This is Part II of TheNews21’s investigation into alleged telecom permission irregularities in Dhule.
Mumbai: If Part I raised questions about missing money, Part II guides us to the next suspicion.
How was it permitted? Because this did not happen outside the system. It happened inside it.
Permissions were processed. Work was carried out across the city. Roads were opened, cables laid, and infrastructure built openly.
This was not in the shadows. Which raises the question — who within the system was aware?
Between 2012 and 2024, telecom firms received permissions for optical fibre projects all over Dhule.
That is not the problem. The issue starts after permissions are granted.
Once permissions are approved, charges must be recovered. It is the system’s duty.
According to the complaint filed by Hitendrasingh Indrasingh Khairnar, a consulting engineer, submitted to the authorities seeking investigation under applicable laws, the duty appears to have been repeatedly ignored.
Then comes the OT bill. An amount exceeding ₹2.44 crore was issued. Of this, nearly ₹94 lakh was waived.
The complaint states that there is no clear record explaining this reduction. Such decisions do not happen automatically. They require approval within the system. And when a sum of this size is reduced without documented justification, it raises a direct question.
On what basis was it done?
The complaint also refers to a report submitted to the Collector. Reports are meant to show facts as they are.
But in this case, the complaint claims the report did not match the actual finances.
If that is true, the issue is no longer internal. It concerns what was communicated outside the system.
At this point, the story shifts from missing records to decision-making. Because for years, work continued, payments were recorded, and reports were filed.
And yet, according to the complaint, discrepancies persisted, leading to a simple question.
Who knew?
The timeline is important.
The complaint records that written representations were made in October and November 2023. Specific discrepancies were pointed out. No immediate action was taken.
Only in March 2024 was a recovery notice of nearly ₹30 crore issued. This delay is documented.
And it raises an unavoidable question. If the dues were identified in 2024, why were they not settled earlier?
At every stage — permission, billing, recovery, reporting — there are clear roles. Files are circulated among various hands. Notes are kept. Approvals are given.
The complaint names officials involved in this process. Their decisions will now need to be examined through a proper investigation.
At this point, these are still allegations made in a complaint.
But the issues raised — bill waivers without clear records, discrepancies in reported figures, and delayed recovery despite previous complaints — point to something needing closer scrutiny.
Because an isolated mistake can be explained, but a pattern cannot be ignored.
Part II does not finish the story. It narrows it down.
Because once you look into decisions, the next step is clear. You follow the documents. The entries. The drafts. The records. And that is where this story moves forward.
TheNews21 has not independently verified all documents cited in the complaint. Responses from concerned officials will be sought.
(Part III: The Paper Trail Coming Next)
