Why this loophole

Updated: Mar 22 2006, 05:30am hrs
I write with reference to the proposal that up to 20 applications in IPOs will be permitted with the same address. This is incomprehensible. A multiple application is defined as one where the sole/first applicant is the same. Thus, anyone can apply only once. The requirement of PAN will enforce this in no uncertain terms.
In any normal-sized family wanting to apply for IPOs, five members is about normal.

It is also highly unlikely that the economic status of a family where there are 20 members, all capable of applying for IPOs, is such that they are compelled to stay under the same roof! It would be interesting, and necessary from the point of transparency, if the statistics, data, etc on the basis of which the limit of 20 has been chosen are disclosed.
What, then, does one make of this rule Simple. It is an attempt to show that something has been done and at the same time, a loophole has been left for scamsters.
—TR Ramaswami


No CAS(e)
This refers to the article ‘CAS in Chennai has solved only part of a big problem’ (March 20). While the Delhi High Court has ordered implementation of the conditional access system (CAS) in metro cities, what is the guarantee that all free-to-air channels shall be provided under CAS by cable operators
Also, some viewers may not want to buy a set-top box. If CAS is introduced, will cable operators have the facilities to provide all the pay channels Also, many houses have more than one television set. If a set-top box is required for each set, a family will have to spend a lot. Therefore, consumers should have a choice and not be forced to switch to CAS.
—Mahesh Kapasi