2G scam: Pawar may be controlling DB Realty, says Radia

NEW DELHI: Corporate lobbyist Niira Radia has told the CBI that Union agriculture ministerSharad Pawar may be controlling the controversialDB Realty and may have pursued the issue of spectrum and licence for Swan Telecom with former telecom minister A Raja. 

In a statement to CBI, which has been filed as part of the chargesheet in the 2G scam, Radia says on being asked by a journalist how she knew about Pawar lobbying with Raja to get approvals for Swan, "That as per the general perception inMumbai as well as outside DB Realties (sic) directly or indirectly (is) controlled by Sharad Pawar and his family members." 

Radia added that she had no "documentary proof or some other evidence" to back up her allegation. She, however, said Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka "are key persons in DB Realty", and "in that background, I had quoted the name of Sharad Pawar who might have pursued the matter with Raja, then telecom minister, for showing (favour) to Swan as well as to Anil Ambani Reliance Communications in issuing of UAS (unified access service) licence and dual technology". 

Pawar has in the past denied having anything to do with the DB Realty group although Goenka has said that he has family links with the Maratha leader. Goenka`s Dynamix group has a large presence in Baramati, Pawar`s constituency. 

Radia gave four separate statements to CBI, most of them dealing with the several phone conversations she had with various people including Ratan Tata, A Raja, Raja`s personal secretary R K Chandolia, several journalists and senior executives from various corporate houses. The conversations and her explanations before the investigation agency illustrates her proximity to Raja, Chandolia and many others. 

The lobbyist also told CBI that former IAS officers Pradeep Baijal and C M Vasudev were given "sweat equity" of 10% each in her consulting firm. Baijal was TRAI chairman until March 2006, while Vasudev held several crucial posts in the finance ministry. 

During her questioning, CBI confronted the lobbyist with phone conversations from her various numbers that were recorded by the Income Tax department. Radia responded to each of them and her statement was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC before the CBI. Unlike a statement recorded before a magistrate, statements recorded under Section 161 can be changed in court. 

The statements recorded by CBI additional SP Vivek Priyadarshi have Radia accusing Dayanidhi Maran, former telecom minister, of being against the Tata Group. "I would like to state thatDayanidhi Maran created a lot of problems for Tata group," Radia said, explaining the circumstances in which she was roped in by the Tata group for PR work. 

As opposed to Swan Telecom, which was "an applicant not even eligible for getting a UAS licence, in view of the cross holding clause", it was Tata Teleservices that "deserved the spectrum before any other company," her statement said. 

Appearing before Parliament`s Public Accounts Committee, Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata group, had also spoken of his group`s lack of chemistry with Maran who preceded Raja. 

Raja`s attempts to bring Kalaignar TV on the Tata Sky platform and their pending application withTata Communications in this regard also figures in Radia`s statement to CBI. Raja asked her to "put my efforts for getting the applications expedited with Tata Sky and Tata Communications". However, paucity of space ensured Kalaignar never made it to Tata Sky, she said. Raja`s additional PS A Achary, while deposing before a magistrate, corroborated this, saying that M Karunanidhi`s daughter Kanimozhi, the key mover behind the channel, was in regular touch with Raja to place Kalaignar TV on Tata Sky. 

Radia also revealed how she dealt with a recommendation by Chandolia to place two employees abroad. While one was working with TCS, Chandolia wanted the other to be taken into TCS and placed in the west. 

Radia told her investigators that she was a consultant to Unitech, besides working for Tatas. The payment of around Rs 1,700 crore from Tata Realty to Unitech was for a land deal in Gurgaon and not linked to telecom, she said.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2G-scam-Pawar-may-be-controlling-DB-Realty-says-Radia/articleshow/7977037.cms

Real or fake? Breathe easy, Team India lifted the right Cup

NEW DELHI: The nation had its mouth wide open in indignation, ready to yell "BETRAYAL" just as the clarifications started to come in fast and furious. Breathe easy, they all said, MS Dhoni had lifted the right World Cup trophy, not a fake one. 

Monday morning brought the chilling "news". The real ICC World Cup, claimed a newspaper, had been detained by Customs officials. Dhoni and his intrepid warriors had been given a dummy. Lending credence to the news were two facts - one, the 2003 trophy that Ponting and his boys held was different from the one with the Men in Blue; and two, a trophy had indeed been detained by MumbaiCustoms. 

So, did the Customs babus lose all their common sense and pull out some obscure list of duty exempted goods to deny our champions their hard-fought right to lift the original trophy? Was this yet another instance of suffocating red-tape cheating the players and the people of the opportunity to hold and behold the Real One? 

As the questions came angry and fast, the Customs department came out with a technical explanation. It said this particular trophy being carried into India by two ICC officials was not in the list of ICC goods exempted from duty; hence it was detained and duty was levied on it. However, the ICC said it would not pay and instead carry the trophy back to Dubai. 

Soon, the ICC came out with a statement clarifying that Team India had been given the right trophy, the 'recognized trophy' for the winners of World Cup 2011. It said the 'perpetual trophy' had been detained by the Customs. This 'perpetual trophy' was given to winners until the 2003 edition of the Cup. 

Australia, the 2003 winner, didn't like the idea of having to give back a Cup that it had won. Hence, said the ICC, a new system was devised. Both in 2007 and 2011, the 'perpetual trophy' was used only for promotional purposes and the winner was given a trophy specially made for that particular edition of the World Cup. No one had been cheated, said the ICC, nothing really had gone amiss. 

If the 'perpetual trophy' had no role to play, why was it being brought into Mumbai for the final? Was the ICC trying to cover up? Was it that, like many trophies, the 'perpetual trophy' was the running trophy, to be presented at the ceremonial award ceremony, and after the victory lap, taken back and a replica given to the winner? 

No, said ICC president Sharad Pawar. He insisted to TOI that the perpetual trophy was only for promotional purposes. In this case, it had been taken for display at the Colombo semifinal, while the other was at Mohali for display at the India-Pakistan match, he said. ICC Cup coordinatorDhiraj Malhotra said the same. 

A search of World Cup pictures of the 2003, 2007 and 2011 seemed to bear out the ICC version. The 2003 Cup is indeed different from the 2007 and 2011 trophies. 

The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) also moved in by evening to clarify that the trophy had been retained by the Customs at the ICC's request. It said two passengers, Emma Waiteand Rixon Heyder, brought it in from Colombo as part of their "personal baggage". It was not part of the list of items temporarily imported by ICC and hence exempt from duties. ICC itself had written saying that the trophy in question was not to be used for any purpose inside India, said the CBEC. 

The Customs added that "in order to remove all doubts the concerned customs officers contacted ICC tournament director Ratnakar Shetty and enquired about the said trophy so that appropriate action could be taken expeditiously and the matter resolved." And Shetty wrote back saying, "We hereby request your office to hold the trophy in the customs warehouse at the airport until it is collected by the above passengers." 

However, Dhiraj Malhotra had an interesting twist to give to this baffling controversy. He said this 'perpetual trophy', now at a Customs warehouse, had gone in and out of the country several times during the tournament. "I myself carried it to Mumbai from Bangladesh after the inaugural match. So, I don't know why it was detained this time," he told TOI. 

If this was really the case, why did the Customs act this time? Was it sheer cussedness? Said BCCIvice president Rajeev Shukla: "How can the Customs people do this? There must be a relook at laws on international trophies and medals. How can there be a duty on them?" How indeed?

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/cricket-world-cup-2011/news/Real-or-fake-Breathe-easy-Team-India-lifted-the-right-Cup/articleshow/7870210.cms