Delhi District Court
Cbi vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. on 21 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE:CBI:PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No.03/12
FIR No.RC-06(A)/2011/AC-III
U/s 120B IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
CBI Versus R.S.P. SINHA & ORS.
ORDER
1. CBI has filed a closure report in FIR No. registered on 06.06.2011 u/s 120B IPC & Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act"), 1988.
2. The brief facts of the case are that reliable information was received that the task of providing Telecommunication Services was given to MTNL during the Commonwealth Games 2010 (CWG-2010) and a detailed Scope of Work (SOW) was prepared by the Organizing Committee (OC)/CWG-2010, specific to their requirements and sent to MTNL for submission of Techno-Commercial Proposal. Organizing Committee was an event specific temporary organization mandated to conduct the Commonwealth Games. The specific requirements of OC vis-a-vis Broadcast Video Network Services was point to point to multi point transmission to Broadcast Video and Audio signals from Venues to International Broadcast Centre (IBC) on optical fiber/ electric network CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 1 of 98 interface transmission and the projected cost of the same was approximately Rs.30 crores. On the basis of the expenditure incurred during CWG/Melbourne-2006, OC had made a provision of Rs.31.43 Crores. In this regard OC had formed a Technology Expert Committee (TEC) to look after the technological needs of OC and appointed Ms.Kiran Deshpande (Chairman), IT Expert, Mr.Brian Nourse, International Technology Consultant and Ex-Head of Technology CWG/Melbourne- 2006 and Shri Navpreet Singh from IIT, Kanpur in the committee.
3. Information further revealed that MTNL submitted their proposal assessing the cost of telecom network for CWG-2010 at Rs.507.12 Crores. It was repeated, time and again, by the OC/CWG that Host Broadcasters (RHB) would not accept anything except High Definition TV feeds on point to point transmission based on Dark Fiber, the MTNL provided solution primarily based on Internet Protocol (IP)/Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network, supported by secondary/supplementary feeds based on point to point Dark Fiber Services.
4. Information further revealed that when the issue was raised by OC and Prasar Bharti, who was HB, with the Group of Officers (GoO), vague assumptions based on futuristic approach were dishonestly projected by the MTNL. Right from the beginning, the MTNL was not transparent in their Techno-Commercial Proposal particularly in respect of broadcasting solutions and due to this protracted approach, there was no recourse left to Group of Officers and other Agencies i.e OC & Prasar Bharti but to CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 2 of 98 accede to the MTNL proposal as the time was running out.
5. Information further revealed that MTNL, in their proposal submitted Next Generation Network architecture known as CWG Telecom Network consisting of two separate networks called Managed Data Network (MDN) and Broadcast Network (BN) based on MPLS technology for delivering telecom services during the Games. The revised estimated cost worked out by MTNL for setting this network architecture was--
Rs. 343 Crores for purchase of equipments and setting up infrastructure Rs. 65 Crores for operation and maintenance Rs. 35 Crores for Security Data Network (optional)
6. Information further revealed that when OC/CWG expressed its inability to pay this amount as their budgetary estimation for telecom services was only Rs. 30-35 Crores, it was decided by a High Power Committee that OC/CWG shall pay Rs. 65 Crores for operation and maintenance, Ministry of Home Affairs will pay Rs. 35 Crores for Security Data Network, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports will pay Rs. 182 Crores for purchase/set up of CWG network and rest of funds were to be arranged by MTNL itself.
7. Information further revealed that it was further proposed by the MTNL that equipment and infrastructural cost would be calculated on Wet Lease Basis i.e. MTNL would buy back at 40% residual value of the equipment cost and as such the total cost to be borne by OC/CWG and CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 3 of 98 other agencies was stipulated as Rs. 300 Crores including purchase of equipments and setting up infrastructure (on wet lease basis), its Operation and Maintenances and Security Data Network. Despite knowing the facts that equipments/software required for broadcasting services were neither of any use in future nor were they having any essential requirement in the present context, MTNL went ahead with its broadcast network based on IP/MPLS Technology dedicated exclusively for CWG 2010. The proposal of MTNL regarding broadcast network based on IP/MPLS Technology was framed by Shri N.K. Jain, GM (Corporate Sales)/MTNL, Shri S.M. Talwar, ED/MTNL and Shri Jitender Garg, DGM (BBD)/MTNL which was further approved by then CMD/MTNL Shri R.S.P. Sinha.
8. Information further revealed that in furtherance of the conspiracy, tender was invited from System Integrators (SI) empanelled with MTNL. The front bidder eligibility condition of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was designed to suit M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. only among the SIs. The technical eligibility specifications in the networking portion was proprietary to only one Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) i.e. CISCO excluding thereby competition from other bidders. In fact the RFP was nothing but reproduction of Bill of Quantity provided by the M/s HCL on the basis of which MTNL initially submitted their Techno-Commercial Proposal before the OC/CWG. M/s HCL is a CISCO Gold partner and CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 4 of 98 CISCO has licensed HCL the Intellectual Property for its network management products. CISCO Systems joined hands with HCL in 1996.
9. Information also revealed that when this fact was pointed by various prospective bidders, a meeting was arranged with them and minor cosmetics changes were made in order to cover-up the RFP. However no changes were made in primary specifications such as "the bidder or its parent company shall be OEM of Provider Routers and all type of Provider Edge Routers" as amongst the OEM only CISCO satisfies this criterion leaving no space for prospective SIs in choosing routers of different OEMs that would have ensured wider participation and more competitive bidding.
10.In furtherance of the above conspiracy, it was alleged that the bidder experience requirements of implementation of 60 nodes of (MPLS core & MPLS edge routers) in a single network were not amended, even though in MTNL Tender No. MTNL/20-80(841)/2008-MM/IP-MPLS Dated 26/05/2008 which had similar Scope of Work, the conditional requirement was of 15 nodes only. Amongst the SIs only M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. fulfilled this eligibility criterion. The reasons cited for not amending these specifications were again unclear and conceited. As such M/s HCL Infosystems Limited was the lone bidder. The single bid tender, as per rule, should have been recalled. However, contract was awarded citing time constraints. No justification of rates was done CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 5 of 98 before the award of the work and purchase orders amounting to Rs. 387.19 Cr. (excluding CENVAT) were placed. The estimated cost of tender was Rs. 400 Crores, against which M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. quoted Rs. 388.12 Crores (excluding CENVAT) after price negotiation.
11.Thus information received at the time of registration of FIR revealed that MTNL awarded the work to M/s HCL in an arbitrary manner and the tender was made in a manner to suit only one bidder. Though the broadcasting data transmission requirements for CWG-2010 were very limited and based on optical fiber transmission but the MTNL in their proposal included Broadcast Video Network based on IP/MPLS technology that grossly enhanced the network costing by Rs. 380.04 Crores and this infructuous spending caused huge loss to the Government Exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. These enhancements in scope of work and engineering of conditions of contract were made by the suspect MTNL officers in such a manner that subcontract was awarded to only M/s HCL Infosystems Limited causing thereby huge pecuniary gain to these firms & wrongful loss to the Government.
12.During the investigation the following allegations/issues were dealt:-
1. How and why M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. initially prepared Telecom solution for MTNL? Whether it was done under any conspiracy?CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 6 of 98
2. What are the technical specifications and eligibility criteria which suited/tailored for HCL/Cisco in comparison to other SI/OEMs? Who conspired with MTNL officials to prepare vendor specific tender? If so, what was the role of MTNL officials in it?
3. How, why and where over scoping was done in the Telecom Network?
4. What was the suggested "Wet Lease" option for procurement by Group of Officers? Whether it was followed by M/o Sports, DoT and MTNL? Was there any deviation from CCEA approval during implementation?
5. Whether any loss incurred due to vendor specific tender, single bid situation and over scoping on the Broadcast Network?
6. Financial and Administrative accountability of the concerned officers in the Telecom/Broadcast Network project for CWG 2010.
13.During investigation constant help was taken from Technical/Financial Experts viz. Sh. Gulshan Rai, DG, CERTin, M/o IT, Sh. Anil Kumar Balani, Director and Scientist 'F', Department of IT, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Sh. Himanshu Kumar, DGM (Operations), RailTel, Sh. Dalip Kumar Tandon, Deputy Manager (Vig.), RailTel and Smt. Chandan Mishra Dwivedi, Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, GoI. The independent opinion in the form of Report on technical and financial issues was also taken on record from some of the above mentioned experts.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 7 of 98
14.The Commonwealth Games for the year 2010 were scheduled to be held in New Delhi as per the decision made by the Commonwealth Games Federation in the year 2003. Subsequent to this the Organizing committee for CWG (OC CWG Delhi 2010) came into being on 10 February 2005, as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Further 23 Sub-Committees related to the various activities were formed in the OC to advise the matters related to planning and monitoring of. These Sub-Committees, including the Communication & Technology Committee, were supposed to establish the interaction, buy- in and coordination among the OC CWG Delhi 2010 and its delivery partners.
15.In order to ensure the successful conduct and delivery of Games, it was necessary to put in place robust, effective and fail proof telecommunications services catering to the requirements for bulk transmission of games data, security data, High definition TV broadcast video signals and broadcast audio signals between different locations- competitions and other venues, the international broadcasting Centre (IBC), the Main Press Centre (MPC) and master control facilities. Investigation has established that after various rounds of deliberations, MTNL was engaged as the telecom service provider for CWG-2010 by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (MYAS) in October 2009. This was culmination of an extended correspondence between the OC and MTNL at various levels, beginning Feb 2009. MTNL, being a PSU, emerged as CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 8 of 98 unanimous choice of OC to deliver the broadcast/telecom service as MTNL had no issues regarding licensing etc.
16.The investigation has revealed that the Host City Contract had identified and bound the five key stakeholders who were responsible for the successful delivery of the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi. It was incumbent upon those stakeholders to undertake all measures, including adequate financial provisions, to deliver the Games in the most befitting manner within the framework of the Constitution, Protocol and Guidelines of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF). The key delivery partners were:
1. Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF)
2. Indian Olympic Association (IOA)
3. Organising Committee (OC)
4. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD)
5. Government of India (GoI): The agencies of GoI that were specifically committed to the delivery of the Games were:
(1) Ministry of Home Affairs for the conduct contingency management and planning; and for the planning and enforcement of security measures in accordance with Games Statement of Securities Principles (GSSP);
(2) Ministry of External Affairs for assistance in processing Visa and work permits;
(3) Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to organize the Games in accordance with the CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 9 of 98 constitution, protocols and regulations of the CGF; and to provide timely funds for the Games infrastructure and operations;
(4) Ministry of Commerce and Industry to provide space for Media Press Centre (MPC)/Media Broadcasting Centre (MBC) and warehousing through the India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO); and (5) Sports Authority of India (SAI) to develop competitions and training venues as per the venue briefs; provide the venue media centre at all competition venues and provide the Dope Laboratory.
17. Investigation has revealed that Broadcast Network Project for CWG-2010 was associating various organizations/groups and had following compositions and specific roles during the entire project:-
1. Group of Ministers (GoM) was constituted by Union Cabinet, Government of India on 04/12/2008 for overall supervision and coordination at the highest level for the Games and it included Sh. Jaipal Reddy, Chairman, the then Cabinet Minister of Urban Development, Smt. Sheila Dikshit, Chief Minister, Delhi, Sh. M. S. Gill, the then Minister of Sports, Sh.
K. M. Chandrashekhar, the then Cabinet Secretary, and Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, Secretary (Sports).
2. Committee of Secretaries (CoS) was Constituted by Government of India under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary Sh. K. M. Chandrashekhar to review the arrangements and progress of various projects related to CWG-2010 on day-to-day basis.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 10 of 98
3. Organizing Committee/Common Wealth Games (OC/CWG) to prepare, organize and conduct the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi and to promote all such activities that may be useful, necessary or helpful and which contribute towards the conduct of the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi;
decide on all matters connected with the preparations and holding of the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi and bringing it to a successful completion; and prepare a Scope of Work (SoW) or services required for Broadcast Network.
4. Prasar Bharti as Host Broadcaster (HB) was to receive broadcast data feeds from RHBs at venues/stadiums and further handed over to MTNL who was TSP.
5. MTNL as Telecom Service Provider (TSP) was to take broadcast data feeds from periphery of venues/stadiums from HB and RHBs and again handed over the feeds at IBC to HB and RHBs. MTNL who was TSP for the games had to transfer the feeds through a robust Broadcast Network specially designed for the CWG.
6. Department of Telecom (DoT) had a specific role of coordinating between MTNL and various Ministries especially MYAS and Cabinet Secretariat.
7. Group of Officers (GoO) came in picture when in the meeting of the Group of Ministers (GoM) for CWG 2010, held on August 04, 2009, the capital costs for creating infrastructure for Broadcast Network were projected around Rs. 300 crore by CMD, MTNL. GoM requested Cabinet Secretary to take a final view in the matter and inform the GoM. Consequently, Cabinet Secretariat constituted a group comprising Sh. Uday Varma, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B), Sh. Govind Mohan, CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 11 of 98 Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Sh. P.K. Mittal, Deputy Director General, DoT and which is to be convened by Smt. Sindhushree Kullar, Secretary, Sports to work out the financial implications of the connectivity proposal. In consultation with representatives of major user groups, namely, Host Broadcaster and Organizing Committee at the same time taking into account the security related requirements. The terms of reference of the Group were fixed as under:
(i) To finalize the scope of work involved in providing telecom and broadcast communication service at the level of integrity and quality of service (QoS) desired for the purpose of the CWG, 2010.
(ii) To finalize the infrastructure requirements consistent with the scope of work derived as above.
(iii)To attempt an estimate of the costs involved in providing the infrastructure requirements under various options.
(iv)To recommend a cost effective and efficient procurement option for the telecom infrastructure required for the CWG, 2010.
8. System Integrator (SI) and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to set up the broadcast network and equipments physically at Venues, between venues and Cores, between Cores, between Cores and IBC. The operational responsibility of this broadcast network was with HB, TSP, SI and OEM.
9. 19 International Right Holding Broadcasters (RHBs) were broadcasters of various countries. They had signed CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 12 of 98 contracts with OC/CWG during 2008-2009, before the games and had collected data feeds from HB/TSP at IBC for further transmission within India and across the Globe in their respective countries.
18. Investigation has revealed that for broadcasting the live events and games following technologies have been used worldwide:-
1. Dark Fiber (DF)
2. Internet Protocol based Multi-Protocol Label Switching (IP/MPLS)
3. Satellite based broadcast (Not relevant in this case).
19. During investigation broadcast technologies like Dark Fiber and IP/MPLS have been compared with the help of technical experts from RailTel and M/o Communication and IT and it has been revealed that:-
1. Both used Optical Cable (Optical Fiber) as medium for data transfer.
2. End point equipments are different for them. DF uses conventional DWDM equipments whereas IP/MPLS use Routers.
3. DF normally used for point to point i.e. unilateral transmission of data only (in this case from venue to International Broadcasting Centre (IBC) situated at Pragati Maidan for live video only)
4. IP/MPLS used for point to multi-point i.e. Multilateral transmission of data (venue to IBC and IBC to different venues by using alternate paths for games data, security data and cable TV)
5. DF based network is cheaper than IP/MPLS.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 13 of 98
6. IP/MPLS based network is more reliable and secured than DF.
20. Investigation has also revealed that Type of Data transmitted during project/CWG was as under:-
MDN - Managed Data Network
GDN - Games Data Network
SDN - Security Data Network
BN - Broadcast Network
BAN - Broadcast Audio Network
BVN - Broadcast Video Network
CATV - Cable TV
21. During investigation it has been revealed that the activities pertaining to the broadcasting of the CWG 2010-Delhi were started with the signing of the contracts between OC/CWG and 19 International Broadcasters for broadcasting the games worldwide. The signing of contract provided the Right of Broadcasting the games to concerned International Broadcasters to broadcast the games in their concern region throughout the world. OC/CWG had signed these 19 contracts from January 2008 to July 2009. Sh. Suresh Kalmadi, Chairman, OC and Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot, SG, OC signed the contracts from OC side. It has been revealed from the documents collected from OC HQ that OC has earned revenue of Rs. 174, 84, 92, 431/-from the RHBs.
22.During investigation it has been revealed that MTNL started getting queries from Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Tech), OC/CWG from the month of September 2008. MTNL was asked for a presentation on the project which was to be given to CWG-OC in September 2008 in Olympic CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 14 of 98 Bhawan Institutional Area, New Delhi. An email was also received from Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology)/OC/CWG dated 06/11/2008 to Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL)/MTNL regarding requirement from Telecom Service Provider. It has been further revealed that a meeting was held at Olympic Bhawan, Qutab Institutional Area on 15/01/2009 between officers of OC and MTNL to discuss the role of MTNL in providing Services for Commonwealth Games-2010. Meeting was attended by Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology)/OC, Sh. Rohit Srivastava, Director (Networks)/OC, Sh. N.K.Jain, GM (CPSL)/MTNL and Sh. Pradeep, Assistant Manager (CPSL)/MTNL.
23.The points discussed in this meeting were:
a) Detailed Network Plan including internet link, MPLS, voice etc.
b) 3 G services via MTNL network (MPLS).
c) Immediate requirements of internet connectivity at NDMC building to be addressed first.
d) Internet link and MPLS circuit to NDMC building should be in ring topology with dual lines coming into building from different MTNL NOC for redundancy.
e) A meeting was planned at NDMC to discuss the plan and location of link termination.
f) Clarifications required to be answered by MTNL were:
(i) Whether VoIP Centrex is possible?
(ii) Centrex and equipments like switches and phones to be provided by MTNL.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 15 of 98
(iii)Access to multiple international internet
gateway and marine cables to provide
redundancy in case of undersea accident.
(iv)Who will be responsible for capturing video signals for Host Broadcasters and convert it for 3G distributions?
24. These points were discussed by Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL) with Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (MPLS) and following clarifications were issued to OC point wise as whether:
(i) VoIP Centrex is possible.
(ii) Centrex and equipments can be provided by MTNL.
(iii)Access to multiple international internet gateways is possible. This can be done through VSNL & Bharti. Sh. Garg suggested Satellite as another alternative.
(iv)Capturing of video signals from Host Broadcasters and converting it for 3G distribution is possible but the modalities has to be worked out and studied further.
25. The said file further revealed that a visit was also done to NDMC building by MTNL officials for detailed discussions relating to site plan and link termination.
26.Investigation further revealed that Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology)/OC sent an email to Sh. N.K. Jain GM (CPSL) on 12/02/2009 requesting him to deploy a technical specialist team from MTNL for arranging Telecommunication requirements across all CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 16 of 98 competition Venues, Training Venues, International Broadcasting Compound (IBC), Media Press Center, Games Village, Hotels, Airports, Main Accreditation Center and other venues which shall include:
1) Setting up of Satellite Dish farms
2) Optical Fiber Cables
3) MPLS ( Multi Protocol Label Switching)
4) Mobile Phones
5) Mobile phone network/BTS(in venues)
6) Landlines/ PRI/BRI/VoIP
7) 3G Services ( and Applications)
8) Internet Protocol TV (IPTV)
27. Investigation further revealed from that Sh. S.M. Talwar, ED (Delhi Unit)/MTNL constituted two teams on 19/02/2009 for projects relating to CWG, Delhi 2010. Technical Team of MTNL was constituted to closely interact and associate with the technical team of OC/CWG and to ascertain the telecom related requirements of Games whereas Implementation Team was made responsible for the planning & timely execution and provisioning of the infrastructure/services relating to the CWG. The teams were as follows:
A) Technical Team:
(1) Shri N. K. Jain GM (Corp Sales) MTNL - Team Leader (2) Shri Dinesh Mathur DGM (Tech) MTNL (3) Shri Jitendra Garg DGM (Tech) MTNL (4) Shri V K Mudgal Manager (Corp Sales) MTNL (5) Shri Pradeep Kumar Asstt Manager (Corp. Sales) MTNL B) Implementation Team:
(1) Shri N.K. Jain GM (Corp Sales) MTNL - Team Leader
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 17 of 98
(2) Shri Rameshwar Singh GM (TP) MTNL
(3) Shri Harvesh Bhatia GM (Trans) MTNL
(4) Area GM (Concerned) for works related to their respective areas.
(5) Shri Dinesh Mathur DGM (Tech) MTNL
(6) Shri Jitendra Garg DGM (Tech) MTNL
(7) Shri Anil Gupta DGM (Planning) MTNL
(8) Shri J L Raina DE (LC) MTNL
(9) Shri V K Mudgal Manager (Corp Sales) MTNL
(10)Shri Pradeep Kumar AM (Corp. Sales) MTNL
28.Investigation further revealed that Technical Team was instructed by senior management of MTNL on 19/02/2009 to start interaction with empanelled System Integrator (SI) to acquire all sorts of information/data. It has been further revealed that an Office Order No. MTNL/20-80 (802)/2004-MM/EOI dated 05/02/2005 was issued from Corporate Office/ MTNL to empanel some SIs for Supply, Configuration and Maintenance of Customer and Equipment for various services offered by MTNL. The Annexure to the above mentioned Order defined various categories viz. A, B and A & B for SIs, Terms and Conditions for SIs and Method of Operation to be adopted by the Units after empanelment of SIs. On page 160 (Annexure I, Serial No. 1), it is clearly mentioned regarding role of S.I. that "MTNL will take help of System Integrators from the panel for customer interface/ Presentation/ preparation of proposal. No charges shall be paid by MTNL for this work. Once the proposal is finalized then sealed quotations will be called from all the empanelled System Integrators for CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 18 of 98 that category by units." There was no mention about how the work should be disturbed among the empanelled SIs. Only brief technical specifications of some of the customer end equipments were mentioned, it included Routers, Modems, Switches latest services including Wi-Fi, Video/Audio graphics, VoIP, Video Conferencing, Radio Solutions and IP Phones etc. Evaluation Criteria for empanelment for System Integrator has also been defined.
29.Investigation further revealed that there were three empanelled SIs in February, 2009 viz M/s. ITI, Spanco & HCL Infosystems Ltd. Vide order No. MTNL/20-80 (812)/2005-MM/EOI dated 30/04/2008 it has also been revealed that on 07/05/2008 an Executive Committee (EC-includes CMD, all Directors, ED/Delhi, ED/Mumbai, ED/Corporate Office, ED/Mobile, PGM/Delhi, PGM/Mumbai and some CGMs & GMs) Meeting Note (ECMN) was put up by Sh. Vinay Mudgal, Senior SDE (CPSL) and Sh. N. K. Jain, GM (CPSL) with the approval of Sh. A. K. Arora, the then ED/Delhi. In the Note it has been mentioned that MTNL Corporate Office had 3 empanelled System Integrators (SIs) viz. M/s ITI Ltd. M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. and M/s Spanco Ltd. for carrying out works pertaining to category 'A'. It was also mentioned that with the commercial launch of the MPLS-VPN based services by MTNL Delhi unit, the Corporate Sales Unit was assigned the job of pursuing business from the potential customers in this segment of market. The Corporate Sales Unit while handling the queries and preparing proposal for the customized CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 19 of 98 networking solutions was required to associate System Integrators in its conception stage itself as the proposals involved a number of application base configurations and System Requirements of the customers. It was also mentioned that MTNL Delhi unit had undertaken following projects:-
1. Delhi Police Cyber Highway Project was given to M/s HCL Infosystems for providing solution.
2. Directorate of Standardization, Ministry of Defence - M/s ITI for providing solution.
3. Delhi Jal Board NET - Initially M/s Spanco was asked to associate with this project but after two meetings Spanco did not respond to the project therefore M/s HCL Infosystems was finally associated with the project, but finally the business did not mature.
30.It has been further revealed in the ECM note that MTNL Delhi Unit had provided the above mentioned works/ projects on Roaster Basis to give proposal/solutions and the same was intimated to the Corporate Office while seeking extension of the term of the System Integrators. In the ECM note it was also requested by ED Delhi Office that a decision was required on the procedure for handling MPLS Projects involving Supply of Equipments such as Routers, Switches and Allied materials through empanelled System Integrators along with Integration of hardware, Software. The following decision was also sought from EC in the ECM Note:-CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 20 of 98
"How the System Integrator is to be appointed for a particular project as it is required to associate the SI at the initial stage itself in order to prepare an authentic SRS and proposal for the Customer".
31.It is further revealed that the above issue was put up as item no. 47 in the 138th meeting of Executive Committee on 14/05/2008 at Corporate Office MTNL. Page 14 of Minutes of the above Meeting mentioned the decision taken by the EC, it was decided "The EC considered the proposal as contained in the agenda Note. After deliberations the Committee approved the proposal for setting up of procedure for handling cases in respect of MPLS VPN projects. The Committee, however, desired that since the matter is urgent so immediate action may be taken for inviting quotations from M/s ITI, HCL and Spanco (all empanelled vendors) giving them a reasonable time for submitting the quotations."
32.It has been further revealed that Delhi Police Cyber High way project was handed over to M/s HCL Infosystems in April, 2007 for providing a solution/initial proposal. Further it has been revealed from file no. GM (CPSL)/G-325/2005-06 that M/s ITI Ltd. was asked by MTNL for assistance in the Project of Ministry of Defence in May, 2007. Further it has been revealed from file No. GM (CPSL)/G 320/Jal Board/2005-06 that M/s Spanco was deputed to assist MTNL in Delhi Jal Board Project in May, 2007. Therefore, as per Roaster System for distribution of work among CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 21 of 98 SIs, which was duly approved by EC of MTNL for setting a procedure for handling cases in respect of MPLS VPN projects; when OC approached MTNL for CWG project and asked for Telecom/Broadcast Solution, MTNL followed the Roaster System and handed over the Project to M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd to propose a solution and budgetary quote in February, 2009.
33.Investigation Further revealed, Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (MPLS) had given a power point presentation incorporating all the details/requirements for the setting up of Telecom/Broadcast Network to Sh. Manish Awasthi, System Engineer, HCL, Sh. K.P.S. Gill, Account Manager, HCL and Sh. Yogesh Behl, GM, HCL in the last week of February 2009. The said presentation was initially given by Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology), OC CWG to Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (MPLS) at Olympic Bhawan, Qutab Institutional Area. The above mentioned Power Point Presentation has been received from Sh. Manish Awasthi, System Engineer, M/s HCL during the course of investigation. It has been revealed that the said presentation proposed a Telecom/Broadcast Network for the Games based on IP/MPLS technology.
34.Investigation further revealed from e-mails received from Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Tech), OC/CWG that MTNL had received the detail presentation on various venues and sports discipline from OC on 21/02/2009 and MTNL was briefed about the status of various venues CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 22 of 98 and geographical location of these stadiums in NCR. OC had submitted the list of various competition venues and sports events on 13/03/2009 to MTNL. MTNL has also provided the brief detail of then present optical network of MTNL in Delhi to OC on 24/04/2009.
35.It has been further revealed that Sh. K.P.S. Gill, Account Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd. had sent a proposal for CWG 2010 on behalf of HCL Infosystems to Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL), MTNL on 22/05/2009. The proposal included detailed Bill of Material (BoM) with two options of 5 Cores and 4 Cores. The BoM was specific about the Make of the major equipments like Routers of Cisco make. It is further revealed that Sh. N.K. Jain sent an email to Shri Sujit Panigrahi on 04/06/2009 in which indicative budgetary commercial proposal with salient features of Design Methodology was enclosed as Budgetary Proposal with revised cost of Rs. 449, 43, 70,386/- is Design Methodology in Power Point Presentation. It is further revealed that MTNL has appointed a Telecom Service Provider (TSP) of CWG Delhi 2010 vide a letter written by Shri Vijay Kumar Gautam, COO, OC/CWG to Shri R.S.P. Sinha, CMD, MTNL on 06/06/2009. On the same day i.e. 06/06/2009 MTNL also submitted detailed proposal with regard to MTNL prospective which indicated that the following services will be delivered by MTNL:-
1. CWG-DN Backbone: MTNL will build up CWG-DN to act as a transport for various services like VoIP, CCTV and Broadcast etc. CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 23 of 98
2. LAN Connectivity Service
3. Wi-Fi Service
4. DHCP Service
5. DNS Service
6. Pay Phone Services(PSTN)
7. Limited Inter Venue Toll Free VoIP
8. Managed Audio & Video Conferencing Services
36.It is further revealed that built up network security policy and set up at each venue was also under the scope of MTNL. Detail of service matrix (CATV/IP TV, VoIP, Internet, 3G, Wi-Fi, GSM, PSTN, ISDN, ISD/STD, ADSL 2+ Payphone , Video IP Phones, Video conferencing , Broadcasting, CCTV, Local Support, Help Desk etc) were also shared with OC. MTNL also prepared a role & responsibility list with regard to Broadcasting services which clearly indicated that MTNL solution was based on IP/MPLS technology. Also that MTNL was confirmed to be TSP for CWG 2010 vide letter written by Shri N.K. Jain GM (CPSL), MTNL to Sh. Vijay Kumar Gautam, COO, OC/CWG on 17/06/2009.
37.Investigation has further revealed that Shri Sujit Panigrahi, ADG, Technology, OC-CWG wrote a letter on 22/06/2009 to Shri N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL), following the meeting of Shri Jain and Shri Garg with Shri Vijay Kumar Gautam (COO, OC CWG), Mr. Brian Nourse (Advisor, CWG), Shri Kiran Deshpande (Chairman- Technology Expert Committee, OC/CWG) on 18/06/2009. He highlighted following points about this meeting: CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 24 of 98
1. MTNL's earlier understanding of Scope of Work was not accurate. There appears to be very little reference to specific requirements to the scope required by the OC.
2. The information provided by MTNL proposal does not adequately address the "end point" requirements of the OC.
Ultimately the OC is interested in the Telecom Solutions along with the service rates that will be provided by MTNL.
3. There is very little discussion on the end services to be actually delivered to the venues which is ultimately what the OC requires. There also appears to be a number of gaps in the scope (of services) what the OC requires. The venue Classification and Redundancy principles have not been applied-this must be adopted by MTNL in the delivery of services.
4. The presentation provides inadequate definition on how the broadcast video network will be provided (in terms of providing confidence to the RHBs). There is no reference to the all important audio network required for Broadcast.
5. OC's expectation from MTNL is limited to providing TELECOM SERVICES on rental for a fixed period of time (in the same manner MTNL would do with any of its enterprise customers). The proposal provided by MTNL was a Bill of Material for building a whole infrastructure for providing the services that OC requires.
6. Therefore MTNL needs to provide a proposal with the Solution Framework and Cost of Services.
7. OC suggested MTNL to submit the pricing based on a schedule of rate basis, as there will not be a fixed scope of a range of items. This being the critical requirement of OC.
8. Unit Rate pricing for services like PSTN, ISDN, VoIP/Centrex, Conferencing, Internet Services, Primary MPLS data CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 25 of 98 Platform, Secondary Platform, Handsets, Media desktops, Broadcast Video and Audio Services, Broadcast Commentary circuits, SIM Cards etc. Whereas Lump Sum pricing schedule for Media Wi Fi, Secondary Data Center, Program and Project Management, Venue Management, Operational Support, Service management etc.
9. MTNL was asked to include following points in the proposal and was asked to submit the proposal by 25/06/2009:-
1) Detailed assumptions made in preparation of the commercial proposal.
2) Overall approach in the delivery of the project.
3) High level Schedule consistent with the milestones identified in the scope of work.
4) Extent of fiber.
5) Current network capacity and end network capacity (for Games Purposes).
6) Details of proposed secondary back up platform.
7) Details of Bandwidth available.
8) Venue classification and redundancy principle.
38.Investigation further revealed that after various follow up discussions held on 18/06/2009 and 22/06/2009, OC reduced/modified certain requirements and MTNL thereof revised the estimate. The provisioning modalities for Media Wi-Fi solution, Conference service, VoIP/ CENTREX solution, Desktop payphone, Secondary data centre, the unit rates and lump sum prices of various telecom services, revised budgetary estimate for setting up telecom infrastructure and List of assumption for design of the network . MTNL reiterated that for finalizing the CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 26 of 98 broadcast requirement the OC shall arrange a meeting with Host Broadcaster and RHBs and also for finalizing the security requirement, a similar kind of meeting shall be arranged with security agencies. In the design assumption MTNL clearly indicated that entire broadcast solution will be based on IP MPLS network. Shri N. K. Jain sent a mail to Shri Sujit Panigrahi on 29/06/2009. The attachments were as follows:
1) The Provisioning Modalities for media Wi-Fi solution, Conference Service, VoIP/CENTREX solution, Desktop pay phone, Secondary Data Center etc.
2) Unit rate price and lump sum price schedule for various services.
3) Telecom infrastructure setting up cost as apportioned according to Scope of work with a grand total of Rs. 507.12 Crores.
4) List of assumptions for the design of the network.
39.It has been further revealed that a Task Force for CWG Delhi 2010 was formed on 29/06/2009 vide letter no. MTNL/CO/BD/CWG-Delhi-2010 under the Chairmanship of Shri S.P. Pachauri, Director (HR), MTNL which had following members:
1) Shri Vipan Kumar, CGM (BD) CO MTNL Chairman
2) Shri Manjit Singh, CGM(O), Delhi MTNL Member
3) Shri A.K. Bhargava, CGM (WS), Delhi MTNL Member- Convener
4) Shri B.K. Mittal, PGM (D), Delhi MTNL Member
5) Shri Sultan Ahmed, DGM (F), WS Unit Delhi Member
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 27 of 98
40.The functions of task force were as follows:-
(1) Anticipate and organize the infrastructure required not only for connectivity at Delhi but also for providing International connectivity including media for Newsroom, video conferencing facilities etc. (2) Put in place operational processes to ensure that infrastructure put in place is fully exploited and is functional efficiently. All concerned in operating the relevant systems have to be fully familiar with their task. (3) Ensure 24X7, uptime for all concerned services. (4) Set up a Central Control Room to coordinate all activities. (5) Implement a Helpdesk Scheme and Courtesy Training to concerned Staff.
(6) The Task Force shall form a PERT Chart and monitor each task as a priority item to be completed within the schedule as per the PERT chart.
(7) Interface with CWG Delhi 2010 Authorities on regular basis. (8) To keep the MTNL Board regularly apprised.
41.Shri N. K. Jain was appointed as Liaison Officer to liaison with CWG Delhi 2010 HQ.
42.It has been further revealed that Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, Secretary (Sports) vide DO No. F-1080/Secy (SP/09) dated 01/07/2009 addressed to Shri Siddharth Behura, Secretary (DoT) informed that there was an outstanding issue of appointment of MTNL as Telecom partner and she requested to hold a meeting with representatives of MTNL and OC to resolve the issue to mutual satisfaction. A brief note was also CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 28 of 98 enclosed with the D.O. letter in which it was mentioned that it has been understood that MTNL will need to make Rs. 300 crore investment in infrastructure to be able to meet required services and to resolve this issue Secretary (T) was requested to Chair a meeting with MTNL and OC. It has been further revealed that on 07/07/2009 it was decided to hold a meeting on 14/07/2009 at 4 PM in the chamber of Secretary (T) to resolve the issue. It is further revealed that Shri Brajesh Mishra, Director (PSU-I), DoT issued a letter on 08/07/2009 to CMD MTNL, Secretary (Sports) and SG/OC/CWG to attend the above mentioned meeting on 14/07/2009. It has been revealed that Shri N K Jain, GM (CPSL), MTNL prepared and faxed a brief note for the meeting on 14/07/2009 to O/o Secretary (T) at 11:25 AM on 14/07/2009. The note on the provisions of Telecom Services is as Follows:
1. Based on the various discussion held with the technical and administrative teams of the Organizing Committee, CWG-2010, MTNL has prepared a detailed solution to deliver all the requirements of OC, CWG.
2. Complete proposed solution was prepared with the assistance of the specialist teams from M/s CISCO (OEM) and M/s HCL Infosystems Limited. Although MTNL has sought help in designing the proposal document from M/s HCL but it has not made any commitment to any SI.
3. The detailed solutions along with the BoM, Service requirements, and budgetary costs have been made over to OC, CWG-2010 on 29/06/2009.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 29 of 98
4. MTNL is waiting for the approval and acceptance of the proposed solution and budgetary quote in order to further start the process.
5. Once the OC, CWG-2010 conveys its acceptance and go-ahead to MTNL, MTNL will start tendering process for appointment of System Integrator so as to start implementation.
6. As the stringent time constraints are already there and the project needs to be completed before April, 2010 in order to start trial, therefore it is necessary that OC, CWG takes decision in this regard at the earliest.
7. The process of empanelment of System Integrators by MTNL is on and will be finalized soon. Therefore there is a possibility of calling for limited tender from the empanelled SIs if so decided by the MTNL Management.
43.It has also been revealed that a meeting was held on 09/07/2009 to review the preparedness for CWG 2010 by MTNL in which Shri R.S.P. Sinha, CMD, MTNL, Shri Kuldip Singh, Director (Tech.), Shri S.P. Pachauri, Director (HR), Smt. Anita Soni, Director (Fin.) and Shri S.M. Talwar, ED, Delhi, MTNL along with all concerned senior officials of MTNL participated.
44.It has been further revealed that Shri S.M. Talwar, Executive Director/MTNL had written a letter to Shri V. K. Gautam, COO, OC/CWG on 10/07/2009 requesting him for personal intervention to call for final discussion and decision to convey the acceptance of the techno CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 30 of 98 commercial proposal submitted by MTNL on 29/06/2009 along with the procedure to be adopted for the release of funds by OC.
45.It has been revealed that Shri V. K. Gautam had proposed to look for another vendor like Airtel. The proposal of Shri V. K. Gautam was also echoed by Secretary (T) in the meeting on 14/07/2009. It has been revealed from the email message that Shri V. K. Verma in the same meeting informed that Airtel has already declined the proposal on account of commercially unviable high infra cost. The outcome of the 14/07/2009 meeting was mentioned in the same e-mail message at para
3. The above mentioned fact was also corroborated in statement of Shri V. K. Gautam recorded U/s 161 Cr. P. C.
46.It has been further revealed that Shri V.K. Gautam, COO, OC/CWG had written a letter on 14/07/2009 to Shri R.S.P. Sinha, CMD, MTNL in follow up of the proposal sent by MTNL on 29/06/2009 for CWG-2010. Shri Gautam felt that MTNL has only partly addressed the information that was requested of MTNL as an outcome of the meeting with the Technology Expert Committee. Shri Gautam expressed following concerns on various issues:-
1) Fundamental requirements outlined in the scope of works were not being appropriately considered in the formulation of the solution.
2) Extent of Services was not adequately addressed.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 31 of 98
3) Venue classification not done as per the different expectations depending upon the nature of venues.
4) Deliver ability of VoIP solution to last mile not explained by MTNL.
5) Insufficient information presented on the proposed broadcast services and non availability of experienced consultants.
6) The solution has been vastly over scoped and actual objectives of OC were not being understood by MTNL.
7) The current cost proposed by MTNL was Rs. 507.12 Crore which was 18 to 20 times more in direct comparison to Melbourne CWG-2006.
8) MTNL has not offered a cost effective solution for the Games.
47.It has been further revealed that a meeting between Shri N. K. Jain, GM (CPSL), MTNL, Shri Jitendra Garg, DGM (BBD), MTNL, Shri Vinay Mudgal, AGM (CPSL), MTNL, Shri Brian Nourse, International Consultant, OC, Shri Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology), OC and Shri Rohit Srivastava, Director (Networks), OC took place on 15/07/2009 to discuss entire Scope of Work (SoW) where some doubts/clarifications were cleared regarding Wiring, Connectivity, Video Conferencing, Earthing, LAN, NOC, Rate Card Services. It was also decided that relevant information regarding various queries should be furnished by OC and MTNL, to each other by 16/07/2009.
48.It has been further revealed that on 17/07/2009 Sh. S.M. Talwar ED, Delhi, MTNL written a reply letter in response to letter dated 14/07/2009 CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 32 of 98 from Sh. V.K. Gautam, COO, OC/CWG. Sh. Talwar asked for various queries regarding media center, bandwidth, number of APs, VoIP phones, PRIs, xDSL, Training Venues, SDN, TER location, Routes, Audio Conferencing, GigE ports etc. and proposed to submit a revised technical solution based upon this. He justified the cost proposed by MTNL saying that the infrastructure proposed for provisioning of required services is essential requirements to QoS, Matching of SLA requirements and specific demands of the OC in terms of types of services such as High Definition signals for broadcasting and Gigabit band width etc. He also informed that the existing infrastructure of MTNL will be of great importance and use. He further proposed to modify the cost in the revised proposal and solution.
49.It has been further revealed that Sh. N.K. Jain sent a detailed e-mail on 21/07/2009 to Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Tech.), OC with attachments as under:
a. Annexure A - Details of Technical Solution in respect of delivery of various services namely VoIP, WI-Fi, Host IPS Solution, Desk Top & Pay Phone, GDN & SDN, etc. b. Annexure B - Revised Commercial Proposal c. Annexure C - Project Implementation and Management Methodologies.
d. Annexure D - Telecom Infrastructure setting up cost. e. Annexure E - Detailed list of assumptions for the designs of the network.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 33 of 98
50.Sh. N.K. Jain also specifically mentioned in an e-mail about the discussions held on 15/07/09 in which detailed discussions with HB/RHBs to arrive at consensus about the solution proposed in respect of V & A and Commentary Services. In response to above mentioned e-mail Sh. Sujit Panigrahi had clarified various points/queries on 22/07/2009 asked by Sh. Jain but in respect of discussions with RHBs he remained silent. During investigation Sh. Sujit Panigrahi stated that it was the responsibility of Sh. A. K. Mattoo, Treasurer/OC/CWG to address any pending issue pertaining to RHBs but when during investigation Sh. A. K. Mattoo, Treasurer/OC/CWG was examined on the issue that why a meeting of MTNL and RHBs was not materialized. He stated that RHBs objection to IP/MPLS and inclination of DF came to his knowledge only after World Broadcasters Meet-I (WBM-I) i.e. on 29/10/2009. The above mentioned email was shown to Sh. A. K. Mattoo during investigation on which he has shown unawareness about the said email and stated that it was never put up to him and also objection of RHBs only came to his knowledge during WBM-I.
51. It has been further revealed that Sh. V.K. Gautam, COO, OC wrote a letter on 21/07/2009 to Sh. S.M. Talwar, ED, MTNL in which he clarified various issues related to Scope of Work and sought clarification on pricing schedule. He also clarified that OC as an end user of the services, is not in a position to provide any funds for infrastructure developments in this regard. It has been revealed from letter dated CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 34 of 98 23/07/2009 of Sh. S.M. Talwar addressed to Sh. V.K. Gautam that a revised technical solution from MTNL has been submitted on 20/07/2009 to Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology), OC. With regard to the funds/cost of the provisioning, he had mentioned the discussion with Secretary, DoT wherein Secretary DoT also vindicated MTNL Stand that OC/CWG has to bear the cost of infrastructure provisioning because the whole network infrastructure which is being created for exclusive and dedicated use of games services and can not be used in MTNL core network. It was also mentioned in the letter that MTNL had conveyed its consent in terms of buyback provisions over some part of the equipment which may be useful for MTNL. It was also mentioned in the letter that a meeting is required to be conducted with the HB/RHB to ascertain their requirement in respect of Interfaces.
52.It has been revealed from a meeting notice dated 28/07/2009 of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that the progress of the provisioning of transportation links of Prasar Bharti for CWG 2010 was reviewed. It was mentioned that the transportation of the basic feed signals is to be arranged by OC and to be delivered by the official Telecom Provider of CWG 2010. A meeting was held on 25/07/2009 in MTNL Corporate Office among Sh. R.S.P. Sinha, CMD/MTNL, Sh. V.K. Verma, DG/OC and Sh. Vijay K. Gautam, COO/OC. Minutes of meeting contained following facts:
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 35 of 98
1. As desired by DG OC the Security Data Network requirement has been taken out from the Scope of Work of Telecom Services.
2. Revised commercial proposal for providing dedicated data network and various telecom services is as under :--
(1) Charges for setting up dedicated and exclusive GDN (Net Cost to MTNL: Rs. 343,15,33,265/-. After taking residual value 40% of the total value which comes out to be Rs.2058919959(200 Crore) (2) Services Operation and Maintenance Charges Rs. 650000000 (65 Crore) (3) Security Data Network (Optional) i. Cost of setting up of Security Data Network at Competition and non Competition Venues Rs.
200000000 (20 Crore) ii. Cost of setting of SDN at Training Venues Rs.
150000000 (15 Crore)
53.It has been further revealed that "MTNL has been engaged as Telecommunication Service Provider for CWG 2010. It was presumed that MTNL with its existing infrastructure will be in a position to provide the services as per the requirements and standards. MTNL has submitted a proposal of Rs. 507 Crore which includes infrastructure cost of Rs. 443.43 Crores and user charges amounting to Rs. 63.69 Crores. After a discussion held with Secretary, Telecommunication, GOI on 14/07/2009, it was felt that there is scope for substantial reduction of costs. The technology team of OC and MTNL are in process of further rationalizing the costs. MTNL has now indicated that while it would be CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 36 of 98 possible for them to absorb cost of general infrastructure, however infrastructure required to be put in place temporarily for the conduct of Games and related services user charges would have to be provided to them. The rationalized costs for these are being jointly worked out by MTNL and OC. OC would pay the user charges to MTNL from its budget . However, the incremental infrastructure development cost would have to be provided to MTNL. It is for consideration that this incremental infrastructure cost should be provided by Ministry of Telecom or Ministry of I&B, who would be the predominant users of this facility for HDTV during the Games." It was decided in the GoM meeting that Cabinet Secretary, GoI will take a final call/view on the matter and inform accordingly to the GoM. It has been revealed that Sh. R.S.P. Sinha, the then CMD/MTNL was invited in the meeting and in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. he admitted the fact that he had attended the said meeting.
54.It has been further revealed that Sh. Sujit Panigrahi sent an e-mail on 04/08/2009 to Sh. N.K. Jain wherein asking him to optimize the cost by making it competitive. In his e-mail he highlighted following points needed to be addressed:
1. Based on the following major reduction in SOW:
(1) Reduction in number of Venues.
(2) OFC.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 37 of 98
(3) Network Switches and Routers which were part of Internal Networking.
(4) Video Conferencing.
(5) Video Surveillance.
(6) Consolidation of SDN and GDN Routers.
(7) Optimization of Software, Network Monitoring and associated infrastructure (8) Non-IT Components such as Power/UPS.
2. MTNL had reduced Rs 405 Crore to Rs 343.15 Crore and then calculated the residual value of equipments at 40% to bring the cost to OC at Rs. 205 Crore (rounded off to 200 Crore).
(1) The residual value for the other equipments (after reduction in scope of work and exclusion) should be around 60% and not 40% as that would be the Industry Norm for the Games (starting from 6 months before Games).
(2) The overall capital investment cost is expected to be around Rs. 100-120 Crore (Instead of Rs 200 Crore proposed).
55.It has been further revealed that a meeting was held between OC and MTNL officials on 04/08/2009 and minutes of the meeting was duly signed by Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, Sh. Rohit Srivastava, Sh. N.K. Jain and Sh. Jitendra Garg. MTNL gave sign off on the Scope of Work to confirm that it has understood the Scope of work fully and completely and it will supply all goods and services as per the requirements mentioned in the document.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 38 of 98
56.It has been further revealed that Vide 2942/2009-CA (Vol-II) dated 07/08/2009 the Cabinet Secretariat constituted a Group of Officers (GoO) comprising Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Sh. Uday Varma, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Sh. Govind Mohan, Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs and Sh. P.K. Mittal, Deputy Director General, DoT which was to be convened by Secretary (Sports) to work out the financial implication of the connectivity proposal. In consultation with representatives of major user groups namely, Host Broadcaster, Organizing Committee taking into account the security related requirements the terms of reference of the Group were fixed as under:
(1) To finalize the scope of work involved in providing telecom and broadcast communication services at the level of integrity and Quality of Service (QoS) desired for the purpose of the CWG 2010.
(2) To finalize the infrastructure requirements consistent with the scope of work.
(3) To attempt an estimate of the costs involved in providing the infrastructure requirements under various options. (4) To recommend a cost effective efficient procurement option for the telecom infrastructure required for the CWG 2010.
57.It has been further revealed that vide letter no. MTNL/20-80(372)/2009- MM/EOI for Empanelment of SI dated 10/08/2009 MTNL has expanded its list of empanelled SIs from 3 to 8. Sh. R.S.P. Sinha, CMD MTNL, Sh. S. M. CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 39 of 98 Talwar, ED Delhi, Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL) and Sh. Vinay Mudgal, Sr. SDE (CPSL) stated in their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that expansion of the list of empanelled SIs was initiated vide T.E. No. MTNL/20-80(372)/2009- MM/EOI for Empanelment of SI dated 26/02/2009. It is further revealed that MTNL decided to float a limited tender for CWG project for their empanelled SIs but it was felt that MTNL had only 3 empanelled SIs and this will hamper the competitive bidding process in respect of highly technical CWG Telecom Project. Therefore more SIs were empanelled to follow the competitive bidding among empanelled SIs during limited tendering.
58.Finally on 17/08/2009, Scope of Work was agreed between MTNL and OC which was again duly signed by Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Tech.), OC, Sh. Rohit Srivastava, Director (Networks), OC, Sh. N.K. Jain, GM(CPSL)/MTNL and Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (BBD)/MTNL.
59.It has been further revealed from a note dated 08/09/2009 of file no. MTNL/20-8(849)/2009-MM/CWG Vol-I of MTNL that various meetings held at CO under the chairmanship of CMD MTNL in which Director (HR), Director (F), Director (T), ED (Delhi) and other senior officers remained present and subsequently it was decided that bids for CWG project may be invited from various System Integrators included in MTNL Panel. CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 40 of 98
60. It has been further revealed that the 3rd meeting of the GoM was held on 11/09/2009 and as per minutes following decisions were taken by GoM:
A. GoM was requested to approve the nomination of MTNL as the Telecom Service Provider for CWG 2010. The proposal was approved.
B. Secretary, Sports informed GoM that Group of Officers nominated by Cabinet Secretary had examined various aspects of the proposal of MTNL for providing incremental infrastructure for High Definition Television Transmission and data networking for the Games and Security. The report of the Officers had been submitted to the Cabinet Secretary. Further modalities for provision of funds to MTNL were to be decided and budget provision made ab initio as this requirement was not reflected so far. GoM directed that further action at official level be initiated by Secretary (Sports).
C. Chairman OC stated that MTNL was asking a higher amount from the OC as user charges than what had been contemplated earlier. It was felt that OC could further negotiate with MTNL to settle this matter to mutual satisfaction.
61.The GoO took more than one month & analyzed the various issues given in the scope of reference. In the third meeting of GoM on 11/09/2009, the GoO submitted their report which was accepted by the GOM. In the report under para 4, it was clearly mentioned that solution was extensively discussed amongst the representatives of Prasar Bharti CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 41 of 98 (HB), MTNL (TSP) and OC/CWG and there was consensus that the infrastructure requirements as projected, represent the minimum configuration required for meeting the prescribed scope with the desired level of redundancy (1+1). The GoO Report also addressed associated issues under following annexures:
(1) Annexure I - Games Data Network Bandwidth (2) Annexure II - Games Voice Network (3) Annexure III - Broadcast Services Requirement (4) Annexure IV - Network Architecture (5) Annexure V - HD encoder Requirements (6) Annexure VI - OF Cable Planned for Commonwealth Games (7) Annexure VII - Problems associated with a DWDM Architecture (8) Annexure VIII - Bill of Material (9) Annexure IX - Assumptions (10)Annexure X - Cost Details of Budgetary Proposal of MTNL (11)Annexure XI - Broad Categories of Capital Cost
62.The GoO in its report examined following two Options for Funding the Project:-
I. Funding on Capital Expenditure i.e. Outright Purchase:
Under this option, the network is to be permanently installed for further utilization in future. This will involve a capital expenditure of approximately Rs.343 crore for funding the project. Since there is not going to be any major Games event in the near future and CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 42 of 98 HDTV is not likely to be available commercially in the country, it is not desirable to install this equipment for further utilization at all Games venues. This kind of equipment has very high rate of obsolescence and undergoes constant up gradation by the manufacturers in respect of both hardware and software. Further, to keep the equipment in an operational state, staff has to be deputed and this involves avoidable recurring expenditure. II. Wet Lease: In the wet lease option, the equipment is allowed to be de-commissioned after the event is over.
In this case, the total capital cost need not be reimbursed to the telecom service provider. A percentage of total capital cost can be reimbursed to the service provider.
63.The GoO suggested that it is desirable to adopt the wet lease model for funding the project keeping in view the fact the HDTV is not likely to be commercially available in the country in the near future and there are not going to be any further Games events of comparable magnitude for some time to come. Under this option, the Telecom Service Provider provides the services and procures the equipment through an open competitive bidding process so as to minimize the capital cost and recurring expenditure.
64.In its report GoO mentioned that MTNL had requested for 60% of the capital cost on a wet lease option for executing this project. Therefore CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 43 of 98 GoO adopted a Price Discovery Method and Estimation of Cost. MTNL had initially projected a cost of Rs. 343 crore for the equipment and Rs. 65 crores as usage charges, excluding the operations of BSNL for two games locations. These costs were exclusive of customs duty, service tax, octroi, excise duty, sales-tax and other levies which are payable extra as per actual, and based on rough estimates since neither MTNL nor BSNL have invited bids for such types of equipments in the past (hence, it is not possible to compare the estimated cost with the established figures based on previous tenders). In this projection, the non-hardware costs could be divided as follows [as proportion of total cost]: professional services (13%); software customization (9-10%); depreciation (15%); installation material (5-6%); and, operating cost of the staff for project management (5-6%). It is estimated that the projected cost would reduce in a competitive situation through vendors offering discounts against the listed prices, to the extent of around Rs. 60-70 crore. Hence, the reduced capital cost of the project in a bidding situation would be around Rs. 270 crore.
65.In the wet lease option, a system integrator approach has been adopted for the project as it will require software integration for management of various routers, delivery of traffic and messages in a hot-standby mode along with network management system. In this option, the cost of professional services and software in terms of percentage was expected to be higher as reduction in absolute amounts, in respect of these CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 44 of 98 services, was not expected. The professional services charges were expected to be of the order of 16% while software customization might account for 11% against 13% and 9-10% respectively in the earlier estimates. Taking into consideration the depreciation and cost of installation material along with cost of staff for project management, this accounts for about 54% of the total revised estimated capital expenditure. After factoring in 10% of the revenues which MTNL would pay to Government as license fee, the wet lease cost would come to around 64% of the reduced capital expenditure. Hence, the amount quoted by MTNL, viz., 60% of the capital cost appears reasonable. Hence, the total projected cost of installation and operation of the required equipment over the duration of 10 months would be in the range of Rs. 150-160 crore.
66.It has been further revealed that in a meeting held in chamber of CMD MTNL on 14/09/2009 in which it was decided that tender for setting up Exclusive and Dedicated Data Network for CWG should be done on Global Tendering Basis (as recommended by GoO on 11/09/2009) and accordingly eligibility conditions for bidders and OEMs should be modified in the RFP document. It is further revealed that Sh. Kuldip Singh, Director (T) agreed to float global tender from Corporate Office, MTNL after discussions with ED Delhi, Dir (HR) and Dir (F) from CO; when ED Delhi has expressed some reservations due to logistics and wanted CO to float the tender. It was also decided in the meeting that execution CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 45 of 98 of work, testing, Proof of Concept and Operations will remain with the ED (Delhi) during this project.
67.During investigation it has been revealed that a Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) was constituted vide order No. GM (CPSL)/G-406/ CWG- 2010 / 08-09 / KW/Part File dated 19/09/2009 to finalize the tender document and evaluate the bids expected to be received against the tender for provision of Telecom services for CWG-2010. The TEC consisted of following members:-
1) Sh. A.K. Pathak, CGM (Swg. &Plg.), CO - Chairman
2) Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (CPSL), Delhi - Member
3) Sh. B.K. Badola, GM (MM), CO - Member
4) Sh. T.R. Gandhi, GM (BB&IA), CO - Member
5) Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (BB-D), Delhi - Coordinator
68.The TEC was asked to finalize the tender document within a week's time.
69.It has been further revealed that TEC amended some eligibility criteria on 19/09/2009. Clause 3 of Section-II was amended and 3.1 (b) (ii) was deleted from the tender to give wider participation to the bidder/SIs. Regarding experience of Indian Registered Company i.e. SI authorized by OEM (clause 3.4), in case the bid is submitted by authorized Indian Registered Company on behalf of OEM, the Indian Registered Company must have minimum experience of 15 nodes (MPLS Core & MPLS Edge Routers) in a single network, was amended from experience of CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 46 of 98 implementation of at least 60 Nodes. The committee opined that proposed CWG Data Network contained 120-130 MPLS Routers (i.e. 120- 130 nodes), therefore it was decided by TEC that prospective bidder should have at least 50% of the numbers of node experience of implementation. Clause 3.6 was added in the Tender document and it refers that "In clause 3.3 and 3.4 the experience of bidder/OEM refers to experience of bidder and or OEM (as the case may be) and its parent company/subsidiaries." The said amendment added "or" in the experience of bidder and OEM, thereon paving a way for wider participation.
70.MTNL floated a Global Tender on 24/09/2009 by putting advertisement on the site of MTNL, in Newspapers and Media clipping etc. regarding global tender for Commonwealth Games-2010 vide Tender title T.E. No. MTNL/20-80 (849)/2009-MM/CWG dated 24/09/2009. Closing date and time of sale of Tender Document was fixed as 26/10/2009 up to 1600 Hrs. Bid Opening date of tender was fixed as 27/10/2009 at 1500 Hrs. Estimated Cost of Tender mentioned as Rs. 400 Crore. Tender item was mentioned as Supply of Telecom/IT Equipments.
71.It has further been revealed that vide OM No. 70-70/2009-CWG dated 01/10/2009 Sh. Rahul Bhatnagar, JS, IS Division, MYAS informed Secretary, DoT that appointment of MTNL as TSP for the CWG has been CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 47 of 98 approved. The said letter was issued with the approval of Secretary, Sports.
72.It has been further revealed that Sh. Gautam advised Sh. Jain to address all communication related to Telecom Provider Services to Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Technology). He further advised that all communications received from Sh. Sujit Panigrahi should be considered authentic since Advisors do not communicate directly with any external agencies.
73.It has been further revealed that Secretary (Sports) wrote a D.O. letter No. 1693/Secy/SP/09 on 09/10/2009 to CMD MTNL and it was informed that DoT has already been informed about the decision of MTNL being TSP for the CWG 2010. It was also requested to take advance action for implementation in consultation with DoT.
74.It has been revealed that Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, Secretary (Sports) wrote a letter DO No. 1712/Secy (SP/09) dated 13/10/2009 to Sh. P.J. Thomas, Secretary (DoT) regarding release of funds for the project. It has been mentioned in the letter that "This decision (implementation of Telecom Infrastructure for CWG) has been taken by the Group of Ministers and in consultation with all the consumers of Telecom Services during the CWG -D2010 including the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games - D2010 and the Host broadcaster (Ministry of Information & Broadcasting/ Prasar Bharti). The scope of work was CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 48 of 98 examined by a committee constituted by the Cabinet Secretary in which Sh. P.K. Mittal, DDG, Telecom was also a member.
75.It is only appropriate that since the Nodal Ministry for MTNL is the Department of Telecom; all budgetary approvals are provided by you for this work in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. We have requested MTNL to take up the work in anticipation of all approvals, and, we are also in the process of preparing the EFC Memo, in consultation with your Ministry to hasten the processes. However, it will be appreciated if you could discuss the matter further with CMD, MTNL so that the requisite time lines can be firmed up to keep the schedules required for the completion of the works before Commonwealth Games 2010. It is imperative that the work commences immediately on the ground."
76.It has been revealed that a prospective bidders meeting was called on 13/10/2009 by MTNL in which 18 major SIs/OEMs participated and after the meeting a questionnaire of various objections of some bidders on the tender was prepared for further amendments in the Tender.
77.M/s STL, M/s Siemens IT Solutions and Services and M/s ITI requested to change the eligibility condition from 60 to 15 nodes and from single network to multiple networks. M/s Tellabs requested to amend clause 3.1 pertaining to the eligibility condition of P and PE routers from same OEM to allow the P and PE routers of different OEMs.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 49 of 98
78.The TEC recommended that as the project involved around 127 nodes in the CWG (single) network therefore it was not advisable to reduce the 60 node conditions in a single network, which was almost 50 % of the actual requirement. On the issue of use of P and PE routers of single OEM, TEC recommended that routers from single OEM in the network shall ensure smooth service delivery of the critical broadcast video and security applications, avoid inter-operation ability related issues, reduce integration activity, uniform service provisioning, common configuration sets and maintenance tools, better spares management, common knowledge base & tool kits for faster troubleshooting. Hence TEC only amended eligibility criteria in respect of experience of 60 nodes in a single network by 'SI and OEM' to 'SI and/or OEM', but refused to allow different OEMs for P and PE routers. Moreover the four major OEMs were quite eligible for these above conditions. The TEC recommended in its report/ clarifications that it is not advisable to relax/change the requirements in respect of logical routers partitions, 10G/40G OTN interface and Y.1731 support. TEC recommended that only two OEMs M/s Cisco and M/s Huawei are meeting commercial eligibility and technical requirements of the tender. The clarifications were issued on 24/10/2009 and 2 weeks time was recommended for submission of queries from OEMs side. The TEC recommended that only two OEMs viz. M/s Cisco and M/s Huawei were meeting commercial eligibility and technical requirements of the tender. On 28/10/2009 Sh. Kuldip Singh, CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 50 of 98 Director (T), MTNL emphasized on the maximum participation to get the most competitive bid without compromising on the critical requirement and implementation of the Network in a time bound manner and which was also the objective of calling the Global Tender. On the same date i.e. 28/10/2009 a meeting was held with two major OEMs M/s Juniper and M/s Alcatel, which was attended by Director (T), Director(HR), Director(F), TEC Members, Sh. Anurag Mandhar, Sh. Hitendra (both from Juniper), Sh. Hitesh Behl and Sh. Bharat Matta (both from Alcatel). Minutes of the Meeting were issued by Sh. Kulwant Chand, DGM (MM-II) on 29/10/2009 vide No. GM (COSL)/G-406)/CWG-2010 are as follows:
"1. A meeting was held at 14:30 hrs on 28.10.2009 in the Conference Room, MTNL Corporate Office to discuss the clarification to the vendors' queries in respect of the Tender for Commonwealth Games Project.
2. The following were present in the meeting:-
(1) Mr. Kuldip Singh, Director (Tech) MTNL
(2) Mr. S. P. Pachauri, Director (HR), MTNL
(3) Mr. Anita Soni, Director (Fin), MTNL
(4) Mr. Manjit Singh ED, Delhi
(5) Mr. A. K. Pathak, CGM (Sw &Plg), MTNL, C.O
(6) Mr. B. K. Mittal, PGM (D), MTNL, Delhi
(7) Mr. B. K. Badola, GM (MM), MTNL, C.O
(8) Mr. R. K. Mittal, GM (IT), MTNL, C.O
(9) Mr. T. R, Gandhi, GM (BB&IA), MTNL, C.O
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 51 of 98
(10) Mr. N. K. Jain, GM (Task Force), MTNL, Delhi
(11) Mr. Jitender Garg DGM (Task Force), MTNL Delhi
(12) Mrs. Deepika Khosla, GM (Trans Plg.), MTNL Delhi
(13) Mr. Anurag, M/s. Juniper
(14) Mr. Hitendra, M/s. Juniper
(15) Mr. Hitesh Behl, M/s. Alcatel Lucent
(16) Mr. Bharat Matta, M/s. Alcatel, Lucent
3.0 Discussions were held against the following background:
3.1 MTNL has been given a very short time to complete the Commonwealth Games (Communication network) Project. All the officers present felt that with the available timeframe, inviting tenders was not the right course. However, being a PSU, MTNL has limited options to go for the alternative mode of procurement. At the same time MTNL can not compromise on the quality of the products as well as the work to be done for the Commonwealth Games Project.
79.As per the Tender Evaluation Committee report in respect of the specification to be issued (copy attached as annexure) only two bidders namely M/s Cisco and M/s Huawei appear to qualify for participation in the tender. It was felt that the other two reputed OEMs i. e M/s Juniper and M/s Alcatel also be given another opportunity to explain their point of view and the reservation in respect of few technical requirements/functionalities leading to the disqualification of their products.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 52 of 98
4.0 Both the bidders were asked to come out specifically as the which are the eligibility as well as technical requirements which need to be discussed and considered in order their products qualify, of course not at the cost of quality.
4.1 M/s. Juniper highlighted the following points:-
4.1.1 Their P-router does not support as many 10 G OTN Interface as asked in the tender and therefore requested allowing external transponder solution.
4.1.2 Their P-router does not support logical router functionality specified in the tender and therefore requested MTNL to accept two router solution in Place of logical router functionality.
4.1.3 Their routers at present do not support ITUT Y.1731 features.
4.14 The requirement of 90 GB for video flow monitoring on P-router puts additional constraint on the availability of the interfaces in P-router.
4.1.5 Juniper does not support SyncE functionality on Edge (PE) Router.
4.2 M/s. Alcatel highlighted the following points:-
4.2.1 Their P-router does not support logical router functionality specified in the tender and therefore requested MTNL to accept two routers in place of logical router functionality.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 53 of 98
4.2.2 They do not have 40G OTN/POS interface on the P-
router. However they can give 100G (rate limited to 40G) Ethernet interface in lieu of 40 G OTN.
5 After detailed deliberations and keeping in mind quality as well as competition, the following decisions were taken in the meeting unanimously:-
5.1 The eligibility requirements read with amendments/clarifications proposed by the Committee are ok, except that an SI having games experience may also be allowed to partner with the OEM and/or bidder to meet the Games professional service experience requirement and therefore the clause may be amended to read as "OEM/bidder/SI shall have the experience of professional services of similar equipments for managing at least one Olympic game or one Commonwealth Game or one FIFA game in the last ten years.".
5.2 Allow two Routers in lieu of logical router functionality on P-routers. The router can be quoted as a single or multi chassis architecture. However, the minimum backplane capacity for each router shall be 560 G as defined for the P-
router in the tender and the solution shall not add to O & M complexities.
5.3 Allow external transponder solution to realize 10 G OTN interface (s), provided it is able to provide integrated management functionality as available for the single integrated solution i.e. with OTN Interface Integrated within the router) and the bidder gives an undertaking that the solution, will, in no way compromise the redundancy & manageability of the net work.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 54 of 98 5.4 Sync. E and Y. 1731 functionality may be made optional.
5.5 For Video flow monitoring of the broadcast Channels, allow cyclic monitoring at a rate of 5 channels per time with changeover time of less than 5 sec. as an alternative or any other alternative solution to meet the tender conditions 5.6 Allow 100G Ethernet interface in lieu of 40 G OTN/POS with the condition that they will provide equal number of 100 G Interface (Ports), rate limited to 40G, on each interface and the solution shall work on the available G. 652b fiber."
80.It is further revealed that on 29/10/2009 MTNL came to know the concerns of RHB about Video Network proposed by MTNL on IP/MPLS and RHBs insistence on Dark Fiber during World Broadcasters Meet - I at Ashok Hotel, New Delhi. A meeting was held in MTNL where CMD MTNL, Director (HR), Director (T), Treasurer OC, Brian Nourse, Sujit Panigrahi from OC and representatives of Broadcasters attended the meeting. It was stressed in the meeting that till date everything is done in consultation with OC and no such doubts regarding technology were expressed till now. It was decided in the meeting that OC will appoint an expert having knowledge of both broadcasting and telecom network and examine the proposed Network. If required the expert may suggest a plan B for video broadcasting network in addition to the proposed and agreed solution of the MTNL. Director (HR) wrote a letter no. MTNL/Dir. CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 55 of 98 (HR)/CWG/2010 to Sh. A.K. Matto, Treasurer, OC/CWG and requested to appoint experts for examining the proposed network solution. He also mentioned that if required the expert may suggest a plan-B for Video broadcasting network in addition to the proposed and agreed solution of MTNL.
81.It is further revealed from the extracts of the Minutes of the 252nd meeting of the Board of Directors of MTNL held on 30/10/2009 which are as under:-
"While the exact modalities and responsibilities of making payments to MTNL against this project are still being worked out at different levels in government and OC CWG, following is the tentative arrangement:
1) Ministry of Sports will pay an amount equal to 60% of the cost of Data Network Equipment as obtained through competitive global bids.
2) 73 Crore will be paid by OC CWG towards creating infrastructure for Exclusive use of CWG and providing services such as ISDN, ADSL, VoIP etc.
3) 35 Crores will be paid by MHA for creating Security Data Network.
4) MTNL will bear 40% of the cost of equipment."
82.It is further revealed that the final clarifications and amendments were emailed on 03/11/2009 to all prospective bidders who have purchased the tender document. A Copy of clarifications and amendments was also sent to OC/CWG.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 56 of 98
83.Subsequently after the meeting on 29/10/2009 at CO/MTNL regarding issues/objections of RHBs, matter was taken up in the CoS meeting held on 06/11/2009, it was directed to OC and MTNL to address the concerns of RHBs with regard to video Broadcast. Later on OC Consultant Sh. Brian Nourse had suggested that technical solution proposed by MTNL may be technically correct but not the standard method of delivering such services within television Industry. The Consultant had also advised that OC must reinforce MTNL to engage an experienced consultant.
84.It is further revealed that Sh. Amit Arora, National Channel Manager, JDSU India Pvt. Ltd (neither SI nor OEM), Sh. Amitabh Nag, Head India - Central Government, Government Industry Solution Unit, TCS (not purchased Tender document till 09/11/2009 i.e. last date for sale of tender document) and Sh. Rohit Kataria of Sterlite Technologies Ltd. (the level of queries and eligibility criteria of 60 nodes) requested to extend the date of submission of Tender from 10/11/2009 but was not agreed by MTNL on 09/11/2009 for the above mentioned reasons. It has been revealed that a memorandum dated 09/11/2009 for Constitution of Committee for opening of Techno-Commercial Bids against T.E No. MTNL/20-80(849)/2009-MM/CWG was issued and the Committee Members were as follows:
(1) Sh. M.K. Agarwal, SDE (MM-III), CO (2) Sh. R.N. Tirpathi, AO (Procurement), CO (3) Sh. Vikram Sharma, SDE (Plg.), CO CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 57 of 98
85.It is further revealed that Sh. K.P.S. Gill and Abhishek Navneet were authorized by M/s HCL and to attend the Bid Opening Conference. Sh. K.P.S. Gill signed a letter dated 10/11/2009 of M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd for Submission of Bid Document for the tender MTNL/20-80(849)/2009- MM/CWG and submitted a bid to MTNL by HCL. The bid was opened on 10/11/2009 at 1500 Hrs. Minutes of opening of Techno-Commercial bids was received by MTNL. M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. was the only participating bidder. Minutes were duly signed by all the committee members.
86.It has been further revealed that the meeting of the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) was held under the Chairmanship of Finance Secretary on 10/11/2009 which was attended by Secretary (Sports), CEO (OC), Additional Secretary DoT, CMD MTNL, Director (T), MTNL and other Senior Officers of GoI and MTNL. During the meeting CEO, OC, CWG mentioned some concerns raised by the various RHBs about the broadcasting network, as the system proposed would be tried in India for the first time. CMD MTNL however assured that a vendor of international repute would be engaged for setting up this network and all the concerns of the broadcasters would be addressed to their satisfaction. In case there is any problem; an alternative system would be put in place by MTNL at its own cost. CMD, MTNL reassured the Committee that the system would definitely work satisfactorily. CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 58 of 98
87.It has been revealed that in the meeting of EFC held on 10/11/2009 after obtaining comments from concerned Ministries and Planning Commission and on deliberating the various aspects of the project, the EFC recommended the same at a cost of Rs. 182 Crore, including a tax component of Rs. 17 Crores, with a direction to seek approval of the competent authority. As per the guidelines of Ministry of Finance, the Competent Authority for approval of Proposal costing Rs. 150 Crores and above is the Cabinet/Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). Subsequently on 19/11/2009 the Minutes of the EFC meeting were approved by Secretary (Sports) in consultation with PS to Minister MYAS and circulated thereafter on 25/11/2009.
88.It is further revealed from copy of email dated 11/11/2009 sent by Sh. Jitendra Garg DGM (TF CWG) to DGM (MM - II) having subject 'Minutes of the TEC meeting' that TEC members' viz. Sh. A.K. Pathak, Sh. N.K. Jain, Sh. T.R. Gandhi, Sh. B.K. Badola, Sh. Jitendra Garg and Sh. Kulwant Chand met in the chamber of Sh. Pathak to review the Bid Submission. MM Section informed TEC that only one bid from M/s HCL Info Systems was received. In View of the stringent timelines Committee decided to adhere and follow the following schedule:
• Submission of Commercial and Technical Evaluation 20.11.2009 • Interactive full day meeting with the bidder and OEM 17.11.2009 CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 59 of 98 • Opening of financial Bid 23.11.2009 • Submission of Financial evaluation Report 27.11.2009 • Issue of APO/PO 30.11.2009
89.It has been revealed from the email dated 11/11/2009 sent by Sh. Sujit Panigrahi to Sh. Brian Nourse, Consultant OC, Sh. V.K. Gautam, COO OC and Sh. A. K. Mattoo that an audio conference will be held on/arranged by OC on 12/11/2009 in the chamber of Director (T) MTNL. The conference was attended by Sh. Matto, Treasurer OC, Sh. Sujit Panigrahi, ADG (Tech) OC, Sh. S. P. Pachauri, Director (HR) MTNL, Sh. B. K. Mittal, PGM (D) MTNL and other senior official of OC and MTNL on 12/11/2009. In the meeting Telstra had shared the brief description of CWG-2006 Games and also informed that Melbourne CWG was conducted in very close/ nearby locations/ Stadiums. Optical fiber operational reliability was very high in Melbourne as all the ducts were planned meticulously. During the meeting it was also discussed that external environmental conditions of Melbourne Games was completely different from the CWG Delhi 2010. In Melbourne Standard Definition and compressed Video broadcast signals were used whereas requirement of CWG 2010 was High Definition uncompressed. Difference in bandwidth requirement in both the technologies is 5 times. Everyone in the meeting agreed that high definition uncompressed broadcasting in CWG 2010 was conceived CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 60 of 98 second time in the world after Beijing Olympic 2008. Prior to CWG 2010 Games no Commonwealth Games ever delivered High Definition Uncompressed Video.
90.Investigation further revealed that a meeting was also held on 16/11/2009 at OC-HQ among CEO/OC, Director (T)/MTNL and senior officials of MTNL and OC and MTNL gave a detailed presentation on video broadcasting solution based on IP/MPLS Technology. MTNL recommended the IP/MPLS Technology over Dark Fiber technology, as IP/MPLS has definite advantage and meets the various specific security aspects as required in the CWG-2010. The TEC Report submitted dated 19/11/2009 on the bid received by MTNL against Tender No. MTNL/20- 80(849)/2009- MM/CWG dated 24/09/2009 for Commonwealth Games.
91.Committee Members were as follows:
1) Sh. A.K. Pathak, CGM (Swg & Plg), CO - Chairman
2) Sh. N.K. Jain, GM (TF CWG), Delhi - Member
3) Sh. B.K. Badola, GM (MM), CO - Member
4) Sh. T.R. Gandhi, GM (BB & IA), CO - Member
5) Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (TF CWG), Delhi - Coordinator
92.Sh. Kulwant Chand DGM (MM-II) was co-opted by the committee for evaluation of the tender. Point wise summary of TEC Report is as follows:
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 61 of 98
1) Approximately 680 clarifications were received from the bidders/OEMs.
2) Following steps were taken to ensure the wider participation:
(i) A bidders' conference was held on 13th October 2009 where 18 prospective bidders participated.
(ii) Face to Face meetings were held with the known four main OEMs of IP MPLS routers first by Committee and later by higher MTNL management.
All the requirements mentioned by the OEMs were considered and clarifications/amendments were issued by the committee.
3) M/s HCL Info Systems was the sole bidder who participated in the tender opened on 10.11.2009 with 11 volumes of technical and commercial documents.
4) Committee decided to go ahead with the evaluation of single bid considering the stringent timelines of the CWG-2010.
5) The Committee took into consideration Clauses 3.1 (a), 3.1
(b), 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of the tender for evaluation of bid.
6) The Criteria for evaluation of Techno Commercial bids was Clause 24 of Section II of the tender.
7) A presentation on the solution offered by the bidder was taken on 17/11/2009 involving the following:
S. No. Partner Part of Solution Offered
a) M/s HCL Infosystems Front Bidder & System Integrator
b) M/c CISCO Systems OEM of Routers, Wi-Fi, VoIP,
Professional Services, Security
Solution, CATV, Internet Peering
Solution, Video Monitoring
Solution.
c) M/s Elitecore Billing and AAA Solution
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 62 of 98
d) M/s HP NMS & Server
e) M/s Sun Microsystems Servers and Storage
f) M/s Invas FTMS Solution
g) M/s Ador Powertron Power Plant, UPS
h) M/s BNA Technologies Audio Solutions
8) Recommendation of the Committee was as follows:
"M/s HCL have furnished necessary documents and certifications in support of meeting the eligibility requirements. Further M/s HCL has submitted to comply each and every clause of the tender. In view of this and as a result of the evaluation of the bid it is observed that M/s HCL meets all the techno-commercial requirements of the tender. As mentioned at para 7, M/s HCL shall submit the necessary undertakings before opening of the financial bids. The Committee recommends that the techno commercial bid of M/s HCL Info Systems may be considered as responsive and financial bid of the bidder may be opened".
93.Recommendations of the Committee were as follows:
(1) The committee recommended that the prices may be negotiated with the bidder M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd., Noida. (2) A Committee comprising members from DoT and MYAS who are stake holders in this tender and senior management of MTNL (Director Level) may be constituted to negotiate the prices with the bidder M/s HCL.
94.It has been revealed that a letter dated 07/12/2009 was sent by Sh. R.S.P. Sinha, CMD, MTNL to Sh. P.J. Thomas, Secretary (Telecom) quoting as "I am enclosing the detailed facts of the three cases referred by Hon'ble MOS (C & IT). In this regard as you would see Hon'ble MOS has CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 63 of 98 already perhaps been given to understand wrongly that MTNL has already placed orders in these cases. However, the factual position is that for all these cases the tenders are still under evaluation by Tender Evaluation Committee comprising of senior officers. Moreover while floating the tenders great care has been taken that all major vendors interested in participating are eligible so as to ensure wide participation. The final orders will be placed only after due evaluation and consideration by the respective Boards (MTNL & Mahanagar Telephone Mauritius Ltd.)." It is further revealed that a letter no. MTNL/20- 80(849)/CWG dated 07/12/2009 was also sent from Sh. B.K. Badola GM (MM) to Joint Secretary (T), DoT regarding implementation of Communication Network for Commonwealth Games. It was mentioned in the letter that for procurement and implementation of Communication Network Infrastructure for CWG only 1 Bid was received from M/s HCL and subsequently the bid was opened and TEC recommended for negotiating the prices downwards with M/s HCL. It was also proposed in the letter that if DoT agrees then to cut short the time, keeping in view the time frame left, parallel negotiations with M/s HCL may be initiated. The above mentioned letter was put up before the Secretary (T) which was subsequently approved.
95.It has been further revealed that with the approval of Minister, MYAS, on 10/12/2009 the draft Cabinet Note was circulated to the concerned Ministries for their comments on 17/12/2009.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 64 of 98
96.Investigation further revealed that Secretary (Sports) Smt. Sindhushree Khullar wrote a D.O. letter No. 1589/Secy. (SP)/09 dated 24/12/2009 to Cabinet Secretary Sh. K. M. Chandrashekhar and mentioned that "The draft Cabinet Note has been circulated on 17/02/2009 to the concerned Ministries, including Ministry of Finance, for their comments. However, there are differences between OC and MTNL relating to the technical Solution being offered by MTNL. CEO, OC had made this point during the EFC meeting and this is reflected in the EFC Minutes held on 10/11/2009. Subsequently, CEO, OC had stated that, after discussions with MTNL, the technical solution was "satisfactory". However, the same needs to be confirmed by CEO, OC and Department of Telecom before the Note is placed for Consideration of the Cabinet. Confirmation is awaited". The copy of the letter was also marked to Sh. Ajit Seth, Secretary (Coordination).
97.Investigation further revealed that a Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) was constituted to negotiate the prices of CWG Tender with M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. and following officers were included in the PNC:
1) Sh. A K Pathak CGM (Swg. &Plg.)
2) Sh. B K Mittal, PGM (D) MTNL Delhi
3) Sh. N K Jain, GM (TF CWG) MTNL Delhi
4) Sh. B K Badola, GM (MM) CO
5) Sh. T R Gandhi, GM (BB&IA) CO
6) Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM (TF CWG), MTNL Delhi CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 65 of 98
98.The PNC concluded its report for CWG-2010 Project on 21/01/2009 and recommended:
1) PNC has been of the view that:
a) MTNL can not afford delay in the implementation of the CWG project. A delay in other routine project may result in time and cost over runs to MTNL, however, in case of CWG, prestige of not only MTNL, but the country as a whole is at stake.
b) The CWG Communication Network infrastructure requirements are complex and in some respects unique technical requirement (viz. technology, QoS, SLA/performance & professional service) and commercial condition ( in terms of payment condition, LD charges, PBG, Security, Corporate insurance, Penalties for not meeting the SLA requirements etc) are stringent. Further time frame for the delivery & implementation of the project is also short. Therefore, the tender/project can not be compared with any other routine tender/project of MTNL.
c) Most of the services & equipments required are new and being purchased and implemented/ tested for the first time by MTNL. Therefore, price reference is not available for comparison purpose with the quoted solution price by the bidder. Hence the present negotiation frame work of MTNL may not fit in this context.
2) M/s HCL has given an overall discount of 6.87% on the quoted prices plus Rs 2 Crore on "Redeployment & Services". Further it may be mentioned that the TEC in its financial evaluation report vide para 5.2 has noted that -CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 66 of 98
"There is a totaling error of Rs. 5.3 Crore (Approx) in the Table-2 part (A) phase II of the price bid. The quoted price is lower than the actual sum. The Committee opined that the differential amount may be factored across the board while final ordering.
99.Accordingly the effective discount after factoring Rs. 5.3 Crore (Approx) as recommended by the committee shall be 55.86 Crore (approx) (to be applied across the board) plus 2 Crore (on "Redeployment & Services"). The percentage discount to be applied across the board works out to be 7.60%. Rs 2 Crore additional discount shall be applied only on "Redeployment & Services".
100.As Annexure I of PNC minutes of the 255th Meeting of the Board of Directors of MTNL held on 18/01/2010 was enclosed and as per minutes Board decided that:
• Procurement should be limited to games requirement and related aspects including redeployment in MTNL network. • We should negotiate with the vendor to bring down the prices to the best possible extent.
• The Estimate of Group of Officers (GoO) should be taken into account for negotiation.
• In view of tight time frame, the negotiation committee should come up with a recommendation within a period of 2 days so that final decision can be taken.
• Project Estimate should be modified to reflect the actual prices given in the APO.CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 67 of 98
101.Investigation further revealed that Sh. Yogesh Bahl GM, HCL assured GM (MM) MTNL that HCL is ready to provide Fiber based point to point solution including video adapters and other terminal equipments along with IP based MPLS solution as proposed in bid to MTNL at no extra cost.
102.Investigation further revealed that MTNL has released an Advance Purchase Order (APO) for setting up the Communication Network for Commonwealth Games 2010 on 06/02/2010. The laying of fibers to the various venues was already in progress. MTNL also demanded release of Rs. 73 crores towards optical fiber and usage charges. It has been further revealed that based on the requirements of OC for World Class Network meeting International Standards and Practices, MTNL had planned network with multiple redundancy using high capacity IP/MPLS routers. As desired by OC MTNL shall provide broadcasting video network (BVN) on dark fiber using DWDM (wherever necessary) additionally in parallel to the IP/MPLS router based network. CoS in its meeting held on 05/02/2010 resolved that MTNL will go ahead with the work using dark fiber along with IP based technology concurrently. Cabinet Secretary underlined that MTNL required 210 days to complete the procedure, and to put their arrangements in order. It was also noted that the number of days left for commencement for the Games was little over 240 days. MTNL may proceed with placing orders observing the prescribed procedures. Ministry of Sports may send the necessary CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 68 of 98 Cabinet Note at the earliest so that this could be considered in a meeting of Cabinet in the coming week.
103.Approval on the above was taken from Minister, MYAS on 11/02/2010 after receiving comments from Ministry of Finance, Tourism, I & B, Planning Commission, DoT, MoUD and MoEF on the Cabinet Note. Ministry of Finance, Planning Commission, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of I & B and DoT supported the proposal and their observations were incorporated in the Cabinet Note. Clarification Note on the technical aspect of the proposal was also included in the Cabinet Note.
104.After the approval of Minister, MYAS on 11/02/2010 Note for the Cabinet dated 12/02/2010 was issued by Sh. Rahul Bhatnagar, JS, MYAS (ISD) to Sh. K L Sharma, Director, Cabinet Secretariat.
105.Investigation further revealed that Cabinet/CCEA meeting was held on 18/02/2010 in Panchvati, 7 Race Course Road New Delhi for Consideration of Budget for MTNL as TSP for CWG 2010 (Case No. 44/8/2010 item 4). The Cabinet considered the Note dated 12/02/2010 and supplementary Note dated 12/02/2010 from the MYAS, Department of Sports and approved the proposal contained in para 8 of the main Note for Cabinet. Para 8 of Note for cabinet is as under " In the light of the foregoing paragraphs and with a view to ensuring a dedicated and foolproof communication system by MTNL, the 'Telecom Service Provider' for the Commonwealth Games and CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 69 of 98 Successful organization of the Commonwealth Games at Delhi during 3rd to 14th October, 2010, approval of the Cabinet is solicited for providing a Budget of Rs. 182 crore, as grant, on Plan side of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, for establishing of an exclusive and dedicated telecommunication network to be obtained on wet lease, inclusive of supply, installation, testing, commissioning, operation and maintenance and providing professional services, By MTNL". Sh. K. L. Sharma, Director Cabinet Secretariat circulated the Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet on 24/02/2010 to concerned Ministries and Departments.
106.It has been evident from examination of Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG, DoT that the dark fibre itself is not capable of use for transmission or reception of messages including images. Therefore equipment which launches modulated light signals in the fibre, at both end of dark fibre has to be connected. As soon as end equipment is connected and fibre is lighted, it becomes capable of use for transmission or reception of messages including images i.e. "telegraph" as per section 3(1) of Indian Telegraph Acct 1885 which requires a telecom services license as per Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Since broadcasters or up liking providers do not have a telecom license, they cannot use/take dark fibre from a telecom service provider/IP-I registered company and connect it with their equipment at both ends for back haul purpose. Any such activity would not be in conformity with Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as no CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 70 of 98 exemption has been notified by competent authority. (Transporting live signals from event location to up linking site/broadcasting location is known as backhaul).
107.Even the guidelines for registration of infrastructure Provider Category- I issued by Department of Telecom states that "8. The IP-I registered company shall provide dark fibres, Right of Way, duct space, towers on lease/rent out/sale basis to the licensees of telecom services on mutually agreed terms and conditions."
108.Leasing/renting of dark fibre from IP-I is a non licensed activity while bandwidth provisioning from telecom service provider is licensed activity attracting license fee @ 6% - 10% of Adjusted Gross Revenue.
109.Even Indian Broadcasters take bandwidth from Telecom Service Licensees. Each country has its own legislation and rules which should be respected. Australian model is therefore not applicable in India due to statutory/regulatory requirements as explained above. Therefore, it would not have been possible to accede to the request of RHB for "Dark Fibre". The permission by authorities later on can be deemed to be in exercise of powers to amend /modify.
Provisions of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as below also clarify the matter:
"4. Exclusive Privilege in respect of Telegraph and power to grant licenses:CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 71 of 98
(1) Within [India], the Central Government shall have exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs:
Provided that the Central Government may grant a license, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to any persons to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of [India]:
[Provided further that the Central Government may, by rules made under this Act and published in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit, the establishment, maintenance and working-
(a) of wireless telegraph on ships within Indian territorial waters [and on aircraft within or above [India], or Indian territorial waters], and
(b) of telegraphs other than wireless telegraphs within any part of [India].
(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate to the telegraph authority all or any of its powers under the first proviso to sub-section (1).
The exercise by the telegraph authority of any power so delegated shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Central Government may by the notification, think fit to impose.]"
"3. Definitions: in this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, -
[(1) "telegraph" means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 72 of 98 any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.
Explanation: "Radio waves" or Hertzian waves" mean electro- magnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3,000 Giga-cycles per second propagated in space without artificial guide;]"
Extracts of Guidelines issued for registration of Infrastructure provider category - I by Deptt. of Telecom As per guidelines issued for registration of Infrastructure provider Category-I, dark fibre can be leased out/rented out to licensees of telecom services.
Section 8 reads as "8. The IP-I registered company shall provide dark fibres, Right of Way, duct space, towers on lease/rent out/sale basis to the licensees of telecom services on mutually agreed terms and conditions."
110.Investigation revealed that M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. was the empanelled SI with MTNL under the category 'A' & 'B' since long way back to 2005, providing technical support to MTNL as mentioned in the EoI of 2005. M/s Cisco is the Gold partner to M/s HCL since 1997 and signed a contract under which HCL has been getting discounts on equipments from 50 % to 95% from M/s Cisco (OEM). When OC started interaction with MTNL on CWG project as a routine exercise, MTNL was supposed to contact its SIs for technical support and to take assistance of SIs in preparing a proposal for a solution for CWG Project. EC of MTNL had approved the procedure of Roaster Basis to distribute the work CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 73 of 98 among their 3 SIs viz. HCL, ITI and Spanco in May, 2008 adopted by Delhi Unit in distribution of work earlier taken by MTNL. Following this Roaster, Delhi Unit had approached HCL in February, 2009 to provide a solution and budgetary quote (The replies from M/s ITI dated 18/01/2012 and Spanco dated 12/01/2012 revealed that MTNL has not approached M/s ITI and Spanco for the project). Though during investigation, it has been revealed that CPSL unit had not prepared a Roaster document/Register to follow the Roaster System to distribute the work among SIs. Sh. N. K. Jain has failed to produce any document during investigation, other than approval of EC/MTNL, regarding the use of Roaster for distribution of work among SIs. But at the same time, work distributed among SIs was found to be as per Roaster though no Roaster Register maintained by MTNL. The first power point presentation incorporating details of SoW was based on IP/MPLS Technology and was provided by OC to MTNL which was subsequently handed over by Sh. Jitendra Garg, DGM MTNL to Sh. Manish Awasthi, System Engineer, HCL. As the Cisco had been a leading OEM and Gold Partner with HCL it had also assisted HCL to prepare the proposed solution and budgetary quote.
111.It has also been evident from the investigation that though MTNL initially prepared Telecom Solution for CWG Project with the assistance of HCL and Cisco but they were approached due to procedure adopted for distribution of work among SIs on Roaster basis, moreover it was just CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 74 of 98 a budgetary quote prepared by HCL free of Cost (as mentioned in the EoI and methodology to use SIs). It has also been revealed that after taking this budgetary quote MTNL had planned to float a limited tender among all SIs, for which empanelment was extended from 3 SIs to 8 SIs. But later senior MTNL officials including CMD, MTNL decided to float a Global Tender for wider participation of SI/OEMs having thorough experience of Games worldwide on the recommendations of GoO.
112.During investigation it has been revealed that a Steering Committee was constituted to provide MPLS WAN connectivity to Delhi Government and to present MTNL's case for being a partner in providing telecom infrastructure for CWG-2010. The Committee consisted following Officers:
1. GM (Corporate Sales) MTNL Delhi (Sh. N. K. Jain)-
Chairman
2. DGM (Plg-II) MTNL CO - Member
3. DGM (MPLS) MTNL Delhi (Sh. Jitendra Garg) -
Member
4. DGM (TR) MTNL Delhi - Member
113. The mandate given to this committee was as follows:
(1) Work out the detailed technical solution along with the tariff structure & other commercial details for providing MPLS VPN services as per the requirements of Delhi CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 75 of 98 Government/NIC. This needs to be worked out immediately & communicated to Delhi Government. (2) Coordination with IT unit of Delhi (looking after the Wi-Fi project) and arrange for a demo of MTNL's Wi-Fi service to Delhi Government along with commercial proposal as requested by them.
(3) Be in touch with Delhi Government to explore the possibility of deploying the Metro Ethernet switches (Planned for procurement) at locations identified by Delhi Government.
(4) Have an audience with officers-in-charge of Commonwealth Games infrastructure to present its case for being a partner in Commonwealth Games.
114.During investigation, it has been revealed, that after above-mentioned 2006 activities, no further action was initiated until 2007. It has been further revealed that a committee was constituted on 03/10/2007 with the approval of Director (Technical), MTNL to examine the possibilities of expansion of IP/MPLS network in Delhi and Mumbai so that the reach of IP/MPLS network increased up to the important Wire Centres. Sh. Jitender Garg, DGM MPLS Delhi was the member of this Committee. It has been mentioned in the proposal that presently the MPLS network has been carrying broadband and IPTV traffic only and in future traffic of 3G, GSM, 1M broadband and Next Generation Network (NGN) shall be transported on IP/MPLS Core. It was mentioned in the note that in 2007, 4 P-core and 10 PE edge routers in each Delhi and Mumbai were working. The Committee was also asked to examine the CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 76 of 98 need of floating a new tender/EOI to expand the IP/MPLS Network. The above-mentioned file also revealed the design of the IP/MPLS Network available in Delhi in 2007. Further, Vide Office order no. MTNL/13- 12(28)/Plg.-IP/MPLS/2006-07/Volume II/Part dated 22/12/2007 MTNL invited prospective Vendors viz. M/s CISCO, M/s Erricson, M/s Juniper and M/s Tellabs from 02/01/2008 to 05/01/2008 to give presentations and propose solutions to MTNL's proposed Next Generation Converged Network (NGCN) to further expand its MPLS Network in Delhi and Mumbai. Sh. Jitendra Garg was also deputed in the proposed project on 28/01/2008 for drafting the plan for MPLS Convergent Network.
115.It has been further revealed from file no. MTNL/20-80(841)/2008- MM/IP-MPLS Part-II (IP/MPLS Project) that subsequently tender was floated vide TE No. MTNL/20-80(841)/2008-MM/IP-MPLS dated 26/05/2008 for the Procurement and Implementation of IP/MPLS based Convergent Network in MTNL Delhi and Mumbai. The tender was submitted on 11/11/2008 and 5 bidders viz. M/s ITI Ltd., M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd., M/s Tellabs and M/s Sterlite Technologies Ltd. participated in the bid. The techno Commercial Bids were opened on the same day and the Bid Evaluation Committee noted that all the bids were deficient on one account or another. The Committee recommended call for revised financial bids from all the bidders. It has been further revealed from letter received from DoT regarding complaint regarding national security threat in the field of telecom by China Based CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 77 of 98 Companies in which DoT asked BSNL and MTNL to take suitable actions in procurement policies taking into consideration the allegations of wanting to monopolize the business of supply of equipment to DoT/BSNL/MTNL and Manipulation of Policies through a powerful Nexus formed by China Based Companies viz. M/s Huawei, M/s ZTE Corporations and M/s Fiber Home.
116.It has been further revealed that Experience of Indian Registered Company authorized by OEM in case the bid is submitted by authorized Indian Registered Company on behalf of OEM of MPLS Routers as per clause 3.1 (b); In addition to the experience of OEM in para 3.2 above, the Indian registered company authorized by OEM of MPLS routers (Core and all type of Edge Routers) on their behalf must have minimum experience of implementation of at least 15 nodes (MPLS core/MPLS Edge routers) in a single network. These nodes should be in commercial operations for at least six months as on the date of submission of bid. The necessary certificates issued by operators in whose network the equipment is working should be submitted along with the bid in the format specified in clause 8.2(g) of Section-II.
117.Investigation further revealed that, different bidders had quoted different products with backplane capacity of core routers as follows:
S. Vendor Product Back Plane (Full
No. Duplex)
1. M/s Erricson T 1600 (Juniper) 800 Gbps
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 78 of 98
M/s ITI
1. M/s Tellabs CRS-1/16 (CISCO) 640 Gbps
M/s HCL
2. M/s STL NE 5000 E (Huawei) 1280 Gbps
118. Since the Backplane capacity was different, therefore the, per slot capacity was also different for different bidders. Tender requirement envisaged for backplane capacity of 640 Gbps (full Duplex). The solution at above Serial No. 1 & 2 was with single Chassis and solution at 3 was with double Chassis (Back to Back). Since all above products, met the tender requirement, therefore all were accepted by TEC.
119.Investigation further revealed that, in the 246th meeting of MTNL Board on 30/03/2009 all the bidders were requested to submit revised financial bid up to 15/04/2009. The same issue was also communicated to Joint Secretary (T), DoT, for information vide letter no. MTNL/20-80 (841)/2008-MM/IP-MPLS on 15/04/2009. Out of 5 bidders only M/s Sterlite had submitted the revised financial bid, the other bidders made various representations but didn't submit the revised financial bids. Subsequently Board of Directors, MTNL decided in 247th Meeting of Board on 29/04/2009 to cancel the said tender. It has been evident from the above that MTNL was working on the upgradation of the MTNL Network in Delhi and Mumbai which was based on IP/MPLS technology before the start of CWG-2010 projects.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 79 of 98
120.It has also been evident from investigation that concerns of some SIs/ OEMs except all 4 major OEMs viz. Cisco, Huawei, Juniper and Alcatel in respect of eligibility criteria was limited to 'experience of implementation of 60 nodes in a single network by SI and OEM (Clause 3.4 of Section II)' and 'use of same OEMs for P and PE Routers (Clause No. 3.1 (a) of Section II)'. The TEC recommended that as the CWG project involved around 127 nodes in the CWG (single) network therefore it was not advisable to reduce the 60 node conditions in a single network, which was almost 50 % of the actual requirement. On the issue of use of P and PE routers of single OEM, TEC recommended that routers from single OEM in the network shall ensure smooth service delivery of the critical broadcast video and security applications, avoid inter-operation ability related issues, reduce integration activity, uniform service provisioning, common configuration sets and maintenance tools, better spares management, common knowledge base & tool kits for faster troubleshooting. Hence TEC only amended eligibility criteria in respect of experience of 60 nodes in a single network by 'SI and OEM' to 'SI and/or OEM', but refused to allow different OEMs for P and PE routers. Moreover the four major OEMs were quite eligible for these above conditions.
121.It has been further evident from investigation that concerns of major OEMs viz. Juniper and Alcatel except Cisco and Huawei was in respect of technical specifications and specifically pertaining to 'logical partitioning CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 80 of 98 of P (Core) Routers' and '10G/40G Optical Transport Network (OTN) Interface'. It has been evident from Minutes of Pre Bid Meetings, Recommendations of TEC, opinion submitted by Independent Technical Expert Sh. Anil Balani, Scientist (F), Ministry of Communication & IT, Report submitted by Independent Experts of RailTel Sh. Himanshu Kumar, DGM (operations) and Sh. Dalip Kumar Tandon, Dy. Manager (Vig.) and replies submitted during investigation by M/s Alcatel dated 12/03/2012, M/s Huawei dated 27/03/2012 and M/s Juniper dated 01/12/2011 and 02/03/2012 that all were technically eligible and only due to their business hindrance not participated in the Bid. It has been significant to note that the TEC, MTNL in the Minutes of Pre Bid Meeting dated 28/10/2009 allowed two routers in lieu of logical router functionality on P-Routers. The router can be quoted as a single or multi chassis architecture. However, the minimum backplane capacity for each router shall be 560 G as defined for the P-Router in the tender and the solution shall not add to O & M complexities. The TEC also allowed external transponder solution to realize 10G OTN interface(s), provided it is able to provide integrated management functionality as available for the single integrated solution (i.e. with OTN interface integrated within the router) and provided the bidder gave an undertaking that the solution, will, in no way compromise the redundancy & manageability of the network. M/s Alcatel, M/s Huawei and M/s Juniper in their respective CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 81 of 98 replies informed that above mentioned technical specification were relaxed by MTNL in the last Pre-bid meeting.
122.During investigation requirement of 10G and 40G ports and 560 Gbps Core Routers/Backplane capacities has also been examined in comparison to requirement mentioned in the SoW (The calculation for 560 Gbps and 10 G/ 40 G interface is available on page 119 and page 283 -285 in the tender document). The network sizing and architecture is available on page 95-99 in the tender document. The following justifications, response and clarifications for requirement of 10G and 40G ports are as under:-
a) Organizing technical team had shared the Ernest & Young consultant presentation (dated 31st January 2009 ) with MTNL in the third week of February 2009 in which it was clearly indicated that ( Page no 3) that all uplink connectivity ( from core switch to MTNL network within the stadium ) to be provisioned on 10 Gig interface.
b) Again organizing technical team reiterated the connectivity requirement between local LAN networks with MTNL network in the June 2009. They had 10 Gig interfaces requirements for connecting the core switch to the MPLS network and for Router to Core switch connectivity. Refer OC presentation (slide 3 tier architecture).
c) 40 Gig interface were only used for Broadcast Video network for inter core connectivity. 40 Gig interface were required to meet the stringent Service level agreement (SLA) CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 82 of 98 Requirements, easy network operation, simplify switching traffic from one router to another router. It was very easy to monitor the live traffic of Video on fewer 40 GIG LINKS compared to large nos. of 10 gig / 1 gig links. Other network connectivity for Broadcast Video and MDN was on 10 Gig interface.
d) Total number of HD uncompressed Video streams as given in OC scope of work (SoW) were 60 multilateral streams. Since these streams are multilateral (Main Stream (60) + Backup Stream (60)), total bandwidth of 120 + 120 Gig is required for the Core Network to handle the Video Traffic. It may please be noted that one uncompressed HD stream occupied approximately 2Gbps bandwidth. To facilitate the same in best technical and optimal way 40 Gig ports are used which are distributed on two separate routers.
e) To facilitate 60 Nos of Video streams = 60x2+ 60x2 = 240 Gbps bandwidth, MTNL has following options a. Provide 240 Nos of 1 Gig Ports- MTNL has to provide 480 fiber cores to facilitate the same. This is not desired as single video feed itself is of 1.6 Gig.
Additionally it requires huge amount of fiber lying to done. Managing 480 fiber core is not possible technically and operationally possible by MTNL.
b. Provide minimum 24 Nos of 10 Gig Ports - MTNL has to facilitate 48 fiber cores to provide the same. This approach was not opted since it was not possible for MTNL to provision and manage the same effectively. It was technically difficult to maintain the high level CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 83 of 98 of SLA which was desired by OC to meet the Broadcasting Video requirement.
c. Provide minimum 6 Nos of 40 Gig Ports. This was an ideal approach. The solution is technically suited since it requires lesser no of fiber cores which are easy to provision and manage. MTNL has opted this option since it was technically best option.
d. Provide minimum 3 Nos of 100 Gig Interface= this is technically possible but the 10 Gig ports are not present in 2009 with all the major OEMs.
123.The above bandwidth calculation for broadcast network does not include the bandwidth requirement for audio commentary circuits and CATV services which were the part of broadcast network.
124.On the basis of technical expert opinion justification for 640 Gbps full duplex capacity (i.e. 560+2 Backend Slots with each having backend capacity of 40 Gbps) for Core Router Capacity has been prepared which is as under:-
Justification -1
125.The RFP asks for total capacity of 640 Gbps which is in line to TEC GR* Specifications for the Optical Router (TEC GR No GR/DCA-22/02 Feb 2006 on Optical Router). The TEC GR indicates the various capacity Routers varying from 80 Gbps, 160 Gbps, 320 Gbps etc. The RFP by MTNL asks for 560 Gbps duple capacity with 2 vacant Slots with each CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 84 of 98 Slot capable to taking 40 Gig Interfaces. Thus aggregating the total capacity for the Core Router to be 640 Gbps which is in line to the TEC GR*.
Justification -2
126.Additionally referring to Page 119, Table 3A BOQ for P Router, if we add all the interfaces required for Ph-1 for all the 8 Routers asked, the total capacity of the core comes out to be 4000 Gbps. The Port requirement of Ph-2 comes out to be 420 Gbps for all 8 Routers. Combined Ph-1+Ph-2 throughput for all 8 Routers comes out to be 4420 Gbps or 552.5 Gbps per router. Keeping in 15 to 20% extra capacity to meet Non-blocking and line rate requirement of the Network. This adds up to app 640 Gbps which is in line with the TEC GR for the Optical Router.
127.There are vendors in the market who supports this performance requirement:-
a) Cisco CRS-16 is a 16 slots chassis with throughput capacity of 640 Gbps Full Duplex. This box supports OTN Interfaces and also supports logical partitioning of the routers.
b) Juniper has T1600 Router which is an 8 Slot chassis with 1.6 Tbps Full Duplex throughput which meets the requirement and supports OTN interface and also supports logical interfaces. The clarifications issued by MTNL relaxed the condition of OTN interface on the core router and also relaxed the requirement of logical Router. Keeping that in CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 85 of 98 view juniper has an option of MX960 Router which is a 12 Slot chassis with the throughput of 3.84 Tbps Full Duplex.
This is a much cost effective solution for Juniper. Juniper has option to position any of the routers.
c) Alcatel has 7750SR-12 which is a 12 Slot chassis with 10 Interface Slots card. The Box has a total throughput of 1 Tbps Full duplex with 100 Gbps per line card slot. Alcatel has concerns for the 40 Gig OTN interfaces which MTNL has relaxed and 100G interfaces are allowed. This Box doesn't support logical partitioning which was also relaxed by MTNL to allow separate physical routers.
*TEC GR - Telecom Engineering Center (TEC), which in an entity of Department of Telecommunication (DOT) and part of Government of India. TEC issues Technical Generic Requirement (GR) documents for the various Transmission and IT equipments including Routers.
128.Moreover during investigation it has been revealed from page 43-44/c (M-68/12 Pt. 3) which was a letter dated 07/09/2006 from Sh. S. L. Satija, DE (MM-V) to GM (MM) Parel Telephone Exchange Mumbai explaining the applicability of BSNL Ruling on Limited or Single Response tender in open tender floated by MTNL-MBI. The letter had mentioned CVC guidelines and BSNL orders in which it was decided that a limited or single response to an open tender will not be viewed as a case of single tender. However, the accepting authority in consultation CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 86 of 98 with Finance has to be satisfied that a selected bidder meets all the tender conditions.
129.Hence the allegations pertaining to tailored eligibility criteria and Technical specifications favouring only one SI i.e. HCL and only one OEM i.e. Cisco, which ultimately resulted in single bid situation, does not sustain. The above mentioned evidences clearly proved that MTNL had relaxed both the eligibility criteria and technical specifications to the extent that will allow maximum participation from at least 4 major OEMs viz. Cisco, Huawei, Juniper and Alcatel and other Sis.
130.It has also been evident from investigation that from the very beginning when OC/CWG started signing the contracts with International Broadcasters (RHBs) the technology for transportation of Video feeds from IBC to Venues and vice versa was not defined, even in the signed Contracts of RHBs aspect regarding IP/MPLS and Dark Fiber were not mentioned at all.
131.Investigation further revealed that the tender was finally floated on 24/09/2009 after not receiving any objection from OC. Subsequently Pre- Bid Meetings were conducted by MTNL with Prospective Bidders and accordingly clarifications were issued and amendments were made in the tender to allow the maximum participation. The issue of technology i.e. IP/MPLS Vs Dark Fiber was raised for the first time in the World Broadcasters Meet-I (WBM-I) on 28/10/2009 by RHBs. Officials of Prasar CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 87 of 98 Bharti, OC and MTNL assured them that they are delivering the feeds on best technology and it was explained by MTNL to them that the network is designed in consultation with the OC and their Technical Advisor.
132.It has been evident from investigation that Secretary (Sports) Smt. Sindhushree Khullar informed Cabinet Secretary Sh. K. M. Chandrashekhar and Sh. Ajit Seth, Secretary (Coordination) that the draft Cabinet Note has been circulated on 17/02/2009 to the concerned Ministries, including Ministry of Finance, for their comments. However, there are differences between OC and MTNL relating to the technical Solution being proffered by MTNL. CEO, OC had made this point during the EFC meeting and this is reflected in the EFC Minutes held on 10/11/2009. Subsequently, CEO, OC had stated that, after discussions with MTNL, the technical solution was "satisfactory". However, the same needs to be confirmed by CEO, OC and the Department of Telecom before the Note is placed for Consideration of the Cabinet. In continuation of above matter a meeting was also held on 07/01/2010 under the Chairmanship of CEO, OC in which Director (T) MTNL, DG Doordarshan and senior officials of MTNL, OC and DD remained present. During the meeting the adoption of IP/MPLS Technology for Video Broadcasting in place of traditional Point to Point Broadcasting Technology and Proof of Concept /testing methodology for IP/MPLS Network was discussed to give confidence Level to RHBs. Director (Technical), MTNL emphasized that IP/MPLS Solution has been prepared CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 88 of 98 keeping in view of geographically different locations various venues/stadiums, number of HD uncompressed feeds required and various other requirements of the Games Applications. The solution is very robust, reliable, scalable and state of the art and will meet the various Commonwealth Games application requirement i.e. HD Uncompressed, Audio Commentary, Secure Data Network, CATV, VoIP etc.
133.Investigation further revealed that till 28/10/2009 OC had not given any specific technology requirement for video broadcasting. Further it is also evident from the above mentioned facts that the complete technical solution for Broadcasting High Definition Video was not available either with DoT or with I&B Ministry. High Definition Video Broadcast with Uncompressed feeds was first time conceived in India and technical solution requirement was not clearly spelled out by OC at appropriate time. The demand of MTNL for a meeting with RHBs before the finalization of SoW was also not addressed by OC in time. Objections of RHBs came very late and by that time Pre-Bid meetings with OEMs/SIs were deliberated and final amendments to tender were circulated among OEMs/SIs & OC and tender was floated. During deliberations it was both OC and MTNL who forced a option on each other that a technical consultant may be appointed for necessary corrections in network but the basic information sharing between RHBs and MTNL was not hastened by OC at appropriate time. Finally when Chairmen/OC CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 89 of 98 informed Secretary (sports) that RHBs were not willing to accept IP/MPLS for primary feeds and MTNL accepted to deliver the feeds on DF free of cost on the same optical cables laid for IP/MPLS Network. Finally Cabinet Secretary took the decision and allowed both the IP/MPLS as well as Dark Fiber for Video Broadcast concurrently.
134.Hence it has been evident that though over scoping in respect of transmission of data was done by transmitting the data from two separate technologies i.e. IP/MPLS and Dark Fiber. But no financial loss was incurred due to transmission of data through DF as it was done on the same path (Optical Cable) laid for IP/MPLS and done free of cost.
135.Further the redeployment of Network by MTNL at Delhi and Mumbai for revenue generation and upgrading of its services as per 11th & 12th 5 Year Plan of MTNL and their Convergent Network Project-2008 upheld the opinion that no loses has been incurred. Rather it created a network for MTNL with the monetary and administrative support of GoI in the shadow of Games.
136.It has also been evident from investigation that the Cabinet Secretariat constituted a Group of Officers (GoO) comprising Smt. Sindhushree Khullar, Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Sh. Uday Varma, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Sh. Govind Mohan, Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs and Sh. P.K. Mittal, Deputy Director General, DoT CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 90 of 98 which was to be convened by Secretary (Sports) to work out the financial implication of the connectivity proposal. In consultation with representatives of major user groups namely, host broadcaster, Organizing Committee taking into account the security related requirements the terms of reference of the Group were fixed as under:
(1) To finalize the Scope of Work involved in providing telecom and broadcast communication services at the level of integrity and Quality of Service (QoS) desired for the purpose of the CWG 2010.
(2) To finalize the infrastructure requirements consistent with the scope of work.
(3) To attempt an estimate of the costs involved in providing the infrastructure requirements under various options. (4) To recommend a cost effective efficient procurement option for the telecom infrastructure required for the CWG 2010.
137.The GoO in its report examined two Options for Funding the Project (1) Funding on Capital Expenditure i.e. Outright Purchase and (2) Wet Lease. The GoO suggested that it is desirable to adopt the wet lease model for funding the project keeping in view the fact the HDTV is not likely to be commercially available in the country in the near future and there are not going to be any further Games events of comparable magnitude for some time to come. Under this option, the telecom service provider provides the services and procures the equipment CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 91 of 98 through an open competitive bidding process so as to minimize the capital cost and recurring expenditure.
138.Investigation further revealed that MTNL had requested for 60% of the capital cost on a wet lease option for executing this project. Therefore GoO adopted a Price Discovery Method and Estimation of Cost. MTNL had initially projected a cost of Rs. 343 crore for the equipment and Rs. 65 crores as usage charges, excluding the operations of BSNL for two Games locations. These costs were exclusive of customs duty, service tax, octroi, excise duty, sales-tax and other levies which are payable extra as per actual, and, based on rough estimates since neither MTNL nor BSNL have invited bids for such types of equipments in the past (hence, it was not possible to compare the estimated cost with the established figures based on previous tenders). It was estimated that the projected cost would reduce in a competitive situation through vendors offering discounts against the listed prices, to the extent of around Rs. 60-70 crore. Hence, the reduced capital cost of the project in a bidding situation would be around Rs. 270 crore.
139.In the wet lease option, a system integrator approach has been adopted for the project as it will require software integration for management of various routers, delivery of traffic and messages in a hot-standby mode along with network management system. Taking into consideration the depreciation and cost of installation material along CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 92 of 98 with cost of staff for project management, the GoO calculated wet lease cost would come to around 64% of the reduced capital expenditure hence, GoO mentioned in its report that the amount quoted by MTNL, viz., 60% of the capital cost appears reasonable.
140.Investigation further revealed that concept of wet lease is very much dependent on 'Reference Point' i.e. who is wet leasing to whom. In its report GoO conceptualized the term Wet Lease for procurement of the equipments and recommended that MTNL shall take equipment from vendor for limited time for Rs. 182 Crore and return back the equipment to vendor after the games. (Who is wet leasing to whom was not clearly mentioned in the GoO Report). Though Sh. P. K. Mittal, DDG, DoT and member GoO in his statement and in writing to DoT clarified that concept of wet lease was recommended in GoO Report was based on the assumption that MTNL did not require equipment supposed to be purchased for games in the future. Therefore wet lease tender was suggested and it was recommended that MTNL should procure equipments on wet lease from any vendor through competitive bidding. Later on when Government Directors on Board of MTNL raised the issue that Tender was not based on Wet Lease, then CMD, MTNL and Director (T), MTNL claimed that from the GoO report it was presumed by MTNL that MTNL shall wet lease the equipment to GoI/OC for the games/ for the fixed period, therefore a turnkey tender for the procurement of equipment was floated by MTNL.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 93 of 98
141.Investigation further revealed that the claim of MTNL officials has been duly supported by very first noting on dated 02/06/2009 in files where MTNL had expressed redeployment plans. Even in EFC meetings the view for redeployment/reuse of equipment was expressed by Sh. R.S.P. Sinha, CMD, MTNL. Finally the issue was settled with the clarification from Sh. Ashok Chawla, the then Finance Secretary that ownership of equipment will remain with MTNL and subsequently also approved by CCEA in MTNL's favour.
142.During investigation it has also been revealed that the CWG Tender itself had incorporated plans to redeploy the same equipment at Delhi and Mumbai along with 11th and 12th Five Year Plans for upgradation of the MTNL Network therefore the idea for floating tender on wet lease could not impress upon.
143.Investigation further revealed that the budget of Rs. 30 crore for usages charges from the overall budget of Rs. 204.56 crore under the Technology Head was not enhanced by OC at all. The OC has paid Rs. 30 Crore as the usage charges only to MTNL. Rs. 182 crore Grant-in-aid support was capped by GoI through MYAS to MTNL. The rest of the amount was paid by MTNL itself.
144.Investigation further revealed that MTNL had the plans to procure the same equipments in the past (Convergent Network-2008) which was subsequently cancelled by MTNL. The future business plans of MTNL, CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 94 of 98 2008 onwards were collected during investigation vide letter No. MCV/CBI/RC-06(A)/2011 dated 07/01/2012 from Assistant Vigilance Officer (D), CO/MTNL which established that MTNL is earning revenue from newly redeployed and commissioned MTNL Network at Delhi and Mumbai. The 11th Five Year Plan of MTNL (2007-12) and 12th Five Year Plan of MTNL (2012-17) has also been collected from Corporate Office, MTNL and it is evident from the documents that MTNL were already working on up-gradation of its Network and planning to procure the equipments which were later used in CWG Network. Moreover after the games MTNL redeployed and commissioned the Network at Delhi and Mumbai (The redeployment plan of MTNL is available on page 86-89 in the tender document). Now, MTNL has started generating revenue from the new network. Apart from its regular revenue services which have been shifted on this new network, approx. Rs. 55 Crore has been received from National Knowledge Network (NKN) (Chairman Sh. Sam Patroda, National Knowledge Commission) for 19 Circuits of 1 GBPS each on 15/05/2011 and it is learnt from MTNL officials that approx. Rs. 155 Crore shall be received for about 91 circuits of 1 GBPS each at later stage from NKN. Therefore it has been evident that the CWG Network, which was later redeployed into MTNL Network in Delhi and Mumbai, after the Games, is generating revenue and has huge potential for future revenue generation too. No loss to the Government Exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. have been CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 95 of 98 found during investigation. It has also been found that Wet Lease option was implemented in accordance with the approval of Cabinet/CCEA. Hence no mens rea has been found against any official of MTNL, MYAS and DoT. The CPSL unit of MTNL though followed the Roaster System in distribution of work among SIs with the approval of Executive Committee of MTNL but it is evident in the investigation that the CPSL unit did not created any document or register to maintain the Roaster. Sh. N. K. Jain, GM (CPSL), MTNL was the incharge of CPSL unit and it was his responsibility to maintain the office record. The Executive Committee of MTNL when approved the Roaster System for distribution of work among SIs on the ECM Note put up by CPSL unit then it was the responsibility of CPSL unit head to follow the directions of Corporate/Head Office. His action created ample opportunity for adhocism in distribution of work among SIs. Therefore such action as deem fit by department is recommended against Sh. N. K. Jain, GM (CPSL), MTNL.
145.The hard discs/laptops seized during searches were also scrutinized during investigation with the help of CFSL, Delhi. The mirror images of all HDD/laptops have been prepared by CFSL and undersigned has thoroughly checked all the data available/retrieved by CFSL. The correspondence between MTNL and HCL, Power Point Presentations of HCL and documents pertaining to CWG tender were found in the mirror CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 96 of 98 images which have been already available in the seized files. Hence no new fact came to light after scrutiny of mirror images.
146.On the basis of the above paras, it could not be established that MTNL awarded the work to M/s HCL in an arbitrary manner and the tender was tailored in a manner that only suited one bidder i.e. M/s HCL and Cisco consortium is not sustainable. No loss to the Government Exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. have been found during investigation. It has also been found that Wet Lease option was implemented in accordance with the approval of Cabinet/CCEA.
147.Therefore, in the above circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this report, close the proceeding against the accused persons as there is no evidence worth prevailing against them and permit I.O. to return all the document to the parties from whom the same were received.
148.I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and carefully perused the record. The Commonwealth Games for the year 2010 were scheduled to be held in New Delhi as per the decision made by the Commonwealth Games Federation in the year 2003. Subsequent to this the Organizing committee for CWG (OC CWG Delhi 2010) came into being on 10 February 2005, as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Further 23 Sub-Committees related to the various activities were formed in the OC to advise the matters CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 97 of 98 related to planning and monitoring of. These Sub-Committees, including the Communication & Technology Committee, were supposed to establish the interaction, buy-in and coordination among the OC CWG Delhi 2010 and its delivery partners.
149. The investigation conducted by the CBI does not reveal any incriminating evidence against any of the accused persons, therefore, the closure report filed by the CBI is accepted. Case property or documents, if any, seized by the IO during the investigation of the case be returned to the rightful owner after the expiry of period of appeal, revision, if any. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (MADHU JAIN)
Dt.21.05.2014. Special Judge-CBI-01,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CBI Vs R.S.P. Sinha & Ors. Page No. 98 of 98