M A I N   N E W S

Why not cancel coal allocations, SC asks Centre
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

apex court has seven queries on: Petitioner’s plea for quashing allotments in six states: Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh Guidelines framed by the government for allocation of coal blocks The process adopted for allocation of the coal blocks Whether guidelines contained any inbuilt mechanism to ensure that allocation of coal blocks does not lead to distribution of largesse unfairly in the hands of a few private companies Whether guidelines for allocation were strictly followed and whether allocations complied with the guidelines’ objectives Hindrances in not following the policy of competitive bidding adopted in 2004 for coal block allocations Steps taken or proposed to be taken against allottees who did not adhere to terms of allocation

New Delhi, September 14
The Supreme Court today placed ‘Coalgate’ under its scanner by seeking the Centre’s response to a PIL plea for quashing the allotment of 194 coal blocks to private companies during 2004-11 “in a pick and choose manner”, causing a “huge loss” to the country.

Raising seven searching questions, a bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and Anil R Dave asked the Union Coal Secretary, named as respondent number 2 in the PIL, to file his replies within eight weeks.

The SC, however, refused to issue notice to six other respondents named in the PIL — PM Manmohan Singh (respondent 4), PM’s Office (respondent 1), CBI (respondent 3), Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal (respondent 5), the Congress through its president (respondent 6) and Vedanta Resources PLC (respondent 7). Respondent 2 is the Centre through the Coal Secretary.

The bench made it clear that it was not covering at this juncture two other prayers made in the PIL filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma. These prayers pertained to ordering of an independent inquiry to fix the responsibility of the PM and the Coal Minister for the scam and for further inquiry into the Congress reportedly receiving donation from a beneficiary company.

Solicitor General (SG) Rohinton Nariman pleaded against entertaining of the petition, contending it would amount to SC encroaching upon the powers of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament which was about to consider the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) placing the revenue loss in the allocations at Rs 1.86 lakh crore.

The bench did not agree with the Solicitor General. “We don’t want to encroach upon that exercise,” the bench said, pointing out that the petitioner’s point was a little different. “He has made sufficient averments which require an explanation from you,” the judges said.

The bench also wanted to know as to whether “it is a mere coincidence that some of the allottees are either politicians or their relatives”.