Entry Fee Calculation Sheet: Fill & Download for Free

After a decade studying this phenomenon I can sum it up like this: “If you really want to tinker with Excel learn Access. You’ll be the best Excel guy in a five block radius. I was such a guy, so trust me. The problem is, if you really know Access, you don’t want to tinker with Excel beyond a 1000 rows or so. A litmus test? Anybody who uses empty rows and columns for report formatting in Excel should stop right now and take an Access course.”Here is a personal story.Sunk cost fallacies and degrees of freedomI once was asked to troubleshoot an Excel system that was hosted on 10 (SIC) different computers, all chugging along for hours, to do incredible complicated things. After that, a “master sheet” took al the results from a network folder, and then took another two hours to make reports! Maintenance was a nightmare… but hey… Excel worked! The manager, who had grown this monster in five years, never realized the extreme total cost of ownership. He had no idea about relational database design. And he had no idea he became Dr Frankenstein as a direct result of using the wrong tool. Because… the tool never broke. But now, the system had a bug, and he needed it fixed. In Excel. Because I was the whizz who knew Excel. So in my free time, three days and some, I rebuild his entire system in Access. I took calculation time down by a factor of 10.000, the size down 100 fold, and made it multi user. The owner was flabbergasted, but still very weary.Until, as an aside, I showed him how the live export pipe to Excel with MsQuery worked. The joy! He bought the system, then and there, but not because my version was better, faster, smaller cheaper, and had lower TCO. The ability to keep tinkering with stuff in Excel gave his life meaning. I could never persuade him to learn Access. He has treated my system like a black box, a function in his sheets. Because as he repeatedly said, “databases are for nerds.” To him, he was not running a database system with the wrong tools. How did he and so many people end up where he was? Why does Excel no cry out after 10 tables in the same sheet, you should be using Access?Now here is the catch, I think. Excel is great. It is very very offroad, extremely forgiving and has lot’s of degrees of freedom. You can do almost anything with it, a Swiss Knife. Excel will not punish for bad design choices by not running. It will chug along for five years, scale to creeping halt but oh so slowly. The punishment comes in the form of Excel unrelated things: unmanageable 40Mb calculation sheets, no logging, and weekends overtime on debugging. It’s never Excels fault though, or yours. The breakeven point between excel and access, however, is at 1000 rows are so, … and four years back in your life.Databases are hard to intuitBut yes. Databases are really counter-intuitive. It’s an acquired taste. When you design a table, you have to design from the exception, and not the usual. Exceptions are abstract notions, that we normally treat as well… an exception. Not in database land, where the most outlying exception, the boundary, defines the norm. Relational table design is nearly math. Again, relationsships need to be designed from the viewpoint of rare instances. (Most people you know have only one home address but we must allow for infinitely many for a food chain. Most pilots fly one plane at the time, except for drone pilots.)Because of the propagation of database design throughout the system this is even true for Excel. Things like data entry, calculations, filtering, storage, queries and reporting need to be separated. Even in Excel. The design of Excel, it’s menu entries, it’s wizards, it’s data exports functions, it all does call to you ever so softly: “Things will be even better if you structure data properly!” For instance: Excel expects ranges to be continuous data rows with proper headers on each columns. Here is a rule: Do not use empty rows or columns for formatting. Try to use autofilter, range pasting, or auto-formatting and you see why. Most beginners Quora questions, however, are about the Excel behaving “un intuitive” from a-back-of-the napkin-calculation perspective. Every beginner will put aggregates and result rows in the same table structure, and than separate them out with empty rows, instead of say using row heights. Because there is no intuitive reason why functional separation would be the way to go, why it would scale better, why it would lead to less maintenance, more speed and more robustness. That is until you understand database design. Excel works better if you know Access.In short; Database systems do not scale up from intuition. Data designs do not grow from back of the napkin solutions. Excel does. Until it doesn’t.The first cigarette will not kill you, the last one will. Excel will not tell you you were wrong until it’s long long long overdue, and you will blame everything but Excel. Hell, with my background in database design I could even prolong the inevitable for quite some years, for tons of consultancy fees, but I won’t. :) I wont lie, I love spreadsheets, but if you happen to have a 10Mb + excel-calculation-monster to run your business… you are using my beloved spreadsheet for the wrong reasons. There is a monster lurking under your bed. Better hire a database person. Just politely, ask her to keep the data structures in Excel or exportable, so you can keep tinkering and feel great about yourself.

Please compare the recent judgments of rafale deal and 2G spectrum cases by Supreme Court in a nut shell.Rafale Judgement:- The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a group of petitions that demanded an investigation into the controversial Rafale fighter jet deal, saying that it was satisfied that the process for procurement had been complied with.The judgement was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.“We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the [decision-making] process [on the Rafale deal], and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court,” the bench has said. “We have been informed that joint exercises have taken place, and that there is a financial advantage to our nation. It cannot be lost sight of, that these are contracts of defense procurement which should be subject to a different degree and depth of judicial review. Broadly, the processes have been followed.”2G spectrum Judgement:- In exonerating all the accused, CBI special judge O.P. Saini said, “I have no hesitation in holding that record is not sufficient and the prosecution has miserably failed in proving charges. All accused are acquitted.”What difference do you find? In 2G case the prosecution has failed to prove charges.Does it fail because of incompetence or deliberate. This doubt gives rise as the investigation conducted during UPA regime and also there seems to be the evidences were destroyed.Here is the time line of the case and you can observe that the investigation was mostly carried through UPA regime.2007May: A. Raja appointed telecom minister.August: Department of Telecommunications (DoT) initiates the process of allotment of 2G Spectrum and licences.October: Raja announces that on the recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, there would be no auction of spectrum, which would be allocated. DoT receives 575 applications from 46 firms.2008January: DoT decides to issue licenses on a first-come, first-served basis with a retrospective cut-of date of 25 September 2007.2009May: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) receives a complaint from Telecom Watchdog, a non-government organization, alleging illegalities in 2G spectrum allocation. CVC orders a probe by the CBI.July: The Delhi high court rules that the cut off date for license applications of 25 September 2007 is illegal.October: A first information report is filed by the CBI against “unknown officers” of DoT and unknown private persons/companies under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act.2010September: The Supreme Court issues notice to the Center and Raja on a petition by the Center for Public Interest Litigation, an NGO, over an alleged Rs70,000 crore scam in granting 2G licenses in 2008.November: A Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report, tabled in the Lok Sabha, says that allocation of 2G spectrum led to a presumptive loss of Rs1.76 trillion to the exchequer.Raja steps down as telecom minister.2011February: The Supreme Court asks the Center to constitute a special court for hearing cases related to irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum.Raja is sent to 14 days in judicial custody for his alleged involvement in the case. Shahid Usman Balwa, then director of Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd, is also remanded to judicial custody.March: A special CBI court is set up for hearing cases related to the so-called 2G scam.April: The first charge sheet filed by CBI names Raja, Balwa and Raja’s ex-private secretary R.K. Chandolia, along with Reliance Group managing director Gautam Doshi, senior vice president Hari Nair, group president Surendra Pipara, Swan Telecom promoter Vinod Goenka and Unitech Ltd managing director Sanjay Chandra. Reliance Telecom Ltd, Swan Telecom Pvt Ltd and Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd are also charge sheeted.DMK chief M. Karunanidhi’s daughter and MP Kanimozhi and four others are named in the second charge sheet filed by CBI.October: The special CBI court frames charges against all accused.November: The special CBI court begins trial.The Supreme Court grants bail to five corporate executives, namely Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka, and Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara.The Delhi high court grants bail to Kanimozhi, Sarath Kumar of Kalaignar TV, Karim Morani of Cineyug and DB Realty’s Rajiv Aggarwal and Asif Balwa.The special CBI court grants bail to Shahid Balwa.December: CBI files a third charge sheet, naming Essar Group promoters Anshuman and Ravi Ruia, its director (strategy and planning) Vikas Saraf, Loop Telecom Pvt. Ltd promoters Kiran Khaitan and her husband I. P Khaitan, along with Loop Telecom, Loop Mobile India Ltd and Essar Tele Holding.2012February: The Supreme Court cancels 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allocated to nine companies in January 2008 during Raja’s tenure, saying the process of allocation was flawed. It orders that the spectrum be auctioned.The Supreme Court asks the special CBI court to decide on P. Chidambaram’s alleged role in the case within 2 weeks. Also asks CBI to supervise the probe and submit a status report on the investigation to the central vigilance commission (CVC).Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy moves the Supreme Court, challenging the special court’s order dismissing his plea to make Chidambaram a co-accused in the 2G case.Center for Public Interest Litigation moves the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the CBI to conduct a thorough investigation into the alleged role of Chidambaram in spectrum allocation irregularities.August: The Supreme Court dismisses a plea for a CBI inquiry against Chidambaram, saying that there was no material to establish that he abused his official position as the finance minister.2014August: Enforcement Directorate (ED) files a charge sheet before the special CBI court against Raja, Kanimozhi, and 17 others in connection with a suspected case of money laundering related to the 2G spectrum allocation irregularities. It also names DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal, Swan Telecom promoters Shahid Usman Balwa and Vinod Goenka as accused in the case, in which it alleges that Rs200 crore was paid by Swan promoters to DMK-run Kalaignar TV.October: Charge of money laundering made out against A. Raja, Kanimozhi and others by a special CBI court. Trial to commence on 11 November.2015November: The Supreme Court rejects a plea by Kanimozhi for quashing of charges against her.201726 April: The special CBI court reserves verdict in 2G spectrum allocation case.21 December: The special court acquits all accused.So how it was done.TheCBI failed to produce any records or registers at former United Progressive Alliance (UPA) minister Andimuthu Raja’s residence at Motilal Nehru Marg in Central Delhi or at his office to prove its charge that both Shahid Balwa, the promoter of DB Realty, and Vinod Goenka, the chairman of DB Realty, were close acquaintances of Raja since his days as the environment minister in 2004. The CBI instead produced Raja’s private secretary Aseervatham Achary as a witness in court. Achary testified before the court that he had seen Raja meeting Balwa and Goenka more than 20 times at Raja’ residence. However, Achary failed to substantiate his statements through documentary evidence for the same despite the fact that as Raja’s man-Friday he was responsible for maintaining the minister’s daily engagement charts. When daily charts maintained by Achary were produced in the court, nowhere were the names of Balwa or Goenka found. The CBI tried to counter the lack of evidence by stating that Balwa and Goenka’s names were deliberately not recorded in the register when they visited Raja. However, the court dismissed Achary’s testimony as unreliable, calling him a man with political inclinations. What further complicated the investigation was that even as he was one of the men closest to Raja and aware of his every single meeting, Achary’s statement was not recorded before a magistrate with a sense of urgency. Achary’s statement was taken by CBI’s investigating officer only in 2011, while the first case was registered by the agency in 2009.The CBI further tried to establish proximity and conspiracy between Raja and Balwa by alleging that a company in which Raja’s close associates were directors received money from Balwa’s DB Realty. The company in question was Greenhouse Promoters, owned by Sadiq Batcha, an associate of Raja. Batcha allegedly committed suicide at his Chennai residence in 2011. While CBI alleged that Batcha’s company had received and returned more than Rs 1 crore to Balwa’s company, the court did not find this evidence as an indication of Raja’s close relationship with Balwa and Goenka, or this transaction as being conspiratorial in nature. The CBI, by the look of the court's observations, did not produce considerable documentary evidence to support its claim that Rs 200 crore had been paid to Kalaignar TV, affiliated to DMK patriarch Karunanidhi, by Balwa’s DB Realty. The CBI introduced a driver at Greenhouse Promoters, its managing director and a director as witnesses. But none of them could substantiate the CBI’s allegations of kickbacks to Kalaignar TV.All of this raises questions on the kind of investigation that was carried out. Why did the agency wait for almost two years before taking Achary’s statement, despite knowing that he was Raja’s secretary and privy to all his meetings? Why did CBI keep on pressing the charge of multiple meetings among the three when it had only a delayed statement from Achary and no documentary evidence to back its claim? Why did the CBI not requisition bank account statements (or not produce them in court) to substantiate its allegations that kickbacks to the tune of Rs 200 crore were paid to Kalaognar TV? Why did the CBI rely on drivers and directors to substantiate this claim when it was well within its powers to requisition or seize bank account statements of all people and companies it suspected of having received kickbacks? If the CBI hadn’t recovered any incriminating documentary evidence in its multiple raids during the probe, why did it choose to mention the Rs 200-crore kickback in its charge sheet?The CBI alleged in its charge sheet that Raja had fixed the cut-off dates in a manner that favored two companies –Uni tech and Swan Telecom (allegedly owned by Reliance Communications Limited) but failed to convince the court about its conspiracy theory. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) sent its recommendation to Raja’s office on the grant of licenses to telecom operators on August 29, 2007. A note was sent by A K Srivastava, then a joint-secretary-level officer in the ministry of telecommunications, to his superiors on September 24, 2007, with a proposal to set the cut-off date for receiving applications as October 10, 2007. According to the evidence produced in the court, on the same day Raja sent back the note saying that the cut-off date should be fixed as October 1, 2007. Srivastava had in his note explained that around 167 applications had been received following Trai’s recommendations and, given the massive rush for licences, a cut-off date should be set. The CBI’s case rested on Srivastava’s testimony that Raja’s private secretary R K Chandolia, also listed as an accused by the CBI, was constantly inquiring from him about Unitech’s bid.But the court found Srivastava’s statement about a huge rush in applications following acceptance of Trai’s recommendation to be false. Documents produced in the court showed that only two companies had filed applications after the acceptance of Trai’s recommendation, and 124 applications were previously pending for approval. The CBI’s investigating officer deposed that there was a surge in applications but could not produce any documentary evidence to satisfy the judge. Unitech’s representative, meanwhile, deposed that he had submitted the company’s application on the morning of September 24, 2007. Srivastava deposed that he issued a press release on the same evening announcing the cut-off date as October 1, 2007. The CBI failed to adequately cross-question any of the witnesses, including Raja, on the coincidence of the above-mentioned events, despite claiming in its charge sheet that there was constant communication between Raja and Unitech group regarding the cut-off date. The CBI prosecution put two questions to Raja – none of them challenging Raja’s claim that there was no conspiracy. This led even Justice O P Saini, who delivered the judgment, to observe: “Prosecution put only two questions to Raja on cut-off dates. No question was put to Raja on whether the cut-off date was fixed by him in conspiracy with Swan Telecom andUnitech group of companies to help them in the matter of UAS licences and allocation of spectrum.” The CBI did not substantiate Srivastava’s claim that he was being constantly asked about Unitech’s bid by Chandolia for the reason that Srivastava could not tell the court the name of the junior officer from whom he had inquired about Unitech’s bid following calls from the most proximate bureaucrat in Raja’s ministry.In many ways, the CBI’s case to prove collusion between Raja and Unitech rested on the fact that Raja had decided to issue Letters of Intent (LOIs) only to those who had submitted applications by September 25, 2007. This effectively meant that Unitech, which had submitted its application on the morning of September 24, would have been one of the last ones to be issued letters of intent for an allocation of spectrum. The CBI’s allegation was that this led to a shuffling of the priority list and allowed Swan Telecom to bag prime spectrum in national capital Delhi. Additionally, the CBI contended that Raja’s decision to set cut-off date as September 25, 2007, ensured that even though adequate spectrum wasn’t available in various circles, Unitech and its subsidiaries were allocated spectrum.However, the examination of CBI witnesses, comprising senior bureaucrats of the telecom ministry, failed to prove that the decision to change the rules was Raja’s alone. Letters written by these bureaucrats indicated that the sole criteria to be used for issuing LoIs should be to keep the availability of spectrum in mind. But the judge observed that the bureaucrats failed to inform and advise Raja, despite having an obligation to so. The CBI’s charges were quashed after it became evident that there were 575 applicants who had submitted applications in time and there was not enough spectrum to give all of them. The court observed that all senior bureaucrats were well aware of the fact that given the limited availability of spectrum, a cut-off date of September 25, 2007, for issuing LoIs was the only option. The court observed: “So the blame for shifting the cut-off date to September 25, 2007, cannot be put on Raja alone.”Furthermore, even the CBI’s own witnesses produced in court – four senior bureaucrats of the telecom ministry, including Srivastava – failed to substantiate the CBI’s claim that the date was changed on Raja’s insistence. The court observed that although CBI was keen to prove that Raja had taken the decision to change the cut-off dates, the CBI’s own witnesses who were involved in the decision-making process in their respective capacities as senior bureaucrats were never questioned on the matter.The CBI had further alleged in its charge sheet that Raja further tinkered with the rules of the first-come-first-served basis by deleting a paragraph in the draft LoI. This paragraph stated that a license agreement for allocation of spectrum would be signed with those who had paid the entry fees first. This according to CBI’s charge sheet was a “malicious design” meant to benefit the accused companies. But Shah Nawaz Alam, the director of wireless finance in the ministry of telecommunications, who deposed as a prosecution witness before the court failed to back the CBI’s theory, told the court that he had suggested the deletion of the paragraph from the draft LoI but did not know who had actually deleted it. Other CBI witnesses also failed to back the agency’s claim, leading the court to observe that “witnesses have completely disowned the prosecution’s case”.The CBI charge sheet as produced in the court accused Raja of misleading the then prime minister Manmohan Singh on the issue of changing of cut-off dates and changing contours of the first-come-first-served policy. The CBI produced a letter written by Raja to Manmohan Singh on November 2, 2011, in which Raja states that an unprecedented number of applications were being received after the acceptance of Trai’s recommendations on August 29, 2007. However, the judge had rejected this contention earlier while deciding records placed before it showed that only two companies had filed applications between August 29 and September 24, 2007.It is this very contention, among others, on the basis of which the court had called A K Srivastava, one of the CBI witnesses, as unreliable. The CBI failed to flag this issue in the court. Although the CBI produced this letter in the court with the PM’s notings, the court itself noted that the file in which the letter was processed in the PMO wasn’t produced as evidence.Furthermore, another letter written by Raja to Manmohan Singh in November 2007 was labelled by the CBI as an attempt to mislead the PMO. In the letter, Raja had assured the PMO that no rules were being violated in the allocation of spectrum, apart from clarifying his position on the revision of entry charges for newer players. The CBI again failed to “provide even a scrap of evidence” on whether this letter was even seen by Manmohan Singh. A section officer of the PMO who was cross-examined stated that he was unaware of how this letter was dealt with by the PMO. The court itself observed that despite making these allegations in its charge sheet, the CBI did not produce either evidence or any witness from the PMO in court to substantiate its charges.he CBI in its charge sheet contended that Raja had caused a loss of almost Rs 31,000 crore to the exchequer by not revising the entry fee last fixed in 2001. In doing so he ignored the recommendation of Trai, Ministry of Finance and even the PMO. According to the CBI, Raja was the person solely responsible for the loss to the exchequer. This is where things got tricky for the CBI while arguing in the court.Manju Madhavan as member (finance) in Raja’s ministry had written to the ministry of telecommunications in November 2007 that the issue of selling spectrum at 2001 prices should be examined in depth. Furthermore, D Subbarao, thefinance secretary of the time, also made similar observations in communications that were produced as evidence in court. The court observed that since the matter of spectrum pricing pertained to the country’s finances,Nanju Madhavan should have approached the finance minister. The court observed that there was no record or evidence to prove that she approached the finance minister.But perhaps what is contradictory in the CBI court’s judgment is that it also notes that then finance minister P Chidamabaram was well aware of the matter. Chidambaram had asked the department of telecom to examine issuing telecom licences at 2001 prices in a communication dated November 30, 2007. After all, as finance minister Chidamabaram had the powers to flag the issue with the PMO. This is where the court observed that the “finance ministry”was not very enthusiastic about its objections to the initial pricing of spectrum or the entry fee”. The CBI does not seem to have challenged these observations in court.Records showing extensive interactions between Tra and Raja’s ministry were produced in court. Raja’s defense in court rejecting the CBI’s allegation that he failed to revise the 2001 prices was also heavily based on Trai’s report. The report had in August 2007 suggested not revising the entry price for new entrants in the 2G spectrum band (800 MHz/900 MHz/1800 MHz). However, CBI lawyers pointed out that the Trai report was contradictory. It recommended realizing the true market value of a valuable resource like spectrum, and at the same time also advocated not raising the price for new entrants for the sake of maintaining a level playing field.When Nripendra Mishra, the then chairman of Trai, was called as a witness, he testified that a revision of entry fees was indeed recommended. But the court found his explanation to be weak as the Trai report was open to interpretation and that “nobody understood the recommendations in this manner. There is absolutely no evidence, oral or documentary, that anyone understood that Trai had recommended a revision of entry fee.”So, if Raja didn’t do it, who caused the loss of Rs 31,000 crore to the exchequer. The court raised questions over the very concept of a loss put forth by the CBI. The court observed that the revised guidelines for spectrum pricing were introduced only in 2003 and not in 2001. As a result, the perceived loss to the exchequer would have been less than what was being calculated. The court also seems to have justified the non-revision of price observing that any rise in the price of spectrum would have further discouraged newer telecom players.The CBI’s argument that there had been a significant growth in the average revenue, profits and market capitalization of telecom companies since 2001 failed to impress the judge. The court, while dismissing the CBI’s conspiracy theories, observed: “This does not amount to abuse of power by A Raja.” In effect, the court seems to have ruled that all words of advice sent to the telecom ministry by Manmohan Singh, P Chidamabaram, the then finance secretary, the law ministry, among others, to examine the pricing formula in depth were based on imaginary fears.source:- 2G scam verdict: How CBI killed its own case

19th December 2017 is the date which now hold significance for UPA and its allies. The date marks the end of the trial of 2G spectrum scam. The 2G spectrum scam was the starting point of UPA’s decline and first of many scams to come. The date though will be remembered by the Congress and its allies in UPA II as the date of vindication. The special court in its verdict of acquitted all the accused, including the then IT minister A. Raja and Kanimozhi.With the verdict, Congress leader Kapil Sibal came out questioning the former CAG controller Vinod Rai about the CAG report. The report played the important role of quantifying the loss to the government. It put the loss around 1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer. The loss in terms of reputation damage was much larger. As Time magazine puts it just behind the Watergate scandal of Richard Nixon in its list of most influential scandal.What is the 2G spectrum scam? –In 2007, the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) started the process of auctioning of 2G spectrum in India. The process was completed in early January of 2008. In 2009, an NGO filed a complaint with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) regarding alleged irregularities in the auctioning process. The scam came into the limelight after Controller and Auditor General (CAG) presented its report on the auctions and highlighted many irregularities in the same.The pressure from opposition and Courts resulted in the resignation of Telecommunication Minister A. Raja. The CBI was involved by then and made arrests of telecommunication secretary Siddharth Behura and RK Chandolia. Another big politician name included in this was Kanimozhi, the daughter of DMK supremo M.Karunanidhi.The scam was presented as the biggest yet. The opposition Bhartiya Janta Party launches a scathing attack on UPA government. It alleged that PM Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P. Chidambaram knew about the scam as well and thus is accused of shielding A. Raja. Subramaniam Swami, leader of Janta Dal(S) then filed a case against PM Manmohan Singh also in the Supreme Court followed by one against P. Chidambaram.The scam was used in the 2011 Tamil Nadu elections by the AIADMK against the DMK government, as both A.Raja and Kanimozhi belonged to DMK. AIADMk went on the win the elections. The scam was also used in the 2014 elections by the BJP as one of the testaments to corruption in UPA government.The CAG report on 2G spectrum scam –The CAG report brought out the scale of the scam in public view. The report was prepared in the year 2010 the CAG. Then CAG director Vinod Rai faced flack from the government also regarding the report. The government alleged that it was out of the purview of CAG to audit or comment on the Policies of the government. The CAG, in turn, replied with examples from previous incidents where it had done so.The report left the UPA government red-faced in Parliament and in Courts. The report was cited by the Supreme Court in its verdict of 2012. The Supreme Court in the 2012 verdict had canceled 122 licenses given out by DoT under A. Raja over irregularities in the procedures followed. The report along citing irregularities in procedures followed also quantified the loss to the government.The CAG report focused on the procedural irregularities and undervaluation of Spectrum. In its major findings, CAG reported how DoT ignored the suggestions from Prime Minister’s Office, The Financial Ministry, and Law ministry. It also stated that DoT arbitrary changed the date of submissions on very last moments and then gave licenses to ineligible companies such as Unitech Group.The report in its financial terms reported that policy followed of First come First Serve(FCFS) was not followed properly. The entry fee was also calculated very low. The report states that the entry fee was fixed on as same as that calculated in 2001 but should have been increased as telecom market had grown in years that followed. To support this claim the report also gave incidents where Telecommunication Company offered revised revenue to the government but DoT refused it.What happened after the 2G spectrum scam? –As the scam came into the light, the opposition started attacking the government on its stand against corruption and demanded resignations. The first to fall was the telecommunication Minister A. Raja, who was a minister from DMK in UPA. Another big name in the scam was of Kanimozhi, another DMK leader. She was accused by CBI of keeping in touch with A.Raja in deals which saw Shahid Balwa, an industrialist accused of bribing in the scam, invest in Kalaignar TV. The TV was owned by Kanimozhi and her family.Industrialists such as Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra, DB Realty founder Vinod Goenka, Anil Ambani, his wife Tina Ambani along with three senior executives of Anil Ambani controlled DAG, Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair, Surendra Pipara and Ayushman and Ravi Ruia of Essar group was questioned. Subsequently, Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka, Ayushman and Ravi Ruia were charge sheeted by the CBI.In 2014 Lok Sabha elections campaign, BJP and then PM candidate Narendra Modi used the scam against the Congress. BJP also accused that Manmohan Singh was involved in the scam and shielding A. Raja.The Verdict of 2G spectrum scam –The Special Court in its verdict acquitted all the accused as it found that there was no substantial evidence otherwise. The special judge OP Saini remarked that the prosecution failed miserably to prove any of the allegations and also questioned the CBI whether it was serious regarding the same. In the verdict, he also said that in the recent years CBI and prosecution seemed less prepared to fight the case.In the verdict, Judge also wrote that files are also opened and closed too quickly in a haphazard manner by the DoT.Confusion in guidelines and procedures also added to the difficulty in understanding the situation in the case.Will 2G spectrum scam verdict help any political parties?The verdict could not have come out in a better time for Congress. They were already on high after the results of Gujarat and now they have another victory in their hands. Congress leaders were quick to attack the CAG and BJP on the issue. Kapil Sibal coming out and demanding an apology from Vinod Rai.For Congress, it is more than moral victory as they now will question the BJP stance on corruption and also presents the case that they were not corrupt but were just portrayed as one by BJP. Congress will now look to go on the offense against the BJP on their corruption and what have they done in their tenure.For BJP it is just another setback after the Gujarat election results. For me, BJP which came on the wave of anti-corruption sentiment is yet to deliver on that. Though BJP boasts its corruption-free record in last 3 years its action on corruptions sells them short. The Mallaya case, Demonetisation and getting money from abroad has not yet materialized. BJP seems now on the back foot for the first time now in their tenure.The real winner from all this will be the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK). DMK was struggling ever since the 2G spectrum scam. Then they lost the two subsequent assembly elections in Tamilnadu and then took a beating in 2014 Lok Sabha elections as well. They also had fighting in the party as well between Karunanidhi and his son Stalin but the return of two leaders will now boost them. A.Raja and Kanimozhi before their involvement in the 2G spectrum scam were powerful leaders in DMK and Tamilnadu politics and their return will give strength to DMK. The departure of Jayalalitha and the infighting that followed it has weakened the AIADMK. Now with the return of their leaders, untainted will surely have DMK in a strong position.For more indian political analysis, follow: www.electiontamasha.in