To record or ignore dissent? MTNL will decide today

The MTNL has an explanation for ignoring the government appointees: ‘‘As per the law, minutes shall contain fair and correct summary of the proceedings. The chairman shall exercise discretion in regard to inclusion or non-inclusion of any matter in the minutes.’’

With no option left, the directors put down in writing that their views on the two issues were censored from the board minutes. That prompted MTNL to reconsider whether their views should be recorded or not. A board meeting is being held tomorrow to decide just that.

The government nominees’ objection is that approvals were being sought without circulating the agenda to the directors. Further, they say that the proceedings mention the board having taken a decision which, to their recollection, was not so.

In the case of grant to Media Lab, Additional Secretary (Telecom) P C Rawal is on record that the proposal was slipped in by MTNL chairman Narinder Sharma at a board meeting on December 6. When it was objected to, the proposal was brought to the board a month later but minus the required approval of the director concerned, the finance department or the MTNL chairman.

At the meeting, the government appointees sought clarity on whether the money to Media Labs was a payment for services or an interest-bearing loan. Both Rawal and Telecom Ministry’s second nominee A C Padhi said there was no rationale for sponsoring research in a product — broadband software for high speed internet — which was already available in the market.

To their utter surprise, the board minutes did not record their objections. Instead, the issue was deemed as passed by the Board. To which Rawal in his letter says : ‘‘At least I was certainly not a party to any such said decision as recorded in the minutes which have been circulated.’’

In the procurement of a new billing system for Dolphin, the two have accused Sharma of violating board’s rights by opening the price bid of a single company even as a board decision on its technical compliance was pending.

Rawal says that by doing so, the CMD had ‘‘pre-empted any decision of the Board on this aspect which had been specifically sought in the agenda note. The CMD informed the Board that the decision to open the bid had been taken by him in anticipation of the Board approving the proposal…’’

MTNL wanted to replace the billing system for which it received bids from CSG System India Ltd and SEMA Software. Of the two, Sema was disqualified as it did not meet the technical specifications.

Left with CSG, the proposal before the board was to waive off the technical deviations in CSG’s bid and to allow opening of its financial bid. But that price bid was opened by Sharma a fortnight before the board meeting. The board was hesitant in approving the single bid of Rs 73.72 crore because the previous system was procured for Rs 10 crore. It wanted to reconsider the bids.

When contacted, MTNL’s chief general manager for mobile services J M Mishra said: ‘‘There is no controversy regarding the billing system as we have rejected the bids and are going for a fresh round from both firms.’’