The debate over the quantification of losses (ranging from Rs. 1.76 lakh crore to Rs. 65,000 crore based on four different criteria) by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (CAG) rages on despite clarifications by the CAG to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the 2G spectrum scam.
The JPC on Wednesday decided to summon CAG Vinod Rai and the former Director-General of Audit (Post and Telecommunications) in the CAG, R.P. Singh, who had reportedly given a note of dissent on the methodology adopted in calculating the presumptive loss. The decision came after Congress MP and JPC member Manish Tewari pointed to a report in the English business daily Mint on the reservations expressed by Mr. Singh about the criteria in determining the presumptive loss.
Though JPC chairman P.C. Chacko made no mention of the decision at a press conference, a member of the committee said the Secretariat had circulated copies of the media report. Mr. Singh retired on August 31.
The subject figured prominently in the PAC sessions and at the initial meetings of the JPC. The CAG had explained the rationale adopted in arriving at the presumptive loss and argued that the Auditor was competent to look into every government decision with a bearing on revenue.
The CAG reported four figures as possible presumptive (or notional) losses arising from the way the government allotted spectrum to companies in 2008: Rs. 67,364 crore, Rs. 57,666 crore, Rs. 69,626 crore and Rs. 1.76 trillion.
The first was based on an offer by telecom operator STel Pvt. Ltd for a pan-India licence; the second and the third, a range, on the sale of equity by Swan and Unitech, and the fourth on the price at which third-generation (3G) spectrum was auctioned.
According to the paper, Mr. Singh, in a letter on July 8, 2010, said: “It will be difficult to establish a tenable link between the value of UASL [Unified Access Services Licence] and the net worth of foreign investments the licensees attracted.” It said an internal note circulated in his department said: “We are not on strong grounds in the argument made.” The note added that “however, since the headquarters” wants a draft, “we may forward it.”
