After the CBI refused to take on record part of a recent Trai report on losses due to the 2G scam, the Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the regulator and questioned the manner in which it was functioning. ?We are really surprised over the communication. It was created as an autonomous regulator. It is a serious debatable issue what they have done and stated in recent days,? a bench of justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly said.
At the heart of the controversy is the Trai?s cover note of its report which says, ?Trai had never ever recommended auction even in 2007 or any other method to hike the entry fee for the new players.?
Yet in an affidavit to the Supreme Court in march this year, Trai has said the exact opposite, ?While Trai was not in favour of holding auctions for 2G bands it has nowhere suggested that the entry fee should be be pegged at 2001 level?. The affidavit then went on to quote from Trai?s 2007 recommendation, ? It is also a fact that the entry fee determination in 2001 doesn’t bear any relationship to the present spurt in the telecom market. Perhaps it needs to be reassessed through a market mechanism?. The March affidavit went on to say, ? based on Trai?s recommendation of 2007, the first step should have been to assess the availability of spectrum, to lay down spectrum allocation criteria and pricing domain. Thereafter the central government should have sought a specific recommendation from the Trai for issuing new licence to a service provider as envisaged by the second and the fourth proviso of sectrion 11(1) of the Trai Act. However this wasn?t done?.
The bench also expressed surprise over the difference in computation between CBI and CAG on the loss to the exchequer due to the 2G scam. ?CBI?s estimate on loss is substantially lower than the presumptive loss given by CAG. CBI came out with a concrete figure that has been contested,? the bench said.