Telecom Watchdog seeks probe against Sibal for favouring RCom

Says the Minister caused loss to exchequer by reducing RCom's penalty from Rs.50 crore to Rs.5 crore

July 27, 2011 12:58 am | Updated 12:58 am IST - NEW DELHI:

Telecom Watchdog, a non-governmental organisation, on Tuesday filed complaints with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal alleging that he had caused loss to the government exchequer by reducing Reliance Communications' penalty from Rs.50 crore to Rs.5 crore.

The Telecom Watchdog has sought a thorough probe and registration of FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr. Sibal for allegedly abusing his official position to benefit a private party at the cost of exchequer. The case relates to Reliance Communication Ltd. (RCL) and Reliance Telecom Ltd. (RTL) that had shut down telecom towers in some circles last year. These towers had come up in rural areas and funded by the government through the USO Fund. After notices from the DoT, the company had later restored services.

Accusing Mr. Sibal of overruling the officers of the Department of Telecommunications by waiving off penalty imposed on Reliance Communications and deliberately favouring them, the complaints said the Minister decided to levy a very nominal penalty. This he did by converting a “serious wilful violation of licence conditions” to a normal violation of “disruption in service.”

‘Wrong precedent'

“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 at its own will, unilaterally and without any prior notice…this act of Mr. Sibal is unpardonable as the USO Fund service were meant for only those rural and remote areas where fixed wireless and mobile services were not being provided by any operators,” it added.

Notably, a few days back a similar complaint was filed in the Supreme Court where the petitioners had linked the issue with the ongoing 2G spectrum case.

However, the Supreme Court had refused to club it with the 2G case and asked petitioner to file a separate complaint.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.