NGO files charges against Sibal with CVC, CBI

Union Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, trouble-shooter for the Congress/Prime Minister's Office in the 2G scam-related issues, is in trouble himself.

NGO Telecom Watchdog, one of the petitioners in the 2G case, has filed a detailed documented complaint against Sibal for reducing the penalty of Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance from Rs 50 crore to only Rs 5 crore against the unanimous recommendation of all the officers of the Department of Telecommunication.

The complaints have been received by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Vigilance Commission. They have been addressed to CBI Director A P Singh and newly-appointed Central Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar.

"The Supreme Court on July 11 had asked the petitioners against Sibal to avail other legal remedies to get the matter investigated, since the matter was not related to the 2G case. In this light, the Telecom Watchdog has filed these complaints," said Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, who is assisting Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has fought the 2G case for the non-government organisation Centre for Public Interest Litigation.

...

"This way the minister has deliberately favoured Reliance Communication Ltd and Reliance Telecom Ltd. This decision has not only caused a substantial loss to the government but also set a wrong precedent that a private company can stop essential services like telecom unilaterally and without any prior notice. As such, this action is also against the national security," he said.

The petition while giving facts of the case says RCL and RTL have been providing telecom services across the country under Universal Access Service licenses granted to them by the DoT. While continuing with these UAS licenses, DoT's other arm --- Universal Service Obligation Fund Administrator -- executed another agreement with RCL & RTL for providing telecom services in rural and remote areas where the fixed and wireless telephone services had not reached. Both, UASL and USOF agreements had different level of penalties for delays in the rollout.

However, only UASL had prescribed Rs 50 crore (per service area) penalty for serious violations of the license agreements. This penalty of Rs 50 crore was also applicable to services provided under the USOF agreement since the termination and suspension of services was prohibited.

Although, enough evidence against Reliance is available, the petition says,  "For unknown reasons, Sibal saved RCL and RTL from this penalty."

On December 7, 2010, Reliance wrote a letter stating that it had switched off its services effective from November 22, 2010. Hence, Reliance had simply shut down its services unilaterally and without any notice. This is a serious violation of license agreement, argues Kumar in his petition. Importantly, the advisor finance and member finance of DoT and the telecom secretary who is also the chairman of the telecom commission, approved the levy of the said penalty of Rs 50 crore per circle.

The file reached Sibal's office on February 9, 2011. On February 16, Reliance wrote a letter to Sibal that it had restored the services. Based on this letter, Sibal on February 18 treated this serious violation by Reliance as a mere "interruption" of services. While rejecting DoT's stand of levying Rs 50 crore penalty Sibal had stated that UASL agreement clauses should not be invoked and penalty under USOF agreement for "interruption" should be imposed.

Why did he state that UAS licence agreement is not applicable and department must only proceed under USOFA? Why did he not send the matter back to the USOF cell and to the department after the receipt of the letter from Reliance? If there was a legal issue involved, why did he not refer the matter to the law ministry? Why did he not take the advice of telecom regulator TRAI, which is a statutory body to protect the interests of consumers? Why did Sibal not impose the penalty of Rs 50 crore per circle and let Reliance challenge it in Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal if it felt aggrieved?

"Sibal ignored the fact that his duty is to promote public welfare and safeguard the interests of consumers who in this case were poor people in the rural and remote parts of India, who could not have even approach courts against Reliance," the petitioner said.