The 2G licences of some of the new players, including Unitech Wireless, could be in trouble with the Attorney-General of India disagreeing with the operators' view on meeting eligibility conditions at the time of applying for licences.
The Comptroller and Auditor General had alleged that the main objects clause of a number of companies, including Unitech Wireless, Loop Telecom and Alliance Infratech (now Etisalat DB), did not include telecom and the resolution in making the change was not registered at the time of applying for mobile licences.
Some of these companies had argued that the effective date of alteration in the objects clause is the date of the resolution passed by the shareholders. For example, Unitech's shareholders had passed a special resolution on September 19, 2007, and the company had applied for licence on September 24.
“According to the reply of the company, the effective date of alteration in the objects clause is the date of the resolution passed by the shareholders. I am afraid I cannot agree with this,” Mr Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney-General of India, said in his response to a query from the Department of Telecom.
The DoT had sought the opinion of the Attorney-General on the issue of cancelling six licences to Unitech Wireless' subsidiary Adonis Projects. Mr Vahanvati's observations will be applicable for others like Loop Telecom and Etisalat DB.
On the issue of required authorised capital at the time of applying for licences, Mr Vahanvati said that the authorised capital stands increased only when the resolution is duly filed with the Registrar. “Without giving notice to the Registrar, the authorised capital cannot be said to have been increased,” he said.
Unitech's legal counsel had earlier told the Supreme Court that there is no clause in the licence which requires having telecom activity as part of the company's object clause, but even then the company had notified the Registrar of Companies soon after the shareholders passed the resolution.