The CAG today indicted former telecom minister A Raja for ignoring the advice of Prime Minister, Finance and Law ministries to allocate 2G spectrum to new players in 2008 causing a whopping revenue loss of over Rs 1.76 lakh crore.

Read the conclusions of the CAG report here (or see attachment below)

In the report, tabled in both houses of Parliament, the CAG noted that the ministry of communication and IT "decided to go ahead with arbitrarily deciding that the cut-off date for issuance of Letters of Intent would be advanced to September 25, 2007 and applications received would be decided on FCFS (first-come first-served) basis."

In November, 2007, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had written to the telecom ministry suggesting introduction of "transparent methodology" of auction, "revision of entry fee" in the "back drop of inadequate spectrum and large number of applications received for fresh licences."

The CAG highlighted that the Law Ministry had suggested setting up of an Empowered Group of Ministers to discuss the large number of applications and spectrum pricing, but the telecom ministry rejected it saying "the need for forming and EGoM arises when a new policy is being framed and in this particular issue no new policy for grant of UASL (unified access service licences) was being framed."

The auditor, however, said the "contention of the DoT is untenable as the rejection of the advice" of the Law Minister to have detailed deliberations on the issues in the EGoM on the ground that changes in policy might lead to litigation "goes against the well established and time-tested procedures of functioning of the government and the collective responsibility of the Union Cabinet."

The report said the presumptive loss caused to the exchequer through spectrum allocation to 122 licencees and 35 dual technology licences in 2007-08 was Rs 1,76,645 crore. It pegged the figures on the basis of 3G auction held earlier this year in which the government mopped up over Rs 67,000 crore.

In the 77-page report, the CAG said the figure of the presumptive loss has been determined on the basis of various indicators like 3G auction and a price offered by an operator in 2007, besides scarcity value, nature of competition, business plans envisaged, number of operators and growth of sector.

The auditor pointed out that spectrum was allotted by DoT to the existing operators beyond the contracted limits (6.2 Mhz) without imposing any upfront charge for such allotment.

On the values determined through various indicators, the presumptive value of 2G spectrum on account of grant of 157 licences in different circles during 2007-08 would be in the range of approximately Rs 58,000 crore to Rs 1,52,038 crore.

The value of spectrum held by 13 operators for 51 circles based on the 2001 rates works out to be Rs 2,561 crore, while its value based on above indicators like 3G auction would be Rs 12,000-37,000 crore.

The CAG said that 85 out of 122 new licences issued to 13 companies in 2008 were granted to ineligible companies as all of them (85) did not have stipulated paid-up capital at the time of application.

Further 45 out of 85 licencees were issued to companies which failed to satisfy conditions of main object clause in the memorandum of Association (MoA), the government auditor said.

The CAG said the process of giving dual technology licences to leading telecom firms including Reliance Communications and Tata Teleservices "lacked transparency and fairness", and equal opportunity was denied to other similarly placed operators who could apply for use of dual technology only after formal announcement of the policy.

Noting that this approval (dual technology use) had violated Cabinet decision of 2003 to allow additional spectrum at 2001 prices, the auditor said, "Deviation from a Cabinet decision should normally be with the approval of Cabinet.

"However, in the present case, such a crucial decision to permit service providers to offer access using combination of technologies (CDMA, GSM and/or any other) under the same licence with dual spectrum allocation was taken without the matter being referred to the Cabinet.