JOIN USCBI rebuts Trai's 'zero loss' report
“It is, therefore, not possible with certainty the precise values of spectrum that would have emerged in an auction,” the report put before a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu said.
The bench, which is hearing the bail plea of Unitech Wireless’ MD Sanjay Chandra, on Monday asked the CBI about the Trai’s report and estimates of spectrum prices arrived at by the regulator. “Retrospectively, estimating annual value of spectrum in the 1800 MHZ band for 8 years between 2001 and 2008 is a tricky exercise at the best of times. Access to data is crucially important, but equally, if not more important is access to business plans and forecasts of service providers who invest in the market.”
“We do not have access to the latter information and even the data that we have is inadequate, as documented in our report. We, therefore conduct the exercise of estimating market value of spectrum under severe data constraints and a changing technological environment,” the report in its conclusion said.
In an affidavit, the CBI claimed that it had requested Trai to “consider the (certain) issues” (regarding prices) and revert back to the probe agency which has not been done by the regulator till date.
Case against Maran less than honest, says CPIL
An NGO, which had filed the PIL leading to CBI probe into the 2G spectrum allocation scam case, on Tuesday charged in the Supreme Court that the central investigating agency has been “less than honest” in inquiring into the role of DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran in Aircel-Maxis deal.
In an application, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) referred to various reports to allege that the CBI, which initially maintained that there was evidence of “coercion and quid pro quo” in buying 74 per cent stake in Aircel in March 2006 by Maxis group, owned by Malaysian business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan, had failed to register FIR in the matter.
“CBI had apparently stated (in June this year) that they are conducting a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) as per their manual and they have found evidence of coercion and quid pro quo.”
“CBI has now given an updated status report of its investigations on 01.09.2011. As per the understanding of the petitioners and as per news reports the next day, CBI has apparently stated that ‘coercion’ of Aircel’s earlier owner Sivasankaran could not be established and the allegations of quid pro quo are still being investigated.
Till date CBI has not even registered an FIR and have not questioned Maran. Petitioners are constrained to submit that CBI investigation in this case has been less than honest,” the application filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan said.
It was unfortunate that CBI was apparently seeking to close the case, he said.
Textile Minister Maran had to resign in July after CBI alleged that there was an element of “cercion” in the Aircel-Maxis deal.