Needle of suspicion points to Raja

The father-son duo that tried to influence a Madras High Court judge through a Union Minister for a favourable verdict in a criminal case was close to Telecom Minister A Raja.

Justice R Reghupathy created a sensation on Monday evening in open court in Chennai when he alleged that a Union Minister had tried to influence him for grant of anticipatory bail to a doctor and his son in a forged marksheet case filed by the CBI. The judge said the Union Minister called him twice for granting anticipatory bail to Krishnamoorthy and son S Kiruba Sridhar, facing a CBI inquiry for malpractices in medical college exams of Pondicherry University.

While the judge did not name the Minister who had tried to put pressure on him, documents available with The Pioneer show Dr C Krishnamoorthy enjoys close proximity with Telecom Minister A Raja.

Krishnamoorthy is a close associate of Raja and belongs to the Minister’s hometown, Peramballur. He is the owner of the building which housed a law firm run by Raja before he became a Minister. Krishnamoorthy is also the managing director of a Coimbatore-based real estate company, Kovai Shelters Promotors India Pvt Ltd, formed on January 19, 2007. As per the documents available with the Registrar of Companies, Raja’s nephew Dr R Sridhar and nieces R Anandabhuvaneswari and R Santhanalakshmi are directors in this company and jointly hold 45 per cent shares in Kovai Shelters.

The Pioneer had on January 12, 2009, reported that Raja’s nephew, a Class-I officer in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, violated the service conduct rules by remaining on the board of a private firm without informing the Government. Sridhar had secured the Government job by providing false experience certificates. Applications for this post were invited during Raja’s tenure in the Environment Ministry. The mandatory five-year experience certificate was falsely issued to Sridhar by his research guide Dr L Kannan, who was later elevated as the Vice-Chancellor of Thiruvalluvar University.

Krishnamoorthy also owns a big investment company, AGM Investments Finances Pvt Ltd. This company, formed in September 1990 by one Arun G Mehta in Chennai, was acquired by Krishnamoorthy in February 2008 along with his brother Satyanarayanan.

On Tuesday, Justice Reghupathy spilled the beans when the advocate, appearing for S Kirub Shridhar, a third-year student in a private medical college in Puducherry, and his doctor father Krishnamoorthy, complained that the judge was not granting bail to his clients on the basis of prosecution submissions.

The advocate’s remarks came after the judge said he was not inclined to grant any relief as their pleas had been rejected on June 15 itself. Annoyed, the judge said, “A Union Minister talked to me about the matter. You yourself know every thing. Unless an unconditional apology is tendered by you, I will incorporate every detail in my order.” Justice Reghupathy said he would also write to the Prime Minister about the “pressure exerted” on him.

 

TRAI Changes Tune

[June 15, 2009 – The Pioneer]

Having consistently taken the position that the first-come-first-served system adopted by the Telecom Department for allotting spectrum was improper, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has suddenly turned coy and tacitly started backing the controversial process. Incidentally, the change in opinion coincides with the arrival of a new face as the regulatory panel head.

In an affidavit filed recently in the Delhi High Court, which is hearing a public interest litigation against the controversial allotment of 2G spectrum, TRAI diluted its opposition to the first-come-first-served formula. The court had asked for the regulator’s opinion on the dubious allotment of spectrum in February-end. The affidavit, which downplays the organisation’s consistent opposition to the dubious allotment, was filed after the appointment of JS Sharma as the new TRAI chairman.

A copy of the affidavit — which The Pioneer possesses — does not even mention ‘first-come-first-served’ as a basis for allotment, though the court had asked it to comment precisely on the allotment process.

Even though TRAI did say that it had suggested the auction method to determine market price of the spectrum on several occasions, it did not comment on its stand regarding the first-come-first-served system, let alone express its known unequivocal opposition to it.

Seeking to distance itself from the contentious issue, TRAI told the court, “It is respectfully submitted that the policy of allotment of telecom spectrum is an administrative matter under the jurisdiction of the Department of Telecom.” It added, “In the 2G bands, the allocation through auction may not be possible as service providers were allocated spectrum at different times of their licence and the amount of spectrum with them varies from 2×4.4MHz to 2x10MHz for GSM technology and 2×2.5MHz to 2x5MHz 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.”

Interestingly, TRAI did not mention a word about a crucial letter written by its former chairman Nripendra Misra to Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura on January 14, 2008, in which he had vehemently criticised the spectrum allotment on first-come-first-served basis. Misra blamed the Telecom Department for “cherry picking” in adopting those recommendations that suited the department while ignoring other important ones. In that letter, the former chairman had criticised the allotment of spectrum to new players without specifying the availability of the scarce resource. Misra had on several occasions blamed the department for making claims that the 2G spectrum allocation process was conducted as per TRAI recommendations.

“It would be unfair and misleading if any decision and consequent action is initiated without identifying and implementing the linkages elsewhere in the recommendation. It was reiterated that the authority (TRAI) should be formally consulted if there is any deviation from the totality of the recommendation,” Misra pointed out in the letter.

The letter added, “The authority has emphasised that there is need to ensure availability of adequate spectrum, its efficient utilisation and making the process (of spectrum allocation) completely transparent and based on a roadmap and well-researched plan.

It is sincerely hoped that the above suggestions/observations and compliance of legal provisions would receive highest consideration as they have a long-term bearing on the telecom sector.”

Misra’s tenure ended in March and Sharma was appointed the new chairman on May 14. Sharma is a former Secretary of Telecom and, prior to this appointment, was a member of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).