SC questions government on telecom firm's licence

NEW DELHI, INDIA: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the government to reveal what happened between March 5, 2010, when telecom company S Tel's second generation (2G) licences were cancelled, and April 15, 2010, when they were restored.

An apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly sought the details after studying the documents that were presented by the government.

The court had summoned the documents after it was alleged on Tuesday that S Tel was forced into submission and told to withdraw its plea from the apex court seeking grant of 2G licences in certain circles.

Due to the advancing of the cut-off date from Oct 1, 2007 to Sep 25, 2007 through two press releases issued Jan 10, 2008, S Tel did not get licences in circles where it had applied after Sep 25, 2007.

S Tel, which had been allotted licences in some circles prior to Sep 25, 2007, challenged the advancing of the cut-off date. On March 5, 2010, it was abruptly told that all these licenses had been cancelled.

The company later withdrew its plea before the apex court on the grounds of changed market conditions. After the withdrawal of the plea, the company's existing licences were restored April 15, 2010.

Appearing in person, petitioner and Janata Party president Subramainian Swamy told the court that all the 2G licences which were granted in pursuance of two press releases issued Jan 10, 2008 stood automatically cancelled after a Delhi High Court order.

Swamy is seeking the cancellation of grant of 2G licences and the allocation of spectrum in 2008 at 2001 prices by bending the rules.

The petitioner wants these licences to be auctioned afresh, after cancellation of the existing ones.

Swamy mocked at the stand of the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) that the cancellation of licences would not be in public interest.

The DoT earlier told the apex court that all the telecom operators who failed in their roll-out obligations and others found "ineligible" by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were being proceeded against.

Swamy said that telecom operators have opposed his plea for cancellation on the "facts of their circumstances" and not on the grounds of "my prayer for cancellation and subsequent auction".

Concluding his arguments, senior counsel Prashant Bhushan told the court that there was "rampant corruption because of the privatization of natural resources".

Bhushan said that even if "you are (central government) following this policy of privatization of natural resources it can't be done without auction". Bhushan appeared for the intervener Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL).

At this Justice Gangly observed that the natural resources were being "frittered away".

Attorney General G. Vahanvati will respond to the pleas by Swamy and Bhushan, who appeared for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, on Thursday.