The CBI should be asked to investigate the allegations of corruption against Mr Dayanidhi Maran, a former Telecom Minister, regarding his involvement in the Aircel deal, according to the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an NGO, and petitioner in the 2G spectrum case. The CPIL said it filed an application before the Supreme Court in this regard.

Citing a recent news report and documents, the NGO said Mr Maran, as Telecom Minister, delayed the award of licences to Aircel by raising irrelevant issues.

“Feeling harassed, Mr C. Sivasankaran (Aircel's then owner) was forced to sell Aircel. In March 2006, Maxis Group owned by Malaysian business tycoon Mr T. Ananda Krishnan bought 74 per cent stake in Aircel,” it said.

“In November 2006, DoT [Department of Telecom] issued 14 LIs [Letters of Intent] to Aircel, and they were converted into licences in December 2006. Within three months of this, Mr Maran's family-owned business (Sun) received substantial investment from Maxis Group (Aircel) by taking 20 per cent equity in Sun Direct... Maxis Group invested Rs 599.01 crore in Sun Direct from December 2007 to December 2009,” the application said.

FDI CAP CIRCUMVENTED

Also, CPIL alleged that though Maxis' foreign investment in Aircel was 99.3 per cent, it circumvented the FDI cap of 74 per cent in the telecom sector by routing the balance investments (24 per cent) through the Chennai-based Reddy Group.

“Besides, a Maxis Group company (Astro) also made investment of Rs 111.28 crore in South Asia FM Ltd (SAFL), an FM company owned by the Maran Group. These transactions show a clear case of quid pro quo for getting the UAS licences by Maxis Group,” it added.

The NGO also alleged that Mrs Dayalu Ammal, wife of Mr M. Karunanidhi, the DMK chief, was deliberately not made an accused by the CBI in the 2G case. Besides, CPIL said it appears that the CBI was shielding Mrs Rajathiammal (Mr Karunanidhi's wife) and the Tatas in the case.

Meanwhile, sources said Mr Shahid Balwa — an accused in the 2G case — has written to the Joint Parliamentary Committee demanding that he be allowed to depose before it.