The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to explain if the guidelines for allocation of 194 coal blocks to private companies between 2005 and 2011 were strictly followed.
Observing that the report of a constitutional body like Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) can be relied upon, a bench comprising Justice RM Lodha and Justice AR Dave said the petition raised serious questions and ?requires explanation from the government.?
The CAG in its report had alleged that coal scam had caused loss of R1.86 lakh crore to the exchequer from the allotment of coal-mining blocks to private firms on nomination basis instead of competitive bidding. It has named 25 companies, including Essar Power, Hindalco, Tata Steel, Tata Power, Jindal Steel and Power which have got the blocks in various states.
The apex court also asked the coal secretary to file an affidavit within eight weeks dealing with the several aspects involved in the allocation of coal blocks, including the guidelines framed by the government for such allocation. ?The government needs to explain coal allocations,” the court said. “Coal allocation is distribution of state property,? it observed.
Turning down Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman?s contention that the PIL based on the CAG report was ?premature? and should not be entertained as it is being looked into by a Parliamentary committee, the apex court said ?these are different exercises.?
?There is difference in exercise done by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The Parliament and PAC can proceed with the issue on the basis of the CAG report. We don?t want to encroach upon their exercise but the petition raises different things altogether. There are sufficient averments which require explanation from you,? the court said.
The apex court also clarified that it was confining itself only to the aspect of guidelines formulated by the Centre for the allocation of coal blocks. The court passed the order while hearing a PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma, seeking cancellation of 194 coal blocks allotted between 2005 and 2011. The petition also claims that these blocks were arbitrarily assigned and none of the chosen companies had a mining plan in place.
