Raja ‘wrongly okayed’ dual technology use to Reliance
Former telecom minister A Raja allegedly wrongly granted an in-principle approval for the use of dual technology to a telecom licencee, a day before the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) announced the policy.india Updated: Apr 14, 2011 23:42 IST
Former telecom minister A Raja allegedly wrongly granted an in-principle approval for the use of dual technology to a telecom licencee, a day before the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) announced the policy.
This was disclosed by corporate lobbyist Niira Radia to the CBI that filed it along with the 2G chargesheet in a city court recently. Radia, according to her statement, also claimed Raja had elevated a telecom official to a top position in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) as part of his “wrongdoing”.
According to Radia, the approval was granted to Reliance Communications Ltd on October 10, 2007 but the DoT had announced its policy related to the grant of such approvals only “a day later”. She added her claims were based on “her knowledge” and “media perceptions”.
Radia has been described a witness in the CBI chargesheet.
According to Radia, the telecom official, who was earlier a part of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, had given a ruling in 2007 according to which existing telecom operators had the “contractual right to allocation of 6.2 megahertz of spectrum”, while a new entrant could get spectrum worth 4.4 megahertz allocated. Based on this, the telecom licencee, which was allegedly granted the in-principle approval for the use of dual technology, had sought allocation of spectrum worth 1.8 megahertz.
While giving his ruling, the telecom official, according to Radia, had not gone into the matter “in-depth” which “indirectly” helped the telecom licencee. This official was then allegedly elevated to a top post in TRAI by Raja according to Radia as per “her memory”.
A spokesperson from Radia’s firm Vaishnavi Corporate Communications Pvt Ltd said, “...These matters are sub-judice and in order to uphold the dignity of the Court we refrain from making any comments.”