Testifying as a prosecution witness, Mathur said he had "desired" that all applications received by the Department of Telecom (DoT) for grant of Unified Access Service Licences (UASL) should be considered in chronological order. Vouching for the principle of examining applications in chronological order, Mathur told Special CBI Judge OP Saini, "It is correct that I desired the applications be considered in chronological order as they were received."
Referring to Tatas' applications for dual technology licence, Mathur said, "It is correct that these two applications (of Tata Teleservices Ltd and Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd) were received after the receipt of new applications were stopped on October 1, 2007."
"(But), it is incorrect that my view was that these two applications be considered only after the other applications have been considered," he said, clarifying that any telecom operator, "who applies for dual technology licence, has an advantage in grant of spectrum because he gets spectrum as an existing licencee."
During his cross-examination by senior counsel Sushil Kumar, who appeared for former Telecom Minister A Raja, Mathur said Tata Teleservices Ltd (TTSL) and Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd (TTML) had written two letters to him for "in-principle approval for dual technology" and it was received by the DoT on October 22, 2007.