“Issue notice to CBI,” a Bench of Justice M L Mehta said on Monday.

Chandra had moved the high court against the October 22, 2011 order of Special CBI Judge on framing of charges in the 2G case, saying it was passed in a “casual and perfunctory manner”.

He had said the order was passed “without application of judicial mind” as there was no evidence to show that he had conspired with any public servant for wrongful financial gain.

“There was no evidence to show that the petitioner (Chandra) had in any manner conspired with any public servant to cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the government of India,” he had submitted.

The petition said there was no evidence that he or his company had paid any bribe for securing the Unified Access Services Licences (UASL) and this distinguishes his case from the remaining accused persons.

“Despite this admission of the respondent (CBI), the trial court wrongly linked the bribery allegation and the Unitech Wireless Companies in its order on charge.

“In the light of this categorical admission by the respondent (CBI), the petitioners case is no different from that of any of the non-prosecuted persons/companies who were granted LOIs in January 2008 or licences up to March 2007 and subsequently issued licences, or which were granted licences up to March 2007 at the entry fee determined in 2001,” Chandra had said.

He said the order of the trial court is not maintainable as the whole case of CBI has failed to attribute any criminality against him.

The trial court had framed charges against Chandra under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act also dealing with criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

It said he cheated DoT by getting the licenses despite the fact that eight of the group companies were not eligible for the licenses on the date of application.

The trial court had observed that prima facie it appeared that Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt Ltd was ineligible for 2G licences and by offloading shares immediately after getting licences it bagged huge wrongful profits.

The court, in its order, had discussed windfall profits earned by Unitech Wireless which did not have telecom as its business objective in the Memmorandum of Association.