Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Baljit Singh Lalli & on 16 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No.01/2012
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002
CBI VERSUS BALJIT SINGH LALLI &
ORS.
ORDER
1. CBI has filed a closure report in FIR No.RC ACI 2011 A 0002 registered on 03.03.2011 u/s 120 B IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act(hereinafter referred to as PC Act), 1998.
2. The brief facts of the case are that for the purpose of award of "Production and Coverage" contract as part of Host Broadcasting for the Commonwealth Games, 2010 held in New Delhi, Shri B S Lalli, Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, New Delhi, Shri Vaseem Ahmed Dhelvi of M/s Zoom Communications Ltd., M/s SIS Live & other unknown persons conspired with each other for the purpose of cheating Government of India by way of abusing official position by the public servants to cause pecuniary gain to the private persons and corresponding loss to the public exchequer. It was alleged that the private company M/s SIS Live was favoured by way of making favourable contract conditions, manipulation in the CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.1 of 43 justification of rates, allowing extra payments etc. The amended contract conditions allowed M/s SIS Live to further sub contract the Rs. 246 crores contract to M/s Zoom Communication for an amount of Rs. 177 crores to execute the contract on their behalf, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of more than Rs. 100 crores.
3. XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 were held in New Delhi during 3.10.2010 to 14.10.2010. Doordarshan was appointed as Host Broadcaster (HB) by Organising Committee CWG 2010. Host Broadcaster is the organisation which has to provide the 'Basic Feed' of the games coverage to all Rights Holding Broadcasters (RHBs) and to cater the broadcasting requirements in an unbiased way of all the broadcasters around the world on behalf of Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF)/Organizing Committee (OC). HB had to act in close coordination with Organizing Committee, CWG 2010 and other Government organisations in accomplishing the HB activities. HB after floating global tenders pertaining to different HB activities including 'Production & Coverage' and after requisite approvals from the competent authorities in the Government, awarded the 'Production & Coverage' assignment to M/s SIS Live for Rs. 246 crores vide contract dt. 5.3.2010. On the same date back to back contract was CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.2 of 43 signed by SIS Live with M/s Zoom Communication, subcontracting major portion of the original contract for Rs. 177 crore. The games were covered by SIS Live in High Definition Television Technology (HDTV) as per the given mandate. Their assignment, inter alia, included the pre games activities (starting from World Broadcasters Meet (WBMI in October 2009), the games time coverage (314 October 2010) and the post game activities concluding with submission of post games report in December 2010. Payment of Rs. 148 crores approx. out of the total amount of Rs. 246 crores has been made to M/s SIS Live by Doordarshan. Due to certain shortcomings on part of M/s SIS Live, its Bank Guarantee has been revoked by Doordarshan. M/s SIS Live has also invoked the arbitration clause and presently arbitration proceedings are pending.
4. The result of investigation allegation wise is being discussed in detail in the subsequent paragraphs :
Allegation No.1 The tendering for production and coverage of Commonwealth Youth Games (CYG) in Standard Format was undertaken by Prasar Bharti (PB) , which had resulted in a single technically qualified bid of SIS Outside Broadcast, UK @ Rs. 42.13 crores. It was flawed and motivated as qualifying criterion was found to be too restrictive. Doordarshan (DD), in turn did this job inhouse at a cost of Rs. 7.85 crores only. For this coverage, DD had CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.3 of 43 hired equipment for Rs. 1.85 crores from M/s. Zoom Communications, which was also found to be irregular by the CVC.
5. Investigation has revealed that after Doordarshan was appointed as Host Broadcaster for CWG 2010 and Commonwealth Youth Games Pune 2008, the draft proposal for the Empowered Finance Committee (EFC) was formalized and submitted by Doordarshan on November 30, 2007 to M/o I&B for taking it up for competent authority's approval. The EFC proposal submitted had a component of Rs. 445.0 crore for Delhi Games and Rs. 49.0 crore for Pune 2008 Games. To attain the mandate of coverage of the Pune 2008 Games of international level in Standard Definition Television (SDTV) format and considering the inresources within Doordarshan, it was envisaged to outsource 5 of the 9 sportsevents besides Opening & Closing ceremonies. For the other 4 sportsevents, it was decided to rely on Prasar Bharati's (PB) existing infrastructure but augment it with dry hired (without personnel) facilities. The proposal was scrutinized in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (M/o I&B), which after pruning the proposal, took the same to Planning Commission with an amount of Rs. 366.0 crore for Delhi 2010 Games and Rs. 49.0 crore for Pune2008 Games. Planning Commission accorded the 'Inprinciple approval' in January 2008. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.4 of 43 The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved the said proposal on October 3, 2008.
6. The Commonwealth Youth Games (CYG) were scheduled from 12.10.2008 to 18.10.2008. Since, very little time was left for the entire process for Pune2008 Games and considering that there weree limited entities possessing the requisite skillsets, a limited global tender was floated, based on the details of entities available from Host Broadcaster Handbooks of previous editions of Games. These tender documents were sent in March 2008 to 8 different Companies/ Broadcasters. Response was received from the IMG TWI - HBS consortium and BBC Resources. The IMG TWI - HBS bid contained two different options which was against the tender criteria and, therefore, its bid couldn't be considered. Even in its technical bid, there were several deviations from the specifications set out in the tender document. The proposal recommending the bid of BBC (Outside Broadcast) was sent for the approval of Minister for Information & Broadcasting. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (M/o I&B) returned the proposal to the PB with the recommendation and advice that because this was a limited tender and prior approval from Ministry of for Information & Broadcasting had not been taken for this, a fresh tender should be floated immediately and this should be an open global tender. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.5 of 43 This recommendation came to PB from M/o I&B on June19, 2008. Accordingly a fresh open global tender was floated on June 20, 2008, in which 6 companies participated. Three of these, including M/s Zoom Communications were neither Production Companies nor Broadcasters and, therefore didn't qualify. Two (M/s Sun & Vine, UK and World Sports Group, Singapore) were Production Companies that had no experience as HB of any of the stated multilateral sporting events and, therefore didn't qualify. IMG TWI - HBS refused to participate in this second tender citing inadequate time for conducting the job successfully as the reason. Thus, only BBC OB qualified and recommendations of Technical Evaluation Committee were accordingly sent after due clearance by DG DD to obtain the approval of Hon'ble MIB on July 28, 2008. The recommendations were examined in the Ministry, which also sought the advice of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). CVC observed that eligibility criteria was unduly restrictive and advised retendering with less restrictive eligibility criteria by Doordarshan. This refers to criteria of 'experience for Olympics and/or Asian Games and/or Commonwealth Games and/or Pan American Games and/or South East Asian Games' and 'all the members of the consortium fulfilling the eligibility conditions'. With this observation, M/o I&B discharged the said tender and CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.6 of 43 communicated to PB in the first week of September 2008, when the Pune 2008 Games were round the corner (October 12 to 18, 2008). After due discussion within Ministry and Doordarshan, it was decided to go for the 'standby' arrangement as devised under the 'risk management' as there was no time left for full fledged tendering. Accordingly, under the circumstances, the 'standby' arrangement of 'inhouse' coverage in SDTV technology of all the 9 disciplines, besides opening and closing ceremonies was resorted to. Since, DD's OB kits/ vans were not having required specialized coverage equipment, as required at this level, it was agreed to arrange/ hire bare minimum, essentially required specialized coverage equipment which can be integrated with DD's OB vans.
7. With regard to CVC observations regarding the restrictive eligibility criteria, it is found that the subsequent committees at the Government level including the Empowered Committee at Min. of I & B did not consider it worthwhile to dilute the eligibility criteria for inclusion of experience of Pan American Games and/or South East Asian Games' as they were either found to be at much lower level or having different sports events than what is required at CYG/CWG. The tender document was issued only to renowned broadcasters/production companies, who have the extensive experience of production and coverage of games of such magnitude CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.7 of 43 at international level. Therefore, no inference could be drawn that limited tender was floated by DD to favour BBC (OB).
8. The coverage of CYG 2008 Pune by DD was better than the normal Doordarshan coverage, which was appreciated by OC. The coverage, however, cannot be said to be at par with international standard as coverage lacked in the required specialized coverage equipments that of international level, non provision of games specific specialized commentators, non provision of games specific graphics, besides grammar of production not being of international level. Therefore, comparing Rs. 7.85 crore, against Rs. 42.30 crore would not be correct for the reason that, the computation of cost of Doordarshan resources both the equipment (OB & coverage equipment) as well as manpower is not included in the inhouse option. Secondly, the inhouse option did not had the required level of specialized coverage equipment, sports graphics, swingcam, international commentators, sportspecific production teams, camera persons, etc. which were part of the envisaged coverage under the EFC approved scheme.
9. As regards hiring of equipment from Zoom Communications for CYG 2008, Pune, investigation has revealed that CVC in its enquiry had made following observations on hiring of broadcasting equipment for CWYG, Pune :
CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.8 of 43
a) Detailed specifications of items were not provided in the tender document.
b) The publicity given was limited because of perceived shortage of time for completion of an open tender. This resulted in low number of bids received and poor competition.
c) Reasonability of rates was not checked.
d) 6 tenders aggregating to Rs. 1.6 crores were awarded to a single firm M/s Zoom Communications.
10. Investigation has revealed that CVC discharged the outsourcing contract in respect of Production & Coverage of CWYG, Pune, only about a month and half before the start of games and thus responsibility was upon Doordarshan to cover the games with the available resources and also by hiring certain essential equipment from market. Shri S N Singh, Director (Engg.), Office of Chief Engineer, West Zone, Doordarshan & AIR, Mumbai explored the market and arrived at a conclusion that the cost of hiring such equipments for 10 days was going to be substantial, i.e around Rs. 1 crore. Accordingly, an estimate was prepared and intimation was given to the DD Directorate, that only open tender was possible and hiring cannot be done based on limited tender from the local market. Accordingly, a short term tender notice was published on 30.9.2008. The date of opening of bids was 5.10.08. Following 5 tenders were issued.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.9 of 43
Sl. Tender Description of items Qty Estimat
No No. ed cost
. (Rs.)
1 CWYG1 Long lenses 80X capacity 3 sets 18 lacs
with tripod
2 CWYG2 6 channel EVS servers 3 sets 18 lacs
3 CWYG3 Robo Cams alongwith 6 sets 21 lacs
DDRs
4 CWYG4 Track and trolley of 50 1 set 21 lacs
mtr length
5 CWYG5 Commentator Units with 20 sets and 18 lacs
micro phones and 1 set for both
facilities respectivel items
And Jimmi Jibs y
alongwith camera
11.On the scheduled date of opening of tenders, it was revealed that except for tender No. CWYG1 and CWYG2, in the remaining 3 tenders M/s Zoom Communications was the only bidder. In respect of tender No. 1 and 2, M/s Zoom Communications Ltd., Delhi and M/s Prime Focus Ltd., Mumbai had submitted bids. In respect of tender No. CWYG1, M/s Zoom Communications was L1 and awarded tender. In tender No. CWYG2, M/s Prime Focus was L1 but was not ready to supply the required quantity. Since, all the 3 servers were to be synchronized with each other, they were CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.10 of 43 required to be of the same make and model, it was, therefore decided to take all the 3 servers from L2, i.e. M/s Zoom Communications. There was a difference of Rs. 4000 per set per day in the rates of Zoom Communications. The equipments were technically and financially evaluated. Supply order were placed on M/s Zoom Communications Ltd. for hiring of the equipment on 08.10.2008 itself. The equipments were supplied by the firm as per specification and tender terms and were used during the CWYG, Pune held from 12.10.2008 to 18.10.2008. Total payment made to M/s Zoom Communications against all the above five supply orders was Rs. 1.11 crore. Investigation has revealed that essential specifications/parameters were given as part of the tender document which was necessary to have the specialized coverage equipment on hire. Further, since it was an open tender and the rates quoted were within the estimated amount, it cannot be said that the rates were not reasonable. Moreover, it is revealed that it was actually due to the limited time available with DD, that short term tender was floated in which M/s Zoom Communication happened to be the successful bidder. Therefore, this allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 2 Earlier it was decided that DD itself would cover the production of 10 events of CWG in the HD format and remaining work was to be outsourced. However, CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.11 of 43 this option was foreclosed by PB without assigning any reason.
12. Vide letter dt. March 26, 2007, Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 formally communicated to Doordarshan regarding its appointment as Host Broadcaster of Commonwealth Games Delhi 2010 and also forwarded 'HB Guidelines' document, on which DD officials (basically Engineers) started the preliminary work. A meeting was held on June 17, 2007 under the chairmanship of CEO, PB Shri B S Lalli, where officials from DD and AIR were present. It was emphasized in the meeting that the staff position of Prasar Bharati was depleting day by day without any substitutes and by 2010, the staff position would further be reduced. In light of this, CEO PB directed that out of 17 sporting events of CWG Delhi 2010 production of 7 events (Opening & Closing ceremonies, rugby, shooting, aquatics, athletics, lawn bowls) may be outsourced to foreign experts in order to offer programme of international standards to other broadcasters. Such a decision of outsourcing production of certain games will not only ensure high quality of production but also give a chance to PB expose its manpower to better professional growth.
13.Yet another meeting was held on June18, 2007 under the chairmanship of Hon'ble MIB, in which MIB emphasized that CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.12 of 43 Prasar Bharati will offer highest quality of production and transmission for Commonwealth Games. During the course of meeting, CEO Prasar Bharati assured that the Prasar Bharati team will hold a series of meetings with Mr. Patrick Furlong, Broadcast Consultant to OC to draw up an activity chart with timeline. He also made clear that Prasar Bharati would meet the international standards and will opt for lease/ hire/ buy, whichever is costbenefit as per the production requirements.
14.Meetings between Doordarshan officials and OC team including Mr. Patrick Furlong were held from June 25 to 29, 2007, during which Prasar Bharati informed initially that they wanted to outsource production of sports like Aquatics, Athletics, Lawn Bowls, Rugby 7s and opening and closing ceremonies. It was also informed that further outsourcing of Production of sports would be reviewed. After a series of meetings, it was decided that Doordarshan would take responsibility for the production of 10 sportsevents while rest 7 sportsevents (namely Aquatics, Athletics, Cycling, Gymnastics, Lawn Bowls, Netball, Rugby) besides opening and closing ceremonies would be outsourced. It was recorded in the Minutes of Meetings that outsourcing of these ceremonies and sports was considered the most appropriate method of securing the best possible "Specialist Teams" to produce these events. The Sports CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.13 of 43 events outlined above were critical to the marketing strategy of Fasttrack (the firm engaged by Organizing Committee for International Broadcast Rights), and need to be produced to the highest possible standard by production teams that specialize in these sports. Outsourcing the production will give Fasttrack the best chance to maximize Broadcast rights sales. It is relevant to mention that all the OB kits (in HDTV) for all the events (including for the events being covered by DD) were to be outsourced. Accordingly, the line of hiring on drylease basis and wetlease basis was adopted by Doordarshan/ Prasar Bharati and an interim budget proposal of Rs. 557 crore was formulated by DD/ PB for HB activities and submitted to M/o I&B in July 2007.
15.Investigation has revealed that the Military World Games were held in 2007 at Hyderabad and were covered by DD. After the games, due reassessment of Doordarshan's production personnel in terms of its present strength/ exposure, quality of coverage were reconsidered by Doordarshan and it was felt appropriate to concentrate on the coverage of 3 sportsevents by DD as HB. This was in line with the preparatory work being adopted by CCTV (local public service broadcaster of China) for Beijing Olympic 2008 where CCTV was deploying staff for inhouse production for 23 sportsevents. Accordingly, draft EFC proposal was formulated in CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.14 of 43 November 2007, where under para 2 (d) the issue of outsourcing was reflected and at par 6(a) it is clearly stated that "Doordarshan would provide coverage inhouse for three sportsevents out of the given seventeen sportsevents." Further it states that "Coverage of rest fourteen sportsevents alongwith opening and closing ceremonies would be outsourced to the best in the field from International market." The said draft EFC proposal was forwarded to Ministry of I&B on November 30, 2007. The proposal of DD was discussed/considered at different levels. In principle approval of Planning Commission in respect of CWYG 2008 & CWG 2010 was received on 30.1.2008. CCEA, in its meeting on 3.10.2008 considered and approved the proposal for HB activities for 2010 games of Rs. 366 crores on the recommendation of the EFC.
16.Thus, investigation has revealed that inhouse production of 10 events by DD was only a "wish" and not a firm "decision" of PB/DD and even the "wish" was to be carried out by hiring of equipment on dry lease basis i.e. equipment without manpower. As per the estimates to DD, this would have resulted in an expenditure of Rs.557 crores for the entire gamut of HB activities. Later on, it was realized very soon i.e. within 04 months, that this "wish" of DD/PB was not commensurate with the manpower availability in DD nor in line with the practice with major Games such as Beijing CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.15 of 43 Olympics of 2008. Therefore, as early as November, 2007, while preparing the EFC proposal, DD had clarified that only 03 events would be covered inhouse on dry lease basis. In addition, investigation has also revealed that there were sound reasons for not buying and instead hiring the HDTV equipment for the future needs of DD as it was explained by DD and agreed by the Ministry and the Planning Commission that equipment for sports coverage is sportsspecific and the requirement of HDTV equipment by DD for its normal functioning in future would be only a minuscule proportion of the quantity of equipment required for coverage of CWG. All these explanations of DD were a part of the EFC proposal submitted in November, 2007 and went through MoI&B, MoF, Department of Expenditure and the Planning Commission and therefore, cannot be said to be abusive to favour a particular vendor.
Allegation No. 3 An invitation for EOI was issued by PB for 'Production and Coverage' of the designated 17 sports events and ceremonies and not for a complete turnkey proposal which included other activities like setting up of International Broadcast Centre. This was done to favour M/s. SIS Live, which had, in its earlier avatar as BBC (OB), expressed its inability to provide a complete turnkey solution.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.16 of 43
17.The eligibility criteria and the scope of required work/services were defined by HB for the proposed tendering process starting from EOI. Series of meetings were held at the Ministry and Doordarshan on various aspects of the document including the eligibility criteria, scope of work, etc. Even meetings were held at the Cabinet Secretary level also in mid November 2008, where proposed EOI document was also discussed. It was thoroughly discussed at the level of MonitoringcumCoordination Committee at Ministry of I&B where representative from M/o Finance was also there. After discussion on all aspects of the document ensuring wider participation in the tendering process starting from EOI, it was cleared by the MonitoringcumCoordination Committee. After due approval of the competent authority, EOI for 'production and coverage activities' was issued by DD/PB under open global tendering process on December 26, 2008.
18.As regards BBC OB/ SIS Live, investigation has revealed that it was the Host Broadcaster for Commonwealth Games Manchester 2002 which included all the activities under the HB assignment, i.e., 'production and coverage activities', 'IBC activities', 'Booking cum Information facilities' etc. Although in the initial stage as part of RFI response in September 2007, BBC OB representative had quoted only for technical facilities but in the same email CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.17 of 43 correspondence, it has been mentioned that 'they would be happy to offer full production services as well, if required'. Further, in its RFI response of October 2007, BBC OB repeated the earlier RFI quote and stated that at this stage (i.e. RFI stage) they were not in a position to offer a complete 'turnkey' solution including the IBC. However, in the same mail, the Chief Technical coordinator, International operations, BBC OB sought specific and additional information from HB on the proposed IBC for Delhi2010 Games for their consideration.
19.Thus, investigation has revealed that M/s SIS Live was capable of providing a turnkey solution as BBC OB (SIS Live) had done so for Manchester 2002 CWG; that a turnkey solution would have resulted in a more restrictive eligibility criteria; that while approving the draft EOI for Production and Coverage contract, CE/PB had relaxed certain eligibility criterion such as experience, which allowed bidders other than SIS Live to bid; and that the EOI draft was also approved by MonitoringcumCoordination Committee of MoI&B, headed by Secretary, I&B, where representative from MoF was also present. Therefore, this allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 4 Prasar Bharati was selectively stubborn at RFP stage with respect to contract conditions so as to restrict competition from prospective bidders. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.18 of 43
20.Investigation has revealed that in the RFP itself, entities were requested to submit their queries to DD by the stipulated date, before the Prebid meeting. Accordingly, queries were received from these entities and clubbed under various subheads like Legal, Finance, Technical, etc by DD. The Prebid meeting was held on July 24, 2009 at Doordarshan Directorate. Both Prasar Bharati (Finance wing) and Ministry were requested to depute their representatives for the meeting. However, Ministry advised Doordarshan Directorate to hold this meeting. Response/ clarification to all the queries were provided in a document form. This document was distributed at the start of the meeting itself to representatives of all the five entities present during the Prebid meeting. A power point presentation was made to illustrate various points for bid submission, evaluation and selection process in accordance with various Clauses, Forms and parameters of RFP document. Entities were allowed to go through the DD's response and raise further query, if any. For further clarification, query - response session was held between the representatives of entities and officials of Doordarshan under the leadership of DG DD. Some of the queries required clarification/ response from OC, which were noted by HB and assured the entities that all of these would be CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.19 of 43 responded to by HB in the final queryresponse document to be issued by the HB by July 29, 2009.
21.Accordingly, Minutes of Prebid meeting along with final query response document which included all those points, which were raised by the entities before or during the Prebid meeting were issued, after due approval from EinC DD and DG DD (who chaired the Prebid meeting) to all the five entities on July 29, 2009. Each of the queries of the entities were addressed and tabulated. Thus, there was no scope for encouraging or discouraging any entity in the submission of RFP response. The categorization of queries received was not entity wise, so there was no question of discrimination or favour and at the same time not disclosing source of query before other entities. Investigation has also revealed that the reason as to why the other prospective bidders did not bid was because they were not comfortable with the restricted time frame of the contract and the payment conditions which were specified as 30:70 i.e. 70% of the payment was to be made after CWG. These bidders were insisting for more payment before the games. Thus, this allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 5 M/s. Nimbus Communications was 'persuaded" to submit a bid only to avoid a singlebid situation.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.20 of 43
22.Investigation has revealed that Nimbus Communications Ltd. was serious in its participation as it had entered into two consortiums, i.e. Nimbus Sports International (NSI) with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Nimbus Communications Ltd. (NCL) with International Sports Broadcast (ISB) for CWG2010. During initial talks and again at the time of expressing interest, both CBC and IBS have cautioned of the very tight schedule in this project. However, after lot of persuasion, both the companies reluctantly agreed to be the lead partners. After submission of EOI, which was delayed to 9th Feb 2009 from 30.1.2009, considerable time was taken by Doordarshan to shortlist the entities, which caused further anxiety with CBC and ISB. The consortium of NSI with ISB and NCL with CBC were also shortlisted and provided with RFP document in July 2009. After going through the scope of work and other terms & conditions as provided in RFP/draft contract document, both the lead partners observed that the scope of work was not pragmatic/realistic, no change order process was provided, unacceptable payment schedule, tight time schedule, selection of separate entity for IBC was to create problem in owning responsibility, responsibilities of entity and HB were not properly defined etc. Since, Doordarshan had been missing all deadlines since beginning of this project, both lead partners were very CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.21 of 43 apprehensive in delay being caused, which would eventually make execution of project very difficult. On the other hand, being an Indian company, Nimbus was aware of the working environment within India and someway managing its lead partners to continue, as it was a matter of pride to cover such a large sporting event being conducted in India. Meanwhile, the pre bid conference was held by Doordarshan and Nimbus conveyed its concerns to Doordarshan.
23.At this stage itself, both lead partners of Nimbus, CBC and ISB expressed their unwillingness to continue with this project. Nimbus, however, continued to make efforts to persuade them to continue. Both these parties insisted that they would not be the lead partners and therefore, Nimbus was left with two choices, either not to bid at all or submit a conditional bid with letter of support. At this stage, it was also decided to go with one consolidated bid, i.e. CBC/Nimbus, since ISB was much more reluctant to continue on account of separate entity being engaged for IBC. Despite, CBC having withdrawn as Lead Partner, Nimbus decided to go with the bid, so that it was in play. A letter from CBC was also enclosed with its bid, in which CBC had informed that it was withdrawing as Lead partner of the consortium as it was not possible to continue under the given circumstances and terms & CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.22 of 43 conditions. It was, however, added that if the concerns raised by CBC were addressed before October 2009, it would be providing full support to Nimbus. Apprehending, that the circumstances might change and Nimbus may get a chance to cover these events, the bid was submitted by it despite CBC withdrawing as Lead Partner.
24.After the submission of bid, a meeting was held between Nimbus and DG DD/HB officials during which, Nimbus was asked to provide the specific concerns of its lead partner, CBC. Accordingly, a letter dt. 10.9.2009 was sent by Nimbus to Doordarshan, forwarding a letter dt. 3.9.2009 from CBC, reiterating its concerns. CBC had requested considering change in payment terms, which according to it were usually predominantly in advance, shared responsibility between different entities, change order process to be in place and further defining the scope of work. CBC had also proposed that if HB was prepared to meet its representatives in the next 10 days to resolve these issues before the decision on bid, it was pleased to be reinstated as a partner in the CBC/Nimbus consortium. Thereafter, a meeting was held with DG DD and other officials of HB, but the proposal of CBC was not accepted. Bid of Nimbus was rejected being conditional and eventually, the contract was awarded to SIS Live.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.23 of 43
25.Investigation has also revealed that Nimbus was pursuing/had contacted various companies/project personnel, such as TV New Zealand, Zoom Communications, Alfa cam, Broadcast Solutions, Presteigne Charter, Charter House, UK, BBC, NBC Olympics etc for providing various services/getting associated with this project.
26.Thus, investigation has revealed that M/s NCL was indeed a serious bidder having filed two bids with two different lead partners, both of whom backed out because of their concern about the time frame and the payment terms. Also, M/s NCL made a last ditch effort to become eligible by putting in a conditional letter from its lead partner highlighting their concerns. These concerns, however, could not be addressed by the PB as they were bound by the terms of the RFP. Further, M/s NCL was found to have been in active talks with equipment providers, including M/s Zoom, which again establishes their bona fides. Lastly, M/s NCL has claimed that its bid was more than Rs.246 crores i.e. the bid of M/s SIS Live. Thus, this allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 6 M/s. SIS LIVE, UK acquired M/s. BBC (OB) in March 2008. The technical experts of erstwhile M/s. BBC (OB) [Mr. Alan Bright, Commercial Manager and Mr. Phil Aspden, Head of Commercial BBC (OB)], who had quoted a figure Rs. 52 crores on behalf of BBC (OB) at the RFI stage, responded on behalf of SIS LIVE by quoting an exorbitant figure of Rs. 246 crores. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.24 of 43 This was exorbitant when compared against the earlier offer of BBC (OB) of about Rs. 52 crores which covered about 6065 per cent of the work. Further, the bid of Rs. 246 crores was wrongfully portrayed by PB as being 26% lower than the bid of HSB/IMG received at RFI stage, by suppressing the fact that the latter was a bid for a complete turnkey solution, in which cost of 'coverage and production' facilities was only Rs. 172 crores.
27.Investigation has revealed that the RFI submitted by BBC OB in 2007 did not quote for number of items, which were part of the RFP for 'production and coverage activities'. On comparison, it is revealed that:
(i) BBC(OB) at RFI stage had quoted only for 12 OB kits, while as per the scope of work in RFP, SIS Live submitted the bid for 30 OB kits.
(ii) As per the RFI, the OB equipment were to be hired for 20 days, whereas as per RFP, the OB equipment were hired for 50 days.
Thus, the days of hiring of equipment were nearly two and half times. Composition and specifications of OB kits was also on higher side in the RFP visavis that in RFI response.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.25 of 43
28.Moreover, the RFI response from BBC OB did not account for following elements, which were there in the SIS Live bid : • No programming personnel like Producers/ Directors, Asstt Producers, etc;
• No component for Commentators;
• No component for venue operations and management;
• No component was kept for PreGame programming, Queen's Baton Relay coverage, component for graphics, HD ENG crews;
• No component for Production Quality Control (PQC) which were required to be stationed at IBC;
• No components for hiring of helicopters, motorbikes; • No component for freight of equipment and travel, transportation and accommodation of crew;
• No mention of taxes, duties, licenses, permissions, etc;
• The RFI quote did not have line items (single unit items) like one Production Switcher, one camera, one video server, etc which DD had asked in the RFP bid; SIS Live Bid vis-avis the bid of HSB/IMG received at RFI stage for a complete 'turnkey solution'
29.The RFI quote from IGBS was for 84.93 million USD {(Rs. 357 crore on the basis of exchange rate taken for EFC proposal (1USD = 42 INR)}, out of which Rs. 181.3 crores was for Production & Coverage CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.26 of 43 activities. However, the IGBS quote did not include following components:
a. Test Programme (TestEvents) b. Telecommunication services for linkage c. Customs/ Import duties for all equipment d. Taxes (value added tax, sales tax, luxury tax, consumption tax and like), bonds, guarantees, duties, levies or charges e. Licenses and permissions f. The RFI quote was for hiring of equipment for 20 days only whereas RFP bid had quoted for 50 days. g. Provision of sportsspecific renowned English Commentators (2 per Field of Play) h. Coverage of international and national leg of Queen's Baton Relay.
i. Expenditure on Presentation Studios, HD ENG crew j. Provision of office logistics for HB office.
30.Considering all the above items and on comparing the same with the scope of work under RFP, the amount of Rs. 181.3 crores quoted by IGBS for production and coverage activities at the RFI stage inflates to Rs. 302 crores which is much higher than Rs. 246 crore quoted by SIS Live.
31.Further, with regard to probable amount for said 'production and coverage activities' Mr. Patrick Furlong, OC's Broadcast & Media CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.27 of 43 Consultant had forwarded an indicative figure of 40 45 million USD to HB, which is close to SIS Live figure. It is also relevant to mention that M/s Nimbus during investigation has confirmed that their financial bid was much more than the amount of Rs. 246 crore, on which the contract was awarded to SIS Live.
32.Thus, investigation has revealed that the scope of work covered by the bid at RFI stage envisaged deployment of only 12 OB kits for 20 days instead of the final requirement of 30 OB kits for 50 days as per EOI. On a prorata basis, this itself would involve an inflation by about 7 times. Besides this, there were a number of other additions in scope of work at EOI stage. Similarly, the quote of Rs. 357 crores submitted by M/s. IGBS at RFI stage for a turnkey solution would have worked out to a minimum of Rs. 302 crores for the scope of work defined for the Production and Coverage contract at EOI stage. Hence, the submission of PB that the bid of M/s SIS Live @ Rs.246 crores was 26% lower than the bid of M/s IGBS received at RFI stage appears to be correct and the bid of SIS Live was not exorbitant. This is also corroborated by the fact that Nimbus have submitted bid higher than the bid of SIS Live.
Allegation No. 7 EOI process concluded in October, 2009 after nearly 10 months, thus creating an ambient situation for PB to respond to the Ministry that there was no scope for retendering as coverage of Queen's Baton Relay (QBR) was to start from 29th October, 2009 and CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.28 of 43 training to DD staff was also scheduled for October November, 2009.
33.Investigation has revealed that EOI was issued on December 26, 2008 and responses sought by February 9, 2009. 10 EOI responses were received and opened on the same day by HB. First meeting of EOI Evaluation Committee was held on February 15, 2009. EOI Evaluation Committee carried out the evaluation of responses and submitted its report within 3 weeks and recommended the short listing of four entities out of ten. After due examination at PB, it recommended the same four entities but it took almost one month at PB Sectt (through Host Broadcast Management Committee). Subsequently, the proposal was sent to M/o I&B for obtaining the approval of the competent authority, i.e., Hon'ble MoS I&B on April 2, 2009. However, the requisite approval was received from the Ministry on July 8, 2009, i.e., after almost more than 3 months that too with the increase of one more entity in the shortlisted list (General elections were held in between). Thus, the shortlisting of entities vide EOI itself took more than 6 and half months.
34.In the meantime, RFP for 'production and coverage' was finalized and issued on July 14, 2009 to all the five shortlisted entities. On the request of Smt. Aruna Sharma, DG DD through detailed note, Ministry reduced the time period for bid submission to five weeks. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.29 of 43 By the stipulated date of August 19, 2009, bids from two entities were received. TEC (Tender Evaluation Committee) completed its evaluation by September 8, 2009, during which about ten days were wasted at PB Sectt. in finalization of constitution of TEC (CEO & Member (F) had suggested different members of TEC). Thereafter, HBMC at PB cleared the TEC recommendations in one week and it got approval from the Ministry in next three days, i.e. by September 18, 2009. FEC meeting was called on September 23, 2009. The FEC submitted its recommendations to HBMC on September 30, 2009. HBMC took almost 3 weeks in finalizing its recommendations and Ministry approved the proposal in next two days, i.e., on October 22, 2009, enabling the finalization of the entity, just four days before the scheduled WBMI meeting and just 7 days before the opening ceremony of QBR's Live coverage from London.
35.From the above revelations, it appears that no particular individual or committee was responsible for the delay and it was not deliberate to achieve any particular ulterior motive. The delay was a divided responsibility, resulting mostly from intraorganizational personality clashes, besides multiple levels of decision making.
Allegation No. 8 A number of material alterations were made in the final contract visàvis the draft contract circulated with the RFP so as to favour M/s SIS Live. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.30 of 43
36.The RFP alongwith draft contract was approved by the Ministry for Information & Broadcasting on July 14, 2009 and the same was forwarded to all the five shortlisted entities. Prebid meeting was held in July, 2009, during which it was clarified by DD/ HB that this was a draft contract and it would be finalised with zeroedin entity mutually by the HB before signing of the contract. Accordingly, bids were submitted by the entities and eventually LOA (Letter Of Award) was issued to SIS Live on 22.10.2009, for the contract price of Rs. 246 crore.
37.Thereafter, SIS Live submitted their position on various clauses of 'draft contract' to HB/ DD on 29.10.2009. A series of meetings were, thereafter held between SIS Live and HB, when various clauses of the contract were discussed. Since, they could not arrive at any settled contract, Solicitor General of India was requested on the advice of Ministry by Shri B S Lalli, CEO, PB to guide HB/ DD on the matter pertaining to 'draft contract'. Accordingly, after a series of meetings with SIS Live and HB, Solicitor General forwarded a draft settled contract to HB, which was approved by HBMC & Oversight Committee.. A copy of 'settled contract' document alongwith other details were also forwarded to CVC to take them on board. HBMC in its meeting held on March 5, 2010 finalized the CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.31 of 43 'settled' draft contract document, which was executed on March 5, 2010.
38.Thus, it is evident that an elaborate process was followed in arriving at a 'settled' version of the contract which was settled by Ld. SG of India and approved by Oversight Committee headed by Minister for IB. Comparison of the draft contract with the settled contract further shows that the changes accepted were justified as otherwise the contract would have been very impractically one sided in favour of PB. The signed contract had no material changes from the settled contract. Therefore, this allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 9 Changes in clause 15 of the draft contract allowed M/s. SIS Live a window of opportunity for subcontracting the entire contract to M/s Zoom Communications. Whereas the original clause read, "entity shall not assign or transfer the contract or any part thereof", the revised clause read "entity shall not assign or transfer the contract or any part thereof but HB acknowledges that the entity will utilize subcontractors/ production associates for the performance of the services".
39.Investigation has revealed that the contract was settled after elaborate discussion by the Solicitor General of India and had the approval of the Oversight Committee. Therefore, while assignment and transfer of the contract or its part was not permissible vide clause 14 of the settled and signed contract, subcontracting was CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.32 of 43 permitted. After the games were over and HB came to know about the arrangement between SIS Live and Zoom Communications, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting sought legal opinion, as to whether the arrangement between SIS Live and Zoom Communications was breach of clause 14 of the signed contract (i.e. whether it was assignment or transfer of the contract).
40.Shri Vivek Tankha, Addl. Solicitor General had opined that in a subcontracting agreement, the contractor will be fully liable for the defaults of the subcontractor as if they were the defaulters of the contract themselves. The acts of the subcontractor do not relieve the contractor of any of his obligations or liabilities. The general principle is that the contractor is responsible for performance of his obligations and cannot excuse his breach by reference to having subcontracted a part of his performance. If the responsibility of successful performance of the Principal Contract rests solely on the entity then it cannot be a case of transfer or assignment. However on the other hand, if the responsibility and the liability for any defect or default in performance of the Principal Contract rest on Zoom, it would clearly be a case of assignment/transfer. Clause 14 of the Principal Contract squarely permits subcontracting. No restrictions are placed on what activities can be subcontracted or what portions cannot be subcontracted. In these circumstances, on CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.33 of 43 a plain reading of Clause 14, it is difficult to read into Clause 14 any restrictions on the right to subcontract, and obviously in a project of this magnitude, it may be necessary for a foreign contractor to take recourse to local staff and supplies. The Principal Contract encompasses this specifically by permitting sub contracting. Therefore, the arrangement between the Entity and M/s. Zoom Communications Ltd. cannot be held to be a breach of Clause 14 of the Principal Contract.
41.Comparison of the two contracts, i.e. one signed between HB and SIS Live and other between SIS Live and Zoom communications reveals that they are almost similar and deliverables have been shifted to Zoom Communications. However, nowhere does it mention that Zoom Communications will alone carry out such work and it mentions that SIS and Zoom would carry such work. Annexure D, that provides the list of Key Personnel is not in the contract signed by SIS Live with Zoom Communications. The contract signed between SIS Live and Zoom Communications also provides list of equipment to be provided by SIS Live. Further, SIS Live's share of participation was about Rs. 85 crore and, therefore, it can be concluded that the contract was not given in entirely to Zoom Communications by SIS Live. Thus, the arrangement CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.34 of 43 between SIS Live and Zoom Communications was sub contracting and not assignment or transfer of contract.
Allegation No. 10 M/s. SIS LIVE did not have a valid service tax registration no.
42.Investigation has revealed that M/s SIS Live had applied for on line Service Tax Registration in ACES Platform (recently launched Service Tax web portal of CBEC) on 17.05.2010 for registration under "TV or Radio Programme Production Services" i.e. "Programme Producer's Services" classified under Sec 65(105) (zzu) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. The party was automatically assigned online PAN based Service Tax Registration No. ABRFS3787LSD001. As the party failed to submit the physical documents to the Range Officer in the stipulated time frame, the formal Service Tax Registration No. ABRFS3787LSD001 was not given to the party. M/s SIS Live vide their application requested for cancellation of Service Tax Registration No. ABRFS3787LSD001 as the address in the application for registration was erroneously mentioned as #3, N116, Pansheel Park, New Delhi110017.
43.Subsequently, the party applied for online Service Tax Registration for registration under "TV or Radio Programme Production Services" on 03.09.2010 and the party was automatically assigned CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.35 of 43 online PAN based Service Tax Registration No. ABRFS4787LSD002. The party submitted the physical documents to the Range Officer in the stipulated time frame and the Service Tax Registration Certificate (ST 2) with Service Tax Registration No. ABRFS4787LSD002 was issued to the party on 28.09.2010. Thus, none of the two PAN based Service Tax Registration can be categorized/captioned as "FAKE". The documentary evidence to the effect can be shared, if needed.
44.As M/s SIS Live is a partnership firm, the liability to pay Service Tax arises on quarterly basis as per Rule 6 (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as amended. As per the Service Tax Return for the period April, 2010 to March'2011 filed by the party, they have deposited total Service Tax of Rs. 13.7 crore. The party has also deposited interest of Rs. 4.81 lacs on late deposition of service Tax.
Allegation No. 11 Schedule of payment was changed in favour of M/s. SIS Live, even though any such changes had been refused on request of other prospective bidders.
45.Investigation has revealed that as per the RFP issued and the signed contract, payment to the entity was to be made in the ratio of 30:70 (pre games: post games). However, due to delay in handing over the venues by the OC, M/s. SIS made a strong plea for payment of 30% of the 70% amount that was to be paid after the CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.36 of 43 games. This matter was taken up by Shri B S Lalli, CEO to the Ministry, which agreed to it after taking CVC on board. This was agreed to on account of delay in handing over of venue to the entity. Earlier payments to the entity were delayed. Entity had worked almost for 6 months without receiving any payment. The entity had stopped the work. It would have been a national embarrassment if there was no coverage of games. The change in payment schedule was approved by the competent authority on the recommendations of HBMC. Thus, the said decision to change the payment schedule was on account of the grave circumstances, created basically due to delay in handing over of venues and with the intention of coverage of games and to avoid national embarrassment. Moreover, the change in payment schedule only resulted in advancing 30% of the postGames component by merely 25 days.
Allegation No. 12 HDTV equipment was hired by DD from M/s. SIS Live at exorbitant cost, instead of out rightly purchasing the same.
46.Investigation has revealed that DD as RHB procured HDTV equipment from HB on HB's approved 'Rate Card', which HB in turn arranged and provided to DD as RHB through the engaged entity SIS Live. In the issued RFP document for 'production and coverage activities' under the HB assignment, there were FORM CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.37 of 43 FIN 2A (I) and FORM FIN 2C, where items (HDTV equipment) mentioned under FORM FIN 2C were meant for formulation of HB's 'Rate Card' for providing the same on hire basis to RHBs (Rights Holding Broadcasters) as per requirement of RHBs. Further, the per unit rate for these items in FORM FIN 2C were in consonance with the per unit rate given in FORM FIN 2A (I) for the same items. Since, the rates and prices for items mentioned in FORM FIN 2A (I) were meant for the calculation of competitive lump sum price of the financial bids of the bidders/ entities; the unit rates given in FORM FIN 2C also becomes competitive as they were pegged with the FORM FIN 2A (I) unit rates. As the FORM FIN 2A (I) was submitted by the bidder (s) in a 'competitive environment' through HB's elaborate tendering process on open global tender basis as per GFR 2005, the unit rates of items (HDTV equipment) of FORM FIN 2C and therefore that of HB's approved 'Rate Card' becomes competitive. In view of this, the rates at which HDTV equipment were procured by DD as RHB from SIS Live seems to be competitive. The outright purchase option was not considered feasible, due to shortage of time and non requirement of such equipment in future.
Allegation No. 13 PB caused undue favour to M/s. SIS Live by making payments for items which were the responsibility of M/s. SIS Live under the contract. CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.38 of 43
47.Under this head, the following items were covered during the investigation:
S.No Item Results of investigation
1 Lighting Consultant The conditions of contract were
ambiguous and the legally supported
view was that it was PB's responsibility
to engage a Lighting Consultant.
2 Synchronous The conditions of contract were in favour
Camera Risers/ of SIS Live and also the legally
Special Camera supported view was that it was PB's
Mountings @ Rs. responsibility. Moreover, it was resolved
1,70,96,500/ by Committee of Secretaries that it was
to be carried out by PB.
3 Deployment of key M/s. SIS Live substituted 33 of the 61
personnel key personnel without prior approval of
numbering 61 PB. This is a breach of contract condition
and at best a civil wrong, for which
arbitration proceedings are going on.
4 Shortcoming/deviati DD/HB has wrongly calculated the
on in equipment deficiencies in equipment. No major
shortcoming was found in equipments
during investigation. However, this
issue is also under arbitration.
5 Laying of Power The conditions of contract were
cables at Venues @ ambiguous and the legally supported and
Rs.50,19,463/ correct interpretation was that it was
OC's responsibility and OC indeed
CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.39 of 43
eventually bore it.
6 Incomplete coverage Entity covered 20 places, instead of 21.
of Queen's Baton PB had supplied 4 different lists of
Relay (QBR) places resulting in confusion. According
to two of the HBMC members, a
deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs should have
been made from SIS Live, a view which
was overruled by other members of
HBMC and the CEO Shri Lalli. Thus, it
was a well deliberated collective
decision. Moreover, this issue is also a
subject matter of arbitration.
48.It is further stated that allegations are not substantiated against any of the accused persons and therefore, the present closure report filed by the CBI be accepted.
49.I have heard IO Inspector Arun Rawat on the closure report. I have also perused the crime file brought by the IO in a sealed cover in the court. Present case was registered against accused Shri B.S. Lalli,Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, New Delhi & others on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct attracting the offences under PC Act & IPC in the matter of award of "Production and Coverage" for the Commonwealth Games, 2010 held at New Delhi.
50.As per the closure report filed by the CBI, during investigation no incriminating evidence could be gathered against any of the CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.40 of 43 accused persons. The various allegations against the accused persons have been investigated and their part is detailed by the IO in his closure report.
51.Also a bare perusal of the closure report shows that there have been two distinct areas of investigation in this case i.e. pre contract and post contract. One of the main issues relating to pre contract stage, or award of contract stage pertains to a number of alterations made in the final contract visàvis the draft contract circulated with the RFP so as to favour M/s SIS Live which finally resulted in the assignment of major portion of contract to M/s Zoom Communication by original contractor. As per the closure report this basic allegation could not be substantiated during investigation. The draft contract was very much negotiable between selected contractor and the Prasar Bharti. The contract was settled by the Solicitor General of India and finally approved by Oversight Committee headed by the Minister for Information & Broadcasting. Regarding the portion of contract entrusted to M/s Zoom Communication it was in the nature of sub contract rather than an assignment. It was violation of contractual condition regarding which Prasar Bharti had already invoked arbitration. There were other aspects also related to the stage of award of contract during investigation, none of these acts revealed anything adverse. The CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.41 of 43 argument that doordarshan had conducted a in house coverage of Commonwealth Youth Games Pune 2008 at the cost of Rs. 7.85 crores is not valid as this expenditure did not include the cost of doordarshan's own man power or equipment. Even the quality of in house coverage can not be compared with that of the BBC (OB) (which was specifically taken over by M/s SIS Live ) at the cost of Rs. 42.13 crores. There was an issue relating to coverage of 10 sports events of CWG 2010 by Doordarshan itself. Doordarshan itself clarified as long back as in November 2007 while preparing the proposal for expenditure finance committee that it should cover only three events inhouse on drylease basis. Similarly the decision to award individual contract (e.g Production & coverage to M/s SIS Live) rather than going for a complete turnkey solution has not been established to have caused specific favour to M/s SIS Live. A question regarding the bid of M/s SIS Live being exorbitant has not been established during investigation.
52.Regarding post contract stage the basic allegation that M/s SIS Live transferred entire contract to M/s Zoom Communication at Rs. 177 crores where as it has charged Rs. 246 crores from Prasar Bharti. Thus making a profit of Rs. 69 crores for itself. The profit accruing to M/s Zoom Communications itself was shown as high as Rs. 65 crores on the basis of advance tax paid by firm but Investigation CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.42 of 43 established that despite the sub contracting of a mojor portion of contract by M/s SIS Live to M/s Zoom Communication a significant portion was still carried out by M/s SIS Live, in terms of providing key personnel as well as different types of equipments. Similarly the documents collected during investigation revealed that M/s Zoom Communication made only a profit of Rs. 2.5 crores during the financial year 201011. Prasar Bharti also revoked the bank guarantee of M/s SIS Live, the matter of full payment being under arbitration. Thus investigation into the allegations against accused B.S. Lalli and other accused persons could not establish any Mensrea or criminality on the part of the accused persons. In view of the above said discussion, there is no infirmity in the closure report filed by the CBI. Same is therefore, accepted. The case property or documents if any, seized by the IO during the investigation of the case be returned to their rightful owner by the IO after the expiry of period of appeal or revision if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (MADHU JAIN)
Dt.16.05.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE:CBI,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CBI Vs. B.S. Lalli & ors.
FIR No. RC ACI 2011 A 0002 Page no.43 of 43