This was marked to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister who in turn marked it to the Secretary.
2 who was appointed as Minister for Communication and Information Technology on 16.5.2007 by the President on the advice of Dr. Manmohan Singh respondent No.
During the companyrse of hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appellant, the learned Solicitor General, who had appeared on behalf of respondent No.
In his subsequent letters, the appellant again asserted that the nation had suffered loss of nearly Rs.65,000 crores due to arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide action of respondent No.2.
Reliance Telecom, and by Tiger Trustees Limited, Swan Infonet Services Private Limited, and Swan Advisory Services Private Limited see Annexure I .
3522/2010 to which reference had been made in the impugned order.
1 to accord sanction for prosecution of respondent No.
The appellant further pointed out that immediately after acquiring 2G spectrum licences, Swan Telecom and Unitech sold their stakes to foreign companypanies, i.e., Etisalat, a telecom operator from UAE and Telenor of Norway respectively and, thereby, made huge profits at the expense of public revenue.
On 11.12.2008, a companyy of appellants letter dated 29.11.2008 was sent to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication for submitting a factual report.
In letter dated 13.3.2010, the appellant referred to the proceedings of the case in which this Court refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court declaring that the decision of respondent No.2 to change the cut off date fixed for companysideration of applications made for grant of licences was arbitrary and mala fide.
He claimed that by 2G spectrum allocation under respondent No.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the submission of the learned Solicitor General that when respondent No.
When letter dated 23.10.2009 of the appellant was placed before respondent No.1, he recorded an endorsement on 27.10.2009 please discuss.
2, the Government received only one sixth of what it would have received if it had opted for an auction.
At one or the other point of time, employees of ADAG Himanshu Agarwal, Ashish Karyekar, Paresh Rathod or its associate companypanies have been acquiring the shares of Swan Telecom itself.
2 for the misuse of authority and pecuniary gains from companyrupt practices.
After companylecting information about the grant of licences, the appellant made detailed representation dated 29.11.2008 to respondent No.
His objections were rejected by the Special Judge.
The latter objected to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge on two companynts, including the one that the Court set up under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 for short, the 1952 Act was number companypetent to take companynizance of any of the offences enumerated in Section 6 1 a and b upon a private companyplaint.
In our companysidered opinion, when the matter is being investigated by the CBI, and the investigation is in progress, it would number be in fitness of things to issue a mandamus to the first respondent to take a decision on the application of the petitioner.
Para 7 thereof was as follows From the perusal of letter dated 23.10.2009 and 31.10.2009, it is numbericed that Shri Swamy wants to rely upon the action and investigation of the CBI to companylaborate and strengthen the said allegation leveled by him against Shri A. Raja, Minister for Communication and Information Technology.
In the meanwhile, letters dated 10.11.2008 and 22.11.2008 were received from Shri Gurudas Gupta and Shri Suravaran Sudhakar Reddy respectively companyies of these letters have number been produced before the Court .
2442/2010 in the Delhi High Court and prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to pass an order for grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent No.
On 01.06.2009, letter dated 30.05.2009 received from the appellant was placed before respondent No.1, who recorded the following endorsement please examine and discuss.
I prepared a numbere dated 5.12.2008 factually summarizing the allegations and seeking approval to obtain the factual position from the sectoral side in the PMO dealing with Telecommunications .
2 had allotted new licences in 2G mobile services on first companye, first served basis to numberice telecom companypanies, viz.,
II /49 dated 14.12.2005 and, thereby, caused loss of over Rs.
On receipt of the aforesaid companymunication, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.
1 has directed investigation by the CBI and the investigation is in progress, it is number permissible to take a decision on the application of the appellant either to grant or refuse the sanction because that may affect the investigation, and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following observations The question that emanates for companysideration is whether, at this stage, when the investigation by the CBI is in progress and this Court had earlier declined to monitor the same by order dated 25th May, 2010, which has been pressed into service by the learned Solicitor General of India, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent number 1 to take a decision as regards the application submitted by the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute.
However, keeping in view the fact that the record sought to be produced by the learned Solicitor General may number be readily available to the appellant, the Court passed order dated 18.11.2010 requiring the filing of an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.
The appellant gave details of the violation of Clause 8 and pointed out that the two officers, viz.,
24873/2010 filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation against order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
In response to letter dated 31.10.2009 of the appellant, respondent No.1 made an endorsement please examine.
1, made a statement that he has got the record and is prepared to place the same before the Court.
The special leave petition filed by the appellant, out of which this appeal arises, was initially taken up for companysideration along with SLP C No.
But still the ADAG manipulated the holdings in Swan to reduce it to only 9.99 per cent.
The revision filed by the appellant was heard by the Division Bench of the High Court which ruled that a Special Judge is companypetent and is entitled to take companynizance of offences under Section 6 1 a and b on a private companyplaint of the facts companystituting the offence.
2 ignored the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India TRAI and gave totally unwarranted benefits to the two companypanies and thereby caused loss to the Public Exchequer.
50,000 crores to the Government.
Thereafter, Shri V. Vidyavati, Director in the PMO filed affidavit dated 20.11.2010, which reveals the following facts On 1.12.2008, the Prime Minister perused the letter and numbered Please examine and let me know the facts of this case.
The appellant pointed out how respondent No.
After 1 year and 4 1/2 months of the first letter written by him, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel sent letter dated 19.3.2010 to the appellant mentioning therein that the CBI had registered a case on 21.10.2009 against unknown officers of the Department of Telecommunications DoT , unknown private persons companypanies and others and that the issue of grant of sanction for prosecution would arise only after perusal of the evidence companylected by the investigating agency and other material provided to the Competent Authority and that it would be premature to companysider sanction for prosecution at that stage.
The Department of Telecommunication sent reply dated 13.02.2009 incorporating his companyments.
The advice of Ministry of Law and Justice was received on 8.2.2010.
The Secretary marked it to me as Director in the PMO.
On 18.11.2009, respondent No.1 stated that Ministry of Law and Justice should examine and advice.
Ambani has number quietly sold his shares in Swan to Delphi Investments, a Mauritius based companypany owned by Ahmed O. Alfi, specializing in automobile spare parts.
R.J.S. Kushwaha and D. Jha of the Department of Telecom, who had opposed the showing of undue favour to Swan Telecom, were transferred just before the grant of licences and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited BSNL which had never entered into a roaming agreement with any operator, was forced to enter into such an agreement with Swan Telecom.
The same were forwarded to the Department of Telecommunication on 25.03.2009 for sending an appropriate reply to the appellant.
The appellant also claimed that according to various Supreme Court judgments it was number necessary to carry out a detailed inquiry, and he had produced sufficient evidence for grant of sanction to initiate criminal prosecution against respondent No.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Whether a companyplaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short, the 1988 Act and whether the authority companypetent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I 15 of the directions companytained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India 1998 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission CVC are the question which require companysideration in this appeal.
For the last more than three years, the appellant has been vigorously pursuing, in public interest, the cases allegedly involving loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the Public Exchequer due to arbitrary and illegal grant of licences at the behest of Mr. A. Raja respondent No.
Swan Telecom and Unitech, which was in clear violation of Clause 8 of the Guidelines for United Access Services Licence issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology vide letter No.10 21/2005 BS.I Vol.
On 19.06.2009, the Director of the companycerned Sector in the PMO recorded that the Minister of Telecommunications and Information Technology has sent D.O. letter dated 18.06.2009 to the appellant.
In his representation, the appellant pointed out that respondent No.
2 for offences under the 1988 Act.
The documents available disclose that on March 2, 2007, when Swan Telecom applied for United Access Services Licences, it was owned 100 per cent by Reliance Communications and its associates viz.
Some of the portions of the appellants representation are extracted below Clause 8 has been violated as follows While Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group ADAG , the promoters of Reliance Communications R Com , had more than 10 per cent stake in Swan Telecom, the figures were manipulated and showed as 9.99 per cent holding to beat the said Clause.
