Directions (1-5): In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed in the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blanks appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
What is illegal (1) the point of view of administrative law may not necessarily be an offence from a criminal court’s perspective. The Supreme Court declared in 2012 that the allocation of 2G spectrum by the Congress-led UPA government was (2) and an arbitrary exercise of power. It went on to cancel all 122 telecom licences allotted to companies in early 2008 during the tenure of A. Raja as Communications Minister. With the trial court’s en masse (3) of all those arraigned by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the 2G spectrum allocation case, the claim that this was the biggest scam in India’s history lies in tatters. Every ground that the CBI had (4) to prove that Mr. Raja manipulated the first-come, first-served system to favour Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless, among others, and helped them make a windfall profit by offloading their stakes, has been rejected by Special Judge O.P. Saini. The immediate fallout is that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, to which Mr. Raja belongs, and its national ally, the Congress, will at last be in a position to shake off the perception that they were irredeemably beset by corruption. The Congress, in particular, is now in a position to reiterate that the spectrum allocation resulted in ‘zero loss’; also, that its rule between 2004 and 2014 was not as scam-tainted as it was generally made out, a perception that has impacted its electoral performance since. Attention will now turn to Vinod Rai, whose sensational report as Comptroller and Auditor General, pegging the loss as a result of not auctioning spectrum at ₹1.76 lakh crore, contributed to the (5) that a huge scam had taken place.
What is illegal (1) the point of view of administrative law may not necessarily be an offence from a criminal court’s perspective. The Supreme Court declared in 2012 that the allocation of 2G spectrum by the Congress-led UPA government was (2) and an arbitrary exercise of power. It went on to cancel all 122 telecom licences allotted to companies in early 2008 during the tenure of A. Raja as Communications Minister. With the trial court’s en masse (3) of all those arraigned by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the 2G spectrum allocation case, the claim that this was the biggest scam in India’s history lies in tatters. Every ground that the CBI had (4) to prove that Mr. Raja manipulated the first-come, first-served system to favour Swan Telecom and Unitech Wireless, among others, and helped them make a windfall profit by offloading their stakes, has been rejected by Special Judge O.P. Saini. The immediate fallout is that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, to which Mr. Raja belongs, and its national ally, the Congress, will at last be in a position to shake off the perception that they were irredeemably beset by corruption. The Congress, in particular, is now in a position to reiterate that the spectrum allocation resulted in ‘zero loss’; also, that its rule between 2004 and 2014 was not as scam-tainted as it was generally made out, a perception that has impacted its electoral performance since. Attention will now turn to Vinod Rai, whose sensational report as Comptroller and Auditor General, pegging the loss as a result of not auctioning spectrum at ₹1.76 lakh crore, contributed to the (5) that a huge scam had taken place.
Q1.
(a) for
(b) of
(c) to
(d) with
(e) from
Q2.
(a) immoral
(b) think
(c) considering
(d) illegal
(e) right
Q3.
(a) again
(b) conviction
(c) further
(d)clearing
(e) acquittal
Q4.
(a)noticed
(b)refer
(c)says
(d)published
(e) adduced
Q5.
(a)from
(b)however
(c) perception
(d) impose
(e) because
Answer:-
1) from
2)illegal
3) acquittal
4)adduced
5)perception
No comments:
Post a Comment