Breaking News
Nagaland Post Logo
You are here:  Skip Navigation LinksHome » Show story
Court gives applicant time to bring documents in 2G case
Published on 3 May. 2011 2:08 AM IST
Print  Text Size

Dharmendra Pandey, a private applicant who had filed a petition seeking direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to name industrialist Ratan Tata and lobbyist Niira Radia as accused, sought time from the court Monday to produce documents to prove his allegation.
“I could not produce the documents and evidence to prove that CBI overlooked the role of Niira Radia and Tata in granting the licence to Tata Teleservices in terms of clear violation of policy and procedure... the court may kindly grant me some time,” said Pandey’s counsel.
Allowing Pandey’s plea, CBI judge O.P. Saini fixed the matter for further hearing May 7.
Pandey, a resident of Shalimar Garden Extension II, Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh, filed the petition Thursday in a court specially designated to hear 2G cases.
In his complaint, Pandey stated that the investigating agency did not name Radia as an accused although the scam became huge only after the alleged leak of her conversations with others.
“The CBI much before the filing of the chargesheet and during the course of investigation had information about the violation in the granting of licence to Tata Tele under pressure and the active role played by Niira Radia. But, either deliberately or due to oversight, it had missed the vital role of other people in terms of licence allotment to Tata Tele,” the complaint said.
Pandey Thursday submitted ‘secret’ files of the DoT (Department of Telecom), which contain details of the UAS (Universal Access Service Licence) granted by then communications minister A. Raja and his other colleagues to support his allegations.
The complaint added that the court had the power to direct the CBI to investigate his allegations in view of the documents and evidences submitted.
His complaint stated that those documents were also being circulated by Dr Furquan, resident of D2/16, Inderlok, who claimed to be an associate of some parties in the case.
To this, the court asked him to bring more documents to prove his allegation, and Monday he sought more time from the court to do so.

Comments:(0) Login or Register to post your Comment
(Available for registered users only)
More News