<p>The CBI, on its part, however, maintained that the report would be confidential one as it would be a part of inter-departmental communication. <br /><br />“Is it correct that according to the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) there was no loss,” a Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu asked.<br /><br />The court made the query with Additional Solicitor General H P Ravel whether the CBI was having the report prepared by Trai after senior counsel Ram Jethmalani pointed out to the bench about the contradictory stands taken by different agencies on the loss to the government. “We want to know what Trai said is correct or not. It has come into public domain. Is it not a public document,” Justice Singhvi asked. In response, Ravel maintained that it was not a public document and was confidential. It could be produced only in a sealed cover.<br /><br />To his contention, the court, however, wondered as to why it would be produced in sealed cover when there have already been news reports on it.</p>.<p>Jethmalani referred to the media reports on Trai’s conclusion about no loss in the 2G spectrum allocation during the tenure of jailed former Telecom minister A Raja in order to point out the contradictions in the version of the CBI which maintained there was over Rs 30,000 crore loss to the exchequer. <br /><br />He was putting forth arguments seeking bail for Unitech Wireless’ MD Sanjay Chandra. <br /><br />The Trai in a communication to the CBI had reportedly said that it was not possible to tell exactly as to what prices would have emerged during the auction so it was difficult to quantify the exact loss to the exchequer. The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on a PIL seeking CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and removal of its present CEO and MD Atul Kumar Rai. <br /><br />A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha issued notices to Finance and Corporate Affairs Ministry and others on the petition alleging that Rai was appointed to the post against the norms, rules and the procedure.<br /><br />Ineligible<br /><br />“He was not eligible for taking up the post of whole-time Director in IFCI from the very next date of his release on voluntary retirement from Government Service. Immediately thereafter Shri Rai got himself re-designated as the CEO & MD w.e.f. 11th July, 2007,” the petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) said.<br /></p>
<p>The CBI, on its part, however, maintained that the report would be confidential one as it would be a part of inter-departmental communication. <br /><br />“Is it correct that according to the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) there was no loss,” a Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu asked.<br /><br />The court made the query with Additional Solicitor General H P Ravel whether the CBI was having the report prepared by Trai after senior counsel Ram Jethmalani pointed out to the bench about the contradictory stands taken by different agencies on the loss to the government. “We want to know what Trai said is correct or not. It has come into public domain. Is it not a public document,” Justice Singhvi asked. In response, Ravel maintained that it was not a public document and was confidential. It could be produced only in a sealed cover.<br /><br />To his contention, the court, however, wondered as to why it would be produced in sealed cover when there have already been news reports on it.</p>.<p>Jethmalani referred to the media reports on Trai’s conclusion about no loss in the 2G spectrum allocation during the tenure of jailed former Telecom minister A Raja in order to point out the contradictions in the version of the CBI which maintained there was over Rs 30,000 crore loss to the exchequer. <br /><br />He was putting forth arguments seeking bail for Unitech Wireless’ MD Sanjay Chandra. <br /><br />The Trai in a communication to the CBI had reportedly said that it was not possible to tell exactly as to what prices would have emerged during the auction so it was difficult to quantify the exact loss to the exchequer. The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on a PIL seeking CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and removal of its present CEO and MD Atul Kumar Rai. <br /><br />A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha issued notices to Finance and Corporate Affairs Ministry and others on the petition alleging that Rai was appointed to the post against the norms, rules and the procedure.<br /><br />Ineligible<br /><br />“He was not eligible for taking up the post of whole-time Director in IFCI from the very next date of his release on voluntary retirement from Government Service. Immediately thereafter Shri Rai got himself re-designated as the CEO & MD w.e.f. 11th July, 2007,” the petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) said.<br /></p>
