Supreme Court of India order
of February 2, 2012 to be a less than ideal culmination to an otherwise
thorough exercise, it beats me why it is being claimed that it will take a
minimum of 400 days to implement the Supreme Court directive. If the Supreme
Court of India Order were to be approached with speed and sincerity, it could
have been attempted within the original time table of June 2, and certainly
must be accomplished within the revised deadline of August 31. After all, what
is the big broad thrust of the Supreme Court? Let us examine it through the
prism of, say Andhra Pradesh Circle, where a total of six new licences were
cancelled. First, says the Supreme Court of India, it was wrong and arbitrary
to retrospectively fix a cut-off date of September 25, 2007 and thus to
artificially choke the number of applications. Second, the Supreme Court of
India faults the rather imaginative interpretation of first come, first served,
which effectively and perversely became first serve, first come. So, the
Supreme Court of India cancelled that entire process, and directed that the
exercise be repeated, this time through an auction. That is all!
So what the government has to do is to recreate and mimic
the conditions of January 2008 to the extent possible for an auction. In the case
of Andhra Pradesh, it must put exactly six new licences on the block, not one
licence more, not one licence less. It must then open the auction of these six
new licences to every eligible bidder in the world, the six corporates whose
licences stand cancelled included. Equity and economic logic would dictate that
the reserve price should be the price actually paid in 2008 plus notional
interest for the intervening years. The auction design and method should be
identical to the EGoM supervised 3G and broadband wireless access auction of
2010. The winning price would be determined by the price at which only six
bidders survive, and the seventh has failed to match the last escalated bid
price. If any of the cancelled licence holders qualify, then they get to top up
with balance payment, take a new licence, and stay in business. If, on the
other hand, they fail to make the cut, then they pack up and the spectrum
attached to their cancelled licence transfers to the winning bidder. In such an
event, it is logical that the losing bidder gets the original payment back,
provided of course they had at least bid the reserve price.
This is the obvious treatment of the Supreme Court Order.
This is the only logical treatment. In fact, no other treatment would be faithful
to the Supreme Court of India Order. It was for the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India and the Department of Telecommunications and the finance
ministry to have thrashed this out within themselves with details during
February, and perhaps even socialised it with the Supreme Court of India and
obtained their understanding to move ahead. Subsequent administrative steps
should have been triggered within March. Instead, we have squandered 12 weeks,
and seem to be all over the place in implementing a requirement which is less
complicated than is being made out to be. There is too much at stake, and the
world is watching!
Source: Business Standard
ReplyDeleteHi, probably our entry may be off topic but anyways, I have been surfing around your blog and it looks very professional. It’s obvious you know your topic and you appear fervent about it. I’m developing a fresh blog plus I’m struggling to make it look good, as well as offer the best quality content. I have learned much at your web site and also I anticipate alot more articles and will be coming back soon. Thanks you.
CMMI Consulting India