter on 9.1.2008, following the letter
of Dr. D. Subbarao dated 22.11.2007 as well as the reply
received from DoT on 29.11.2007, which was prepared and
sent as instructed by Shri P. Chidambaram for presentation
in the meeting of the Telecom Commission which was held
on 10.1.2008. Note referred to the recommendations of
GoMs for discussing and finalizing the spectrum pricing
formula by DoT and Ministry of Finance. Paras 6.3 and 8.4
of the note which was prepared as instructed by Shri P.
Chidambaram are relevant and hence are extracted
hereunder:
“6.3 Given the fact that there are reportedly over
575 applications pending with DoT
(including 45 new applicants) there is a case
for reviewing the entry fee fixed in 2001.
This is an administratively fixed fee.
Therefore any change should be governed by
transparent and objective criteria applicable
uniformly to all new entrants.
8.4 The most transparent method of allocation of
spectrum would be by auction. However,
there are two caveats to the auction method.
(a) The ways in which the existing licensees
in GSM and CDMA would be eligible to
participate in the auction vis-a-vis the new
entrants; and
35
Page 36
(b) The advantages and disadvantages of
the method itself. A detailed table is placed
at Annexure V.”
40. Shri P. Chidambaram, following the views expressed
by the Ministry of Finance on 9.1.2008, on his instructions,
also sent a note to the Prime Minister on 15.1.2008 on
spectrum charges. Noticeably, this letter was sent at a time
when Finance Secretary’s view was rejected by Shri A. Raja
and the officers of the DoT and that Shri A. Raja’s views
were not overturned even by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Therefore, the allegation that the attempt of Shri P.
Chidambaram was to hide the illegalities in the award of
licences is unfounded. On the other hand, Shri P.
Chidambaram was advocating the fact that the most
important method of allocating the spectrum would be
through auction. Shri P. Chidambaram also made a
reference in the note of the recommendations made in the
year 2003 by TRAI and GoMs and stated that the
recommendations note did not deal with the need, if any, to
revise entry fee or the rate of revenue share, but dealt with
the spectrum charges for 2G spectrum. Para 10 of the note
sent by Shri P. Chidambaram reads as follows:
36
Page 37
“10. Spectrum is a scarce resource. The price for
spectrum should be based on its scarcity value
and efficiency of usage. The most transparent
method of allocating spectrum would be through
auction. The method of auction will face the least
legal challenge, if Government is able to provide
sufficient information on availability of spectrum,
that would minimise the risks and, consequently,
fetch better prices at the auction. The design of
the auction should include a reserve price.”
Further, para 13 of the note reads as follows:
“13. This leaves the question about licensees
who hold spectrum over and above the start up
spectrum. In such cases, the past may be treated
as a closed chapter and payments made in the
past for additional spectrum (over and above the
start up spectrum) may be treated as the charges
for spectrum for that period. However,
prospectively, licensee should pay for the
additional spectrum that they hold, over and
above the start-up spectrum, at the price
discovered in the auction. This will place old
licensees, existing licensee seeking additional
spectrum and new licensees on par so far as
spectrum charges are concerned.”
Shri P. Chidambaram had indicated his mind in the note
sent to the Prime Minister.
41. Prime Minister’s Office, it is seen, had not taken any
contrary view to that of Shri P. Chidambaram and, in any
view, no materials were also made available when this Court
was dealing with the case relating to cancellation of
37
Page 38
licences, wherein Union of India was a party. In such
circumstances, it is difficult to conclude, on the materials
available, that P. Chidambaram had conspired with A. Raja
in subverting the process of issuance of LoI, UAS Licences
and allocation of spectrum.
42. Shri P. Chidambaram met Shri A. Raja on 30.1.2008
for discussions on spectrum charges and one has to
appreciate the discussions held in the light of the facts
discussed above. Meeting was held at a time, it may be
noted, when Shri A. Raja and DoT officials had already
brushed aside the views expressed by Dr. D. Subbarao in
his letter dated 22.11.2007, the views expressed by the
Department of Economic Affairs in the note dated 3.1.2008
and in the absence of any response from PMO on the note
dated 15.1.2008 sent by Shri P. Chidambaram. Meeting
dated 30.1.2008 and subsequent meetings Shri P.
Chidambaram had with Shri A. Raja on 29.5.2008,
12.6.2008 and with the Prime Minister on 4.7.2008 have to
be appreciated in the light of the facts already discussed.
38
Page 39
43. Shri P. Chidambaram, it is seen under the abovementioned
circumstances, had taken up the stand in the
meeting held on 30.1.2008 that the Finance Minister was
not seeking to revisit the current regimes for entry fee or for
revenue share and for the regime for allocation of spectrum,
however, it was urged that the following aspects had to be
studied:
“(i) The rules governing the allocation of
additional spectrum and the charges
thereof, including the charges to be levied
for existing operators who have more than
their entitled spectrum.
(ii) Rules governing trade in spectrum. In
particular, how can Government get a share
of the premium in the trade?
(iii) The estimate of the additional spectrum that
may be available for allocation after taking
into account: (a) the entitlement of entry
spectrum of fresh licenses; (b) the spectrum
that needs to be withdrawn from existing
operators who do not have the subscriber
base corresponding to the spectrum allotted
to them; and (c) the spectrum that may be
released by Defence.
(iv) We also need to check the current rules and
regulations governing withdrawal of
spectrum in the event of: (a) not rolling over;
(b) merger and acquisition; (c) trading away
spectrum.”
39
Page 40
Salient points discussed in the meeting held on
30.1.2008 are given below:
“2. Spectrum Usage Charges for Initia l
allotment o f spectrum o f 4.4 MHz.
2.1 Se c r e t a r y (F inanc e ) wa s o f the
o p ini on tha t auc t i oning i s legally
possible for initial allotment of spectrum of 4.4
MHz. Secretary (DoT) explained that auction of
spectrum of 4.4 MHz though may be legally
possible but it would not be practical proposition
to auction or fixing a price for 4.4 MHz spectrum
due to following:
2.1.1 As per clause 43.5 (i) of UAS
License, which provides that:
“initially a cumulative maximum of up to 4.4 MHz
+4.4 MHz shall be allocated in the case of GSM
based systems….”
It implies that when a service provider signs
UAS License he understands that and
contractually he is eligible for initially a
cumulative maximum of 4.4 MHz subject to
availability.
2.1.2 120 LoIs have been issued and the
Department is contractually obliged to give them
start up spectrum of 4.4. MHz under UASL.
2.1.3 As auctioning does not assure the
operators to get initial spectrum of 4.4 MHz as
per UAS License provision, auctioning and the
clause 43.5 (i) of the UASL are contradictory.
2.1.4 If the new entrants get spectrum by
auctioning, they may be paying more as
compared to the existing players. Hence (a)
auction will not ensure level playing; (b) also, as
40
Page 41
the cost to the new entrants would be more, they
may not be able to offer competitive tariff.
2.1.5 Also 4.4. MHz is a part of the license
agreement; no spectrum acquisition charge is
proposed to be levied. Even if it is priced, it will
also disturb the level playing field and the present
LOI holders, who have already paid entry fee, are
likely to go for litigation. Initial entry fee for
license may be construed as the defector price of
initial spectrum i.e. Rs.1650 crore approximately
for pan-India license.”
Para 3 of the Approach Letter deals with the spectrum
usage charges for additional spectrum of 1.8 MHz beyond
4.4. MHz. The relevant portion of para 3 is extracted below:
“3. Spectrum Usage Charges for additiona l
spectrum o f 1.8 MHz beyond 4.4 MHz
The issue of levying price for additional
spectrum of 1.8 MHz beyond 4.4 MHz including
auctioning was also discussed. Secretary
(Finance) desired to know whether this additional
spectrum can be priced / auctioned and if not
then why.
3.1 The issue of levying price for additional
spectrum of 1.8 MHz would not be practical due
to following:
3.1.1 As per clause 43.5(ii) of UAS
License which provided that “Additional spectrum
beyond the 4.4 MHz may also be considered for
allocation after ensuring optimal and efficient
utilization of the already allocated spectrum
taking into account of all types of traffic and
41
Page 42
guidelines / prescribed from time to time.
However 6.2 + 6.2 MHz in respect of TDMA (GSM)
based system shall be allocated to any new
Unified Access Services Licensee”.
3.1.2 It implies that an operator is
eligible for consideration of additional 1.8 MHz
spectrum (making total of 6.2 MHz) after ensuring
optimal and efficient utilization of the already
allocated spectrum taking into account all types
of traffic and guidelines / criteria prescribed from
time to time.
3.1.3 The matter was internally
discussed with Solicitor General, who opined that
he is defending the Government cases in various
courts, where one of the main contentions is that
auction would lead to reduction of competition
and will not help in reducing the tariff and hence
it would be against increase of teledensity and
affordability. These being public interest
concerns, it would be difficult to change the track
at this juncture.
3.1.4 It is, however, proposed to price
the spectrum of 1.8 MHz beyond 4.4 MHz upto
6.2 MHz. The TRAI in its report of August 2007
has recommended that any licensee who seeks to
get additional spectrum beyond 10 MHz in the
existing 2G bands, i.e. 800, 900 and 1800 MHz
after reaching the specified subscriber numbers
shall have to pay a onetime spectrum charge at
the below mentioned rates on pro-rata basis for
allotment of each MHz or part thereof of spectrum
beyond 10 MHz…….”
Para 4 of the Approach Paper deals with the price of
spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz. Relevant portion of para 4
reads as under:
42
Page 43
“4. Price o f spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz
The UASL does not explicitly provide any
provision or spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz and upto
10 MHz, however the UASL clause 43.5(iv)
provides that “the Licensor has right to modify
and / or amend the procedure of allocation of
spectrum including quantum of spectrum at any
point of time without assigning any reason”.
Hence the spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz should be
properly priced keeping in mind the market value
of spectrum.
4.1 Auction Path :
Since we are not auctioning startup
spectrum of 4.4 MHz and only pricing additional
allocation of 1.8 MHz as explained earlier,
therefore, we can take 6.2 MHz as threshold for
consideration for auction as this also falls beyond
the provisions of the license agreement. The
following points are brought out:
· 2G GSM Spectrum bands are 890-915
MHz paired with 935-960 MHz, 1710-
1755 MHz paired with 1805-1890 MHz
i.e., 2.5 MHz is available in 900 & 75
MHz band is available in 1900 MHz
band making a total of 100 MHz. Out
of this more than 37 MHz stand
allocated to the GSM service providers
in different service areas. Remaining
63 MHz, major portion of the spectrum
in 1800 MHz band is being used by
Defence.
· 120 LOIs have been issued and startup
spectrum is to be allotted to them as
well as for the growth; existing
operators should be given 6.2 MHz,
subject to availability.
43
Page 44
· After this allotment, hardly any
identifiable free spectrum will be
available, which is a pre-requisite for
auction.
· At any given time one or two operators
will be eligible for beyond 6.2 MHz
based on the subscribers linked
criteria. Hence if an auction is to be
held, competition would be limited.
· Hence auctioning may not be
successful in providing optimum value
due to (a) limited availability of
spectrum & (b) limited competition.
TRAI has also not recommended for
auctioning of 2G spectrum in view of the
following:
· Service providers were allocated
spectrum at different times of their
licenses and the amount of spectrum
with them. Therefore, to decide the cut
off after which spectrum is auctioned
will be difficult and might raise issue of
level playing field.
· Penetration of mobile service is to
happen in semi urban and rural areas,
where affordability of the services to
the common man is the key for further
expansion:
In view of all these factors, auction 2G spectrum
at this juncture does not appears to be viable
solution.”
4.2 Fix Price for spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz
44
Page 45
The following two options were considered:
Option 1
For this purpose it may be desirable to index, the entry
fee of Rs.1650 crores in the year 2003-04 (for initial
4.4 MHz) i.e. Rs.375 crore per MHz, for inflation,
potential for growth of tele-density and revenue etc.
appropriately. If we take an inflation of about 5% per
year for 4 years upto 2007-08, which would mean
about 20% compounded inflation till 2007. Therefore,
additional charges can be levied at 20% of Rs.375
crores for one MHz of spectrum i.e. Rs.425 Crores.
This option is not favoured in view of the low value of
spectrum.
Option 2
The service area wise AGR figures per MHz for the
years 2003-04, and anticipated figure were calculated
and is given at Annexure 1. It may be seen that there
is an increase of about 3-5 times, if the figures of
2007-08 with 2003-04 is compared.
It is for consideration to charge ‘x’ times of base
price of Rs.375 crore/MHz, where ‘x’ is to be decided.
45
Page 46
This will be charged to existing as well as new
entrants. Those who decide not to pay may be asked
to surrender the excess spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz.”
Para 6 deals with the Merger and Acquisition (M&A) is also
relevant and the same reads as under:
6. Mergers and Acquisition (M&A )
In the context of intra-circle merger and
acquisition, TRAI in their report of August 2007
have considered various factors, namely
Definition of Market Assessment of Market Power
criteria and Methodology, Determination of
minimum number of access service providers in a
post merger scenario and spectrum cap of the
merged entity. The TRAI Recommendations had
been considered by Telecom Commission. Some
of the issues have been referred back to TRAI for
consultation. In view of very large number of new
players, it is expected that consolidation is likely
to take place in the industry in future.
6.1 In view of this, we need to have clear
guidelines relating to M&A. We also need to
consider fees on account of transfer of spectrum
to the merged entity. In the event of M&A the
transfer charge to the Government has not been
considered by TRAI in their recommendation of
August 2007. This is a complex issue requiring
detailed deliberation and consultation. Therefore,
the issue of quantum of fees which the
Government would get on account of transfer of
spectrum during M&A needs to be referred to
TRAI. Based on the Recommendations of TRAI on
the above issue, DoT will take appropriate
decision with a specified time period and issue
46
Page 47
clear and transparent guidelines for M&A
including transfer charges for spectrum.”
44. The Secretary, DoT then vide letter dated 8.2.2008,
forwarded the Approach Paper with regard to the meeting
held. Minister of Finance vide note dated 11.2.2008,
acknowledged the note dated 8.2.2008 which was the
summary of the four rounds of discussion they had and a
Sequal note setting out the then existing position regarding
telecom fees and charges and pricing of spectrum and the
issues for decision were high-lighted.
Paras 16 to 18 of the Sequal note read as under:
“ Auction of Spectrum
16. Auctioning spectrum suggests itself is as a
clear first choice. It has several merits.
(i) Best method of discovering price
(ii) Is more transparent and provides a
level playing field
(iii) Promotes competition
17. However, it will be problematic for us to
adopt the auction route at this late stage mainly
for ‘historical legacy’ reasons. A number of
operators have already been given spectrum free
of charge. The spectrum available for auction,
therefore, will be quite limited (DoT has not been
able to indicate the precise quantum of spectrum
that will be available for allotment). Efficient
price discovery becomes possible only if the
supply is large and there are a number of
47
Page 48
potential buyers: a thin market has clear
limitation in signalling a price. It may turn out
that the ‘discovered price’ is either too low or too
high. In its August 2007 report (para 2.79), TRAI
too advised against auctioning of spectrum on the
ground that it will trigger issues of level playing
field.
18. Auction will be viable if we can increase the
quantum of spectrum available. This can be
done by withdrawing the spectrum already
allotted to existing operators and putting all of it
on auction. Both existing and new license will
then bid on a clean slate. This is evidently an
extreme measure, and has significant practical
and legal implications.”
On the subject of market based price determination, the
MoF in paras 19 & 20 stated as follows:
“Market Based Price Determination
19. If auction is ruled out, what are the
alternatives for determining an appropriate
market based price for spectrum?
20. The value of spectrum embedded in the
entry fee provides a possible reference frame for
pricing spectrum. Currently, 4.4MHz of
spectrum is allotted at the entry level on payment
of an entry fee of Rs. 1650 crores for pan-India
operation. This translates to an embedded price
of Rs.375 crores/MHz. This price was discovered
in 2001 and fixed in 2003/04. Using this
reference frame price, there are two options for
determining the current price of spectrum.
48
Page 49
On the question of pricing of spectrum beyond 4.4 MHz, the
views expressed by the Ministry of Finance in the above
letter read as follows:
28. DoT is of the view that it is not advisable /
possible to price the start-up allocation of a 4.4
MHz on the following argument. Allocation of 4.4
MHz spectrum is part of the licence Agreement.
This start-up spectrum was given free of cost in
the past. The new entrants who were given
licenses in January 2008 paid the entry fee on the
understanding that they would get this start-up
spectrum would be a breach of this
understanding. It will also disturb the level
playing field between the existing operators and
the new licencees. This may also trigger litigation.
29. DoT is agreeable to pricing of spectrum
beyond 4.4MHz. However, they have suggested a
differentiated pricing regime. According to them,
there should one price of spectrum between 4.4
MHz and 6.2 MHz (1.8 MHz), and another price for
spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz. In August 2007, TRAI
recommended a price for licensees who seek
spectrum beyond 10 MHz. DoT wants to apply
this price for spectrum between 4.4 MHz and 6.2
MHz for spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz, DoT is
agreeable to using the price determined as at
paragraph 22 above.
30. Ministry of Finance differs from the above
position of DoT. There is no contractual obligation
to allot a start-up spectrum of 4.4 MHz to every
licensee free of cost. The entire range of the
spectrum allotted should be priced. The issue of
level playing field can be addressed by charging
this price even on existing operators.
31. Moreover, the differentiated pricing suggested
by DoT, viz. One price for spectrum between 4.4
49
Page 50
and 6.2 MHz and a different price for spectrum
beyond 6.2 MHz will be clumsy, non-transparent
and legally questionable. It will be neat and
transparent to fix a single circle-specific price for
spectrum across the entire bandwidth.
On Merger and Acquisition (M&A), the views expressed by
the Finance Minister read as follows:
“32. It is likely that the market will see
considerable M&A activity over the next few
years. It should be Government’s endeavour to
ensure that this consolidation happens in an
efficient and healthy manner. One question that
arises is whether the Government should get a
premium out of an M&A transaction. Since
spectrum has not been auctioned but priced
juristically, it is likely that the rent, if any,
involved in the price of spectrum will form part of
the M&A transaction which would typically
involve a host of other assets and liabilities, is a
complex task. TRAI is best positioned to think
through and advise on this issue. The ToRs to
TRAI in the regard should be: (i) What should be
guidelines for M&As between UASL operators? (ii)
Should Government get a premium out of M&A
activity? And (iii) if yes, how can this premium be
determined?
45. Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs)
also prepared a note on 7.4.2008 after discussing the
matter with the Minister of Finance, which shows that the
Minister of Finance had also agreed that spectrum usage
50
Page 51
charges should be increased reflecting the scarcity value of
spectrum as indicated in Ministry’s note dated 11.2.2008.
On pricing of spectrum, the Ministry of Finance was of the
view that they might insist in principle on pricing spectrum
(beyond 4.4. MHz) although details could be worked out
after the auction of 3G’s spectrum.
46. Mr. Govind Mohan, Director, Ministry of Finance had
prepared a detailed office memorandum on 8.4.2008,
wherein after referring to the DoT letter dated 29.1.2008,
the following amendments were suggested:
“4.0 Union Cabinet, in its meeting on October
31, 2003 had, inter alia, decided that spectrum
pricing would need to be decided mutually
between DoT and MoF so as to provide incentive
for efficient use of spectrum as well as
disincentive for sub-optimal usage. In the
context of this decision, the following
amendments are being suggested in Pricing of
Spectrum, its allotment among Access providers
and Spectrum Usage Charges:
1. Any Allotments of Spectrum to access
subscriber licensees under UASL
regime may henceforth be specifically
priced and charged for. The charge
may be determined, circle wise, by
adopting the Entry Fee, fixed for that
circle in 2003-04, and thereafter
inflating it by the multiplier, which
represents the growth in aggregate AGR
per MHz between 2003-04 and 2007-
51
Page 52
08; hence, for a Pan India operator, the
Circle fee fixed in 2003-04 (Rs.375
crore per MHz) would be inflated by a
multiple of 3.5 (which represents the
growth in AGR/MHz between 2003-04
and 2007-08) to yield the new spectrum
price of Rs.1,312 Crore per MHz
(approximately);
2. The price determined as above may be
made applicable to both the new and
existing operators; moreover, the entire
range of spectrum allotted may be
charged, for both new and existing
operators; such operators who do not
intend to pay the new charges may be
given the option of surrendering the
Spectrum allotted to
them;………………..”
47. Letter, it is seen, was issued with the approval of the
Minister of Finance.
48. Noticing some mistakes in that office memorandum,
an amended office memorandum was issued by Mr. Govind
Mohan, on the same date. The reason is obvious, because
the Finance Secretary D. Subbaroa, had made a note on
7.4.2008 stating that the FM’s view was that the Ministry
must insist in principle on pricing of Spectrum (beyond
4.4.MHz), although details could be worked out after the
auction of 3G Spectrum. Evidentially it was a bona fide
mistake committed by Dr. Govind Mohan, because the
52
Page 53
original Memo dated 8.4.2008 was contrary to the note
prepared by the Finance Secretary, and hence he had to
issue a corrected OM the operative portion of the same
reads as follows:
‘4.Union Cabinet in its meeting on October 31,
2003, inter alia, decided that spectrum pricing
would need to be decided mutually between DoT
and MoF so as to provide incentive for efficient
use of spectrum as well as disincentive for suboptimal
usage. In the context of this decision, the
issues that need to be decided in respect of 2G
spectrum were discussed by Finance Secretary in
three rounds of meetings with Secretary (Telecom)
in February, 2008. Accordingly, the following
amendments are being suggested in Pricing of
Spectrum, its allotment among Access providers
and Spectrum Usage Charges:
1. Any allotments of spectrum to access
subscriber licensees under UASL regime –
beyond the initial “start-up” allocation of 4.4
MHz – may henceforth be specifically priced
and charged for. Details in this regard can
be worked out;
2. The price determined as above may be made
applicable to both the new and existing
operators; such operators who do not intend
to pay the new charges may be given the
option of surrendering the spectrum allotted
to them;
3. Spectrum Usage Charge, instead of being
charged as a fixed percentage of Adjusted
Gross Revenue (AGR) for different spectrum
bands, may henceforth be charged as a
percentage of AGR based on volume of
business categorization, so as to better
53
Page 54
reflect and capture the circle specific
scarcity value of spectrum. The revised
charges proposed for various Circles are as
per the table annexed to this OM and as
agreed in the discussions between Finance
Secretary and Secretary, Department of
Telecom;
4. The recommendations of TRAI for revising
the subscriber base criteria for allotment of
spectrum may be considered for
implementation in the interest of enhancing
efficiency of spectrum usage and
encouraging technological innovations.
49. Shri P. Chidambaram, wrote a letter dated
21.4.2008 to Shri A. Raja, forwarding a non-paper
containing Finance Minister’s views on issues relating to
2G Spectrum and issues relating to 3G (Wi Max Spectrum).
After discussions, it was pointed out that the conclusion be
presented to the Prime Minister.
50. The Finance Secretary, as instructed by the Finance
Minister, met the Secretary DoT on 24th April, 2008 and a
hand written note was prepared by the Finance Secretary on
29.4.2008 on all outstanding issues. The recommendations
of the MoF were as follows:
“Pricing of Spectrum
54
Page 55
3. We may recommend the following principles
for pricing of spectrum:
(i) The start-up spectrum of 4.4 MHz for
GSM (2.5 MHz for CDMA may be
exempted from upfront pricing both for
new and existing operators.
(ii) Under the UASL Licensing regime, there
appears to be an implicit, indirect
contractual obligation to allow further
allotment of spectrum, beyond 4.4 MHz for
GSM (2.5 MHz for CDMA), and upto 6.2
MHz for GSM (5MHz for CDMA) after
payment of 1% additional spectrum usage
charges and ensuring that already
allocated spectrum has been optimally
and efficiently utilized. This may
effectively protect operators who have
existing allocations upto 6.2 MHz for GSM
(5MHz for CDMA ) from payment o f any
other charges , including the “ up front ”
spectrum price . Since it may not be
possible to charge operators already
having allocations upto this range , the
principle o f equity and “ leve l playing field ”
would require that the operators, who get
fresh allotment o f spectrum upto 6.2 MHz
for GSM ( 5MHz for CDMA ) too should not
be charged for spectrum upto 6.2 MHz for
GSM ( 5 MHz for CDMA ).
(iii)Spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz in case of GSM
(5MHz in case of CDMA) should be priced.
This is defensible on the following
grounds. First, as per the terms of the
UAS license, there is no contractual
obligation on the part of the Government
to necessarily allot spectrum beyond 6.2
MHz (beyond 5MHz in case of CDMA);
and, secondly, Government retains the
55
Page 56
sovereign right to modify the terms of
license as also the procedure for allocation
of spectrum, including quantum of
spectrum, at any point of the time without
assigning any reason.”
(emphasis supplied)
Issues relating to merger and acquisition have been
dealt with in Paras 16 to 18 and the same read as follows:
“Issues relating to Mergers and Acquisitions
16. DoT have issued a notification on April 22,
2007 on “Guidelines for intra service merger of
Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS)/Unified
Access Services (UAS) Licensees”.
17. The guidelines derive substantially from the
recommendations made by TRAI on this subject
vide Report of August, 2007. The guidelines
mandate a “spectrum transfer charges” to be
payable as specified by Government.
18. DoT may be advised that fixation of
“spectrum transfer charges” shall be in
consultation with DEA.”
51. Shri P. Chidambaram and Shri A. Raja met on
29.5.2008 and 12.6.2008 for resolving the then outstanding
issues relating to the allocation and pricing 2G and 3G
Spectrums. Meeting of two Ministers would not by itself be
sufficient to infer the existence of a conspiracy. Even before
those meetings, as instructed by the Finance Minister, the
56
Page 57
Finance Secretary and Telecom Secretary had already met
on 24.4.2008, had agreed that it might not be possible to
charge operators already having allocation upto 6.2 MHz
and the principle of equity and level playing field would
require that the operators who get fresh allotment of
Spectrum upto 6.2MHz for GSM too should not be charged
for Spectrum upto 6.2 MHz for GSM. Therefore, the
allegation that Shri P. Chidambaram had over-ruled his
officers’ views and had conspired with Shri A. Raja is
without any basis.
52. Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the mere
fact that there were official discussions between the officers
of the MoF and that of DoT and between two Ministers,
which are all recorded. Suspicion, however, strong, cannot
take the place of legal proof and the meeting between Shri P.
Chidambaram and Shri A. Raja would not by itself be
sufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy so
as to indict Shri P. Chidambaram. Petitioners submit that
had the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister
intervened, this situation could have been avoided, might be
57
Page 58
or might not be. A wrong judgment or an inaccurate or
incorrect approach or poor management by itself, even after
due deliberations between Ministers or even with Prime
Minister, by itself cannot be said to be a product of criminal
conspiracy.
53. We are of the considered view that materials on record
do not show that Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his
position as a Minister of Finance or conspired or colluded
with A. Raja so as to fix low entry fee by non-visiting
spectrum charges fixed in the year 2001. No materials are
also made available even for a prima facie conclusion that
Shri P. Chidambaram had deliberately allowed dilution of
equity of the two companies, i.e. Swan and Unitech. No
materials is also available even prima facie to conclude that
Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his official position, or
used any corrupt or illegal means for obtaining any
pecuniary advantage for himself or any other persons,
including Shri A. Raja.
54. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no
case is made out to interfere with the order dated 4.2.2012
58
Page 59
in C.C. No. 01 (A) / 11 passed by Special Judge CBI (04) (2G
Spectrum Cases), New Delhi or to grant reliefs prayed for in
I.A. No. 34 of 2012. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1688 of
2012 is, therefore, not entertained, so also I.A. No. 34 of
2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 and they are
accordingly stand rejected.
…………………………J.
(G.S. Singhvi)
…….…………………..J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
New Delhi,
August 24, 2012
59

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

June,2008: APPOINTMENT & RETIREMENT IN SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENT

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2008_issue_2.pdf

K. G.Balakrishnan
Chief Justice of India
5, KrishnaMenonMarg,
NewDelhi – 110 011

COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008
APPOINTMENT AND RETIREMENT IN SUPREME COURT
APPOINTMENT
S.No. Name of the Hon’ble Judge Date of Appointment
1. Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph 07-07-2008
RETIREMENT
S.No. Name of the Hon’ble Judge Date of Retirement
1. Mr. Justice H.K. Sema 01-06-2008
2. Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar 29-06-2008
COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008 3
APPOINTMENT IN HIGH COURTS
(From 01-04-08 to 30-06-08)
S.No. Name of the Name of the Hon’ble Judge Date of
High Court Appointment
1 A.P. Reddi Kantha Rao 10-04-2008
2 Allahabad Surendra Singh 05-05-2008
Arvind Kumar Tripathi 05-05-2008
Shashi Kant Gupta 05-05-2008
Bala Krishna Narayana 05-05-2008
Rajesh Dayal Khare 05-05-2008
Shabihul Hasnain 05-05-2008
Abhinava Upadhya 05-05-2008
3 Bombay Ashok Pitamber Bhangale 16-04-2008
Anand Vasant Nirgude 16-04-2008
Rajiv Yadunath Ganoo 16-04-2008
Nandkishor Digambar Deshpande 16-04-2008
Rekha Prakash Baldota 16-04-2008
Kailaschand Uttamchand Chandiwal 16-04-2008
Santosh Champalal Bora 16-04-2008
Ashutosh Arvind Kumbhakoni 16-04-2008
4 Delhi Vijay Kumar Shali 08-04-2008
Man Mohan Singh 08-04-2008
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw 08-04-2008
Jag Jivan Ram Midha 08-04-2008
Rajiv Shakdher 08-04-2008
Sunil Gaur 08-04-2008
Mool Chand Garg 08-04-2008
4 COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008
S.No. Name of the Name of the Hon’ble Judge Date of
High Court Appointment
5 Jharkhand Ajit Kumar Sinha 16-06-2008
6 Karnataka B. Sreenivase Gowda 02-06-2008
K.N. Keshavanarayana 02-06-2008
S.N. Satyanarayana 09-06-2008
7 Kerala M.C. Hari Rani 02-05-2008
8 Madras M. S. Sathyanarayanan 23-04-2008
9 Patna R.M. Lodha (As Chief Justice) 12-05-2008
10 Rajasthan Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari 15-04-2008
Chand Mal Totla 15-04-2008
Mahesh Chandra Bhagwati 15-04-2008
• Above statement is compiled on the basis of information received from the High Courts
COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008 5
TRANSFER BETWEEN HIGH COURTS
(From 01-04-08 to 30-06-08)
S.No. From To Name of the Date of
Hon’ble Judge Transfer
1 Rajasthan High Court Bombay High Court P.B. Majmudar 25-04-2008
2 Gauhati High Court H.P. High Court R.B. Misra 30-04-2008
3 Madras High Court Delhi High Court A.P. Shah, CJ 11-05-2008
4 Orissa High Court Madras High Court A.K. Ganguly, CJ 19-05-2008
• Above statement is compiled on the basis of information received from the High Courts
6 COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008
VACANCIES IN COURTS
A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (As on 09-07-08)
Sanctioned Strength Working strength Vacancies
26 24 2
B) HIGH COURTS ( As on 01-07-08)
S.No. Name of the High Court Sanctioned Working Vacancies
strength strength
1 Allahabad 160 74 86
2 Andhra Pradesh 49 29 20
3 Bombay 75 60 15
4 Calcutta 58 40 18
5 Chhattisgarh 18 7 11
6 Delhi 48 41 7
7 Gauhati 25 20 5
8 Gujarat 42 30 12
9 Himachal Pradesh 11 10 1
10 Jammu & Kashmir 14 10 4
11 Jharkhand 20 9 11
12 Karnataka 41 40 1
13 Kerala 38 25 13
14 Madhya Pradesh 43 41 2
15 Madras 49 45 4
16 Orissa 22 18 4
17 Patna 43 27 16
18 Punjab & Haryana 68 42 26
19 Rajasthan 40 35 5
20 Sikkim 3 2 1
21 Uttaranchal 9 7 2
TOTAL 876 612 264
• Above statement is compiled on the basis of figures received from the Department of Justice
COURT NEWS, APRIL – JUNE 2008 7
C) DISTRICT & SUBORDINATE COURTS (As on 31-03-08)
S.No. Concerned State/Union Territory Sanctioned Working Vacancies
Strength Strength
1. Uttar Pradesh 2172 1637 535
2. Andhra Pradesh 923 679 244
3a. Maharashtra 1897 1506 391
3b. Goa 49 46 3
4. West Bengal and A&N Islands 706 497 209
5. Chhatisgarh 268 219 49
6 Delhi 425 338 87
7. Gujarat 953 786 167
8a. Assam 289 254 35
8b. Meghalaya 10 4 6
8c. Tripura 80 58 22
8d. Manipur 34 26 8
8e. Nagaland 25 23 2
8f. Mizoram1 40 23 17
8g. Arunachal Pradesh1 339 300 39
9. Himachal Pradesh 126 114 12
10. Jammu and Kashmir 202 174 28
11. Jharkhand 526 431 95
12. Karnataka 865 643 222
13a. Kerala 429 409 20
13b. Lakshadweep 3 3 0
14a. Tamil Nadu 776 663 113
14b. Puducherry 20 15 5
15. Madhya Pradesh 1189 900 289
16. Orissa 495 381 114
17. Bihar 1363 1136 227
18a. Punjab 346 312 34
18b. Haryana 393 298 95
18c. Chandigarh 20 20 0
19. Rajasthan 820 761 59
20. Sikkim 15 8 7
21. Uttarakhand 266 120 146
Total 16064 12784 3280
• Above statement is compiled on the basis of figures received from the High Courts.
1. Judiciary is not yet separated from the Executive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

S. Vasudeva Vs 369 sites of Karnataka Govt’s ‘G’ category Quota.WP 23475/2010 for the date of order 02/12/2011

WP  23475/2010 . In Re: S. Vasudeva Vs 369 sites of  Karnataka Govt’s ‘G’ category Quota

High Court of Karnataka
Daily Orders of the Case Number :
WP  23475/2010 for the date of order 02/12/2011

Honble Justice CHIEF JUSTICE AND A.S.BOPANNA
02/12/2011
Order in WP  23475/2010

Present:

Sri S.Vasudeva, petitioner-party-in-person
Sriyuths V.Y.Kumar, Adv. for R173, 209 and 214,
Nikhil S.K., Adv. for R-114, 108, 125, 126, 163, 169, 170, 202, 224, 121, 158, 205, 157.
D.P.Prasanna, Adv. for R-69
H.Shanthi Bhushan, Adv. for R-99
K.Shrihari, Lex Justicia, Adv. for R-219
Muniyappa, Adv. for R51, 53, 54, 64
Renuka S, Adv for R-196, 197, 201, 216 and 222
B.Pramod, Adv. for R-34, 41 and 42
S.M.Chandrashekar, Adv. for R-88
H.V.Vishakantegowda, Adv. for R-22
S.T.Mahesh, Adv. for R-156
Mamatha Kulkarni, Adv. for R-11
Range Gowda, Adv. for R-27
R.Somasundara, Adv. for R-23
B.C.Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R-155
Shivakumar H, Adv. for R-90
Sanganna, Adv.for R-138
S.Prakash Shetty, Adv. for R-47
H.K.Satheesh, Adv. for R-139
C.N.Mahadeshwara, Adv. for R-5
K.S.Bharathkumar, Adv. for R-221
B.M.Irishad Ahmed, Adv. for R-194
V.Vishwanath, Adv. for R-13
J.Prashanth, Adv. for R-98 & 115
Nagaiah, Adv. for R-59
D.G.Krishnamurthy, Adv. for R-28
M.Ramesh, Adv. for R-133
A.Keshava Bhat, Adv. for R-70
Sumanthkumar S.Patil, Adv. for M/s.Jayakumar S.Patil Assts., for R-67, 68, 134 and 135.
H.Kantharaja, Adv. for R-59
Mahantesh S.Hosmath, Adv. for R-17
Uttam Kumar Rai, Adv. for M/s.Dharmashree
Associates, Advs.for R-97 and 72.

I.G.Gachchinamath, Adv. for R3 in WP 1032/2006
Lohith S.R., Adv. for R3 in WP 36275/2009

ORDER

List on 05.01.2012 to await the report on service of unserved respondents.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

To UpDate XXX List of Emp. HBCS Member. SLF Nos., Date, Designation

Aug.2012:To UpDate XXX judges List of  HBCS Member.
SLF Nos., Date, Designation
.

P. Krishna Bhat … Registrar General , Kar HC…. 3197/281R. Chandrashekhar … Registrar [Admin ] Kar HC….1285/173

K.S. Mudgal …. Registrar [Judicial] kar r HC…. 3100/ 275

K. Somshekhar….  Former Registrar ? [Judicial[ kar HC]…. 3251/283
Raghvendra Upadhyay, P.S to CJ, Site No. 1065 at Page 075. Sl No. 1188.
K. Palakshappa, Civil Judge [Junior Division], Harapanahally [ Suspeced Judge; who heard Lokayukta Complaint case foisted on our family in 2004] .
T. Usha Rani Nemiraj Shetty, Pr. CJ [Jr. Divn], JMFC, Doddaballapur, Balore Dist, [ Drunken-Driving-Case; Contemner in High Court] [Site No. 2089 ] [Associate Member No. 126 ]
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Addiditionla Advocate General [ Site No. 2017 &    ]
CJI Ex M. N. Vekatachaliaha, Associate Membership No. 0061]
Santosh Hegde [ Associate Member No. 125 ]

Syed Rehamatulla, Father of Syed Riaztulla, PRO to Lokayukta, Member 0516 @ page 130
Syed Riyazathullah, Public Relations Officer, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore;  S/O  Mrs. & Mr. Syed Rahamathulla; as declared in Lokayukta Website. Complainant in present CC 6711/12.

K.V. Narasimhan, BBMP Advocate,  Membership 0966 / 155 page
K.B. Chengappa, Addl Regr, Dharwad HC Bench, 3218/ 282
R.S Patil,
Ex. Co-Op Minister D.K. Shivakumar’s Brother D.K. Suresh.  159/ 24 [Associate Member]
Rajshekhar V. Patil. ………  CMM. Blore
Arun Chowdapurkar …… PCSJ , Blore…..
R.S. Patil……. Adl Regr.Dharwad.HC.
V. Padmanabha Kedilaya…. 151 Page 110
M.R.. Hegde. 154 / page 110, Law Secretary &
R,G. Sajekan 213/ 114
M. Rudriaha . 226/ 114
Justice Vaidyanatha   217/ 114
V.N. Hebbar.  DJ. 228/114
k.b.vaidya. President. Cons Forum 229/114
S.N. kutakoti   304/ 119
Justice.R.J. Desai  355/121
S.P. Venkatramanappa   Jud Layout 1111, 376/ 123
D.N. Srinivasa  …405/ 124
P. Bhaskar ..394/ 124
B.R. Ranganna. Audit Dept. High court
R.M. Bandivaddar, Asst Regr. 583/134
Justice. M.B. Vishwanath 598 / 135
K.L.  Anantharama Dist.Judge. 625/ 136
L.P. Patil 643/ 137
K.M. Thammiaha  Prl.civil Judge & CJM, Mysore 644/137
P.B. Chugule. Retd. DJ. Belgaum. 674/ 139
K.N. Raghuram. ..676/ 139
Shreeshaila ? .. 670/ 139
T.N. Usha, 1, Race Cource Road, 731/ 142
D. Krishnappa, Prl Civil & CJM, Shimoga 755/ 144
K. Krishna Naik, 1st Adl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Gulbarga 771/ 145
K. Veerabhdraswamy, Dy.Regr. HC. 780/ 145
R.C. Ijari, … 773/ 145
P.S. Anantgopal 781/ 145
Jindutta Desia ?..Mysore 785/ 145
K.P. Rangaraju. ?. 790/ 146
Kumbinarasimhaiha, Director,Society, 796/ 146
M.S. Natarajmurthy, . ?. 800/ 146
Y.R. Sawkar. .District  Judge.. 802/ 146 28/Aug/1984
M.N.Shnakar Bhat 804/ 146
T. Venugopal .?. 810/ 147
R. Govindarajan, . ? 815/ 147 813/ 147
R. Govindarajan, ?. 815/ 147
B.V. Venkatareddy Ast Regr. HC 816/ 147 28/Aug/1984
S.B. Majage, Judge, Kar High Court, 819/ 147  28/Aug/1984
Justice G.N. Sabahit;  Mrs. Janaki Sabahit 820/ 147 ..  28/Aug/1984
Justice K Jagannath Shetty, Judges Supreme Court 821/ 147 . 28/Aug/1984
C.S Doreswamy . . 822/ 147. Sr. Judgment writer
Justice M.S. Patil 823/ 147  .  28/Aug/1984
Justice N.R. Kudoor, Retd Judge 824/147. 28/Aug/1984
Justice Doddakalegowda , since Died, Mrs. Yeshodhara Doddakalegowda . 28/Aug/ 1984
D. Kmbiaha, Dy. Regr, HC.. 826/148
G.K. Sheshgirirao . ? 827/ 148
Justice A.K. Lakshmeshwar, Wife Smt. S.A. Lakshmeshwar . ? 828/ 148.. 28/Aug/1984
Justice P.A. Kulkarni . Retd Judge, 830/148… 28/Aug/1984
M.L. Muniyappa . ? 831/ 148
T. Abdul Mujeeb, Regr [Judicial]. Kar HC. 832/ 148 .. 28/Aug/1984
A. Venkatachaliaha . ? .[N.Venkatachala Brother ?] . 834/148
Justice S.R. Rajshekharmurthy, Judge, Retd. 836/ 148 … 28/Aug/1984
M. Venkoba Rao, . High Court Officer,  . 837/ 148
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy 841/ 148 … 28/Aug/1984
P. Srinivasa, Adl CMM, Blore. 842/ 148
G.B. Hanumathrayappa,. ?. 843/149
Justice V.S Malimath, Retd Chief Justice 844/ 149 .. 28/Aug/1984
Justice M. Rama Jois, Retd Judge, 845/149 … 28/Aug/1984
H.S. Ramanna, judge, Spl Economic offences court,  846/149
J. Channaveerappa, Addl regr, HC 848/149 ……………..28/Aug/1984
Justice D.R. Vittal Rao, , Retd Judge, 849/149
Justice N. Venkatachala, Judge 852/149 ………    28/Aug/1984
R. Rangaswamy, Court Officer. Kar St.Con.Crt
A. Vijaymurthy, Dy. Regr, Kar HC, 859/149 ……… 28/Aug/1984
V. Muniappa, Asst. Regr, Kar HC, 861/ 150….. 28/Aug/1984
M. Chdanand Rao, DJ, Dharwad… 869/150  ….. 23/ Nov/1984
B.B. Lakshmi Devi, Section Offcer, 872/150  .. 23/ Nov/1984
Narayanswamy, Section Officer, Kar HC 888/151  ….23/ Nov/1984
Justice R.S. Mahendra …………………890/151 ………… 23/ Nov/1984
N.N. Dharwadkar, Law Secretary, Kar Govt892/151 … 23/ Nov/1984
N. Subbarao, Judge, Blore …….  893/ 151 ………….. 23/ Nov/1984
S. Iqbal Ahmed, Presiding Ofcer, Ind. Tri,Blore 894/151 … 23/ Nov/1984
Chikkaveeranna, Sec Ofcer, Kar HC .. 896/151 …….. 23/ Nov/1984
Justice B. Jagannath Hegde ….. 897/152 …….. 23/ Nov/1984
G.Patri Basavan Goud, Kar HC Regr [Vig] 899/152   . 23/ Nov/1984
T. Mahesh Hegde, Dy Law Scey, Govt …  902/152  ….. 23/ Nov/1984
Justice B.M. Chandrashekhriaha,    903/152 … 23/ Nov/1984
S.G.S Khadri, judge, Blore ……904/152 ……….. 23/ Nov/1984
Mohammed Shafouddin, CJM, Belgaum …..913/152 21/ June / 1985
Justice Mohammed Anwar, Kar HC  …… 914/152 ….21/ June / 1985
P. Seetharamiaha,  CJ & CJM, KGF .. 915/153 … 21/ June / 1985
S. Nagraju, Asst. Regr, Lokayukta etc 916/153 … 21/ June / 1985
H.R. Narayan Rao, B.D.A Law Officer, 921/153 …. 21/ June / 1985
B. Mopurireddy, Retd, Addl Regr .. 927/153 ….. 21/ June / 1985
D.. Bhaskhar, Assr, Regr, Civil Court,Blore 929/153 21/ June / 1985
B.S. Reddy, CJ & CJM,, ,Bijapur … 936/154 …. 21/ June / 1985
K.V.Krishna Murthy CJ & CJM, Blore …   937/154  … 21/ June / 1985
B.P. Reddy, CJ & CJM, Tumkur 943/154 … 21/ June / 1985
H.L. Ramprasad, CJ & CJM, Mlore 944/154 …. 21/ June / 1985
H. Shanmukhappa, retd DJ .. 947/154 … 21/ June / 1985
S. Indudhar, Regr, CAT, Blore ..954/155
T.Nanjappa, Civil Judge, Blore .. 965/155
K.V. Narasimhan,Dy. Law Secy, Kar Govt .. 966 / 155 .. 21/ June / 1985
Mylaraiah, CJ & JMFC, Hunsur  967/155 …………………………..  .. 21/ June / 1985
M.G. Hiremath,  Civil Judge,  973/156 … .. 21/ June / 1985
B.S. Tadahal, Civil Judge .. 975/156 … .. 21/ June / 1985

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Members

Members:

List of members by membership number:

1 to 50 ; 51 to 100 ; 101 to 150 ; 151 to 200 ; 201 to 250
251 to 300 ; 301 to 350 ; 351 to 400 ; 401 to 450 ; 451 to 500
501 to 550 ; 551 to 600 ; 601 to 650 ; 651 to 700 ; 701 to 750
751 to 800 ; 801 to 850 ; 851 to 900 ; 901 to 950 ; 951 to 1000
1001 to 1050 ; 1051 to 1100 ; 1101 to 1200 ; 1201 to 1300
1301 to 1400 ; 1401 to 1500 ; 1501 to 1600 ; 1601 to 1700
1701 to 1800 ; 1801 to 1900 ; 1901 to 2000 ; 2001 to 2100

 above 2100

List of Members whose membership no. is not available.

A Scanned {Typed} List of the 1400 members as in year 1986   [014.09s]
B Scanned (Written) List of the 2000 members as in the year 1990 [014.10s

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized