Coal Scam PIL
-
Upload
barandbench -
Category
Documents
-
view
544 -
download
3
Transcript of Coal Scam PIL
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (CRL.) of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate
S.C.B.L.No.-1
Supreme court of India
New Delhi-01
Resident of , 31, Gyangudery
Vrindaben Mathura , U.P. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The principle secretary
Prime minister office
Race court road
New Delhi-1
2. UNION OF INDIA
Through secretary
The Ministry of coal
Shastry Bhavan , New Delhi
3. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through Director
Plot no.5-B , 6th floor ,
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road New Delhi 11,0003
4. Mr. Manmohan Singh
At present Prime minister of India
Race course road , New Delhi.
5. Mr. Sriprakas Jaiswal
At present Coal minister of India
Ministry of coal
Shastry Bhavan , New Delhi-1
2
6. Indian national Congress
Through President
24 Akbar road , New Delhi
7. VEDANTA Resources PLC.
Through Managing director
registered office at 2nd Floor,
Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames Street,
London EC4V 3BJ United Kingdom.
India office at
Vedanta House
75 Nehru Road, Vile Parle East,
Mumbai 400099 India Respondents
Writ petition (PIL) U/Art. 32 of the
constitution of India r.w. s.409 of IPC , PC
ACT-92 and FCRA Act 2010.
To,The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of
The Supreme Court of India.
The Petitioner most respectfully
Showeth:
1. That Petitioner, citizen of India & by profession an
advocate practicing at above address , is filing the
present writ petition (PIL) under Art.32 of the
constitution of India read with 406 & 409 of IPC &
Prevention of Corruption Act-92 for the protection of
the public properties and in the interest of the
general public & seeking quashing of allotment of
coal block, being unconstitutional and arbitrary as
well as undervalued created huge loss to the public
3
exchequer to the tune of Rs.1.60 lakhs crores that is
also contra to the cabinet decision.
8. That Petitioner has not approached to the
respondents in this regards.
9. That Petitioner is filing the present petition to decide
following constitutional question of law;-
a. Whether the Government has the right to
alienate, transfer or distribute natural
resources/national assets otherwise than by
following a fair and transparent method
consistent with the fundamentals of the
equality clause enshrined in the
Constitution?
b. Whether impugned allotments, contrary to
the MMDR Act 1957, recommendation &
approval by the coal secretary, Ministry of
state, planning commission and cabinet
(GOM), are not illegal, void ,
unconstitutional and arbitrary?
c. Whether central government means a prime
minister or minister of Union of India?
d. Whether undervaluing public property for
favouring private companies does not
attract PC Act-92?
e. Whether taking donation , directly
/indirectly, from allottee’s companies for
favoring them is a bribe or not for
4
prosecution?
f. Whether donation from NRI contra to the
FCRA act 2010 is an offence or not for
prosecution of the person concerned i.e.
political party’s president as well as its
office bearers?
10. That petitioner is challenging impugned actions
of the Respondents , i.e. Shri Manmohan Singh, prime
minister of India , Sriprakas jaiswal , Coal minister of
India and president of Congress party and its office
bearers who are controlling the executive office of the
Union of India as a ruling party, for allotment of 194
coal block to private companies under pick and
choose manner favouring them undervaluing public
properties just free of cost creating a huge loss about
1.64 lakhs crores to the country within the CAG
report filed in the parliament on 16th August 2012.
11. That petitioner is also challenging donation
given by foreign company Vedanta and received by
the Indian political parties including ruling party All
India Congress party, for favouring them in allotment
of natural resources and others, and seeking enquiry
for proper prosecution being an offence under FCRA
Act 2010.
12. That Petitioner is further under apprehension
that impugned coal allotment has been conducted in
5
exchange of money and bribes which is also liable to
be inquired in the interest of the general public.
13. That petitioner is challenging respondents
action for allotment of 194 coal block to private
companies at free of cost. Even no notional cost/
amount has been taken. During 2004 till march 2011
respondents no.2 & 3 allotted 194 coal blocks in (1)
Jharkhand, (2) Chattisgarh , (3) Maharastra (4) West
Bengal (5) Orissa and (6) Madhya Pradesh in
arbitrary manner favouring them against the public &
National interest by way of securing undue
advantages from them. Major private sector
beneficiaries / allottees are as follow:-
1. Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd.
2. Usha Martin Ltd.
3. Neelanchal Iron & Power Generation
4. Bajrang Ispat
5. Bhusan Steel & Strips Ltd,
6. Electrosteel Casting
7. Essar Power Generation Ltd,
8. Rungta Mines Ltd.
9. Essex Power Ltd.
10. Hindalco
11. TATA Power Ltd,
12. Tata steel ltd.
13. DB Power Ltd
14. Adam Power Ltd
15. Monnet Ispat &
6
16. Energy Ltd,
17. Jindal Photo Ltd.
18. ( JSPL) Jindal steel Power ltd.
19. Gagan Sponge Iron Ltd
20. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd.
21. Prakash Industries
22. Himanchal EMTA
23. JSW Steel Ltd.
24. Adhunik thermal energy Ltd.
25. Strategic energy tech. Systems Ltd.
26. Mukund Ltd.
27. VIni Iron & Steel Udyog Ltd
28. Bhusan Steel & Power,
29. Jai Balaji
30. BALCO
31. Tata spong
32. Birla corpo. Ltd.
33. Grasim Industries
34. Electrotherm India Ltd.
35. Jayaswal Neco Ltd.
36. Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd.
37. Corporate Ispal & Alloys Ltd
38. Chhattisgarh Captive Coal Win:Ling Ltd.
39. (JVC of Ispat
40. Crodavari
41. Madanpur South (J VC of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.)
42. JLD Yavatmal Energy
43. R.K.M. Powergen
7
44. Bihar Sppong Iron Co. Ltd.
45. Kohinoor steels Pvt. Ltd.
46. IST Steel & Power,
47. Gujarat Ambuja Cements,
48. Lafarg India Ltd.
49. Domco smokless fuels Pvt ltd.
50. Essar power ltd.
51. AES chattisgarh Energy Pvt ltd.
52. Arcelor Mittal India Ltd.
53. GVK powers
54. Sterlite energy
55. GMR Energy
56. Lanco group
57. Reliance energy
14. That GMR , GVK companies are also belong to above
list favoured for coal block allotment. Lanco Group and a
host of small to medium players also figure in the
list. Petitioner is filing application for calling complete list
with address along with this application for further
necessary action. True copy of the list of coal block
allotments to the private companies couple with CAG report
dt. 7th May 2012 is being filed as Annexure P-1 ( 34-85
)
15. That Dr. Manmohan Singh , being as a prime
minister of India, is also having control and power to
effect working of the C.B.I. as well as CVC office who is
silent in the so called coal block allotment enquiry since
last one year.
8
16. That Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister
since May 2004 and was personally in-charge of the Coal
Ministry from November 2006 to May 2009. During his
tenure Dr. Manmohan Singh did coal block allotment to
private companies from 2005 till 2009 as per his own
wish.
17. Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal took charge of the coal
portfolio in May 2009. According to the CAG report MOC
allotted coal mines to 6 private companies as follow:-
a. Tata Steel Ltd. Jharkhand 28 May
2009
b. Aadhunik Thermal Energy Ltd. Jharkhand 28
May 2009
c. Himanchal EMTA W.Bengal 10 July
2009
d. JSW Steel Ltd. W. Bengal 10 July
2009
e. Jindal steel & Power Ltd. Orissa
27 Feb 2009
f. Rungta Mines Ltd. Jharkhand 28
May 2009
g. Kohinoor Steel Pvt Ltd. ,, 28 May
2009
h. IST Steel and power Chattisgarh
17 Jun 2009
i. Gujrat Ambuja Cement Chattisgarh 17
Jun 2009
j. Lafarge India Ltd. Chattisgarh
17 Jun 2009
18. That during 2004 till 2010 year-wise allocation of
captive coal blocks to the Government companies, private
9
companies and Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs) as on
31 March 2011 are given in table below.
YEAR-WISE ALLOCATION OF COAL BLOCKS FOR
CAPTIVE MINING
Year ofAllocation
I Govt. Companies
Private Companies
Ultra Mega Power
Total
No. ofBlocks
GR (inmilliontonne)
No. ofBlocks
GR (inmilliontonne)
No. ofBlocks
GR (inmilliontonne)
No. ofBlocks
GR (inmilliontonne)
1993 to
200529 6294.72 41 3336.88 0 0 70 9631.60
2006 32 12363.15 15 3793.14 6 1635.24 53 17791.53
2007 34 8779.08 17 2111.14 1 972 52 11862.22
2008 3 509.99 20 2939.53 1 100 24 3549.52
2009 1 337 12 5216.53 3 1339.02 16 6892.55
2010 1 800.00 1800.00
Total 9928283.9
4105
17397.22
12 4846.26 21650527.4
2
19. That total 216 coal block has been allotted during
2004 till 2011. Out of the above 216 blocks, 24 blocks
were de-allocated (three blocks in 2003, two blocks in
2006, one block in 2008, one block in 2009, three blocks
in 2010 and 14 allocated blocks were subsequently re-
allocated (2003 and 2005) to others. Net 194 coal blocks,
with aggregate geological reserves of 44,440 million
tonne, stood allocated fresh as of 31 March 2011.
20. That impugned allotment of coal blocks has been
allocated with “underlying condition of political funding of
the party in power,” indicating that mining licences were
given on assurance that private parties would fund the
ruling UPA. For this PMO & COM adopted pick and
choose as per their choice and allotted coal mines free of
cost to the private companies.
10
21. That upon test check of file/ documents maintained
by MOC in respect of Fatehpur and Rampia (SE, dip side
of Rampia by audit in April, 2012 it is revealed to CAG
that:
a. In case of Fatehpur coal block, 69 applications were
received against the advertisement for allocation
of coal blocks. Out of these 69 applicants only
36 applicants were scheduled for making
presentation before the Screening Committee.
i. The Screening Committee recommended only
S K S Ispat & Power Limited and Prakash
Industries Limited for allocation of Fatehpur
coal block.
b. In case of Rampia and dip side of Rampia coal block,
108 (67-41) applications were received against the
advertisement for allocation of coal blocks. Out of
these 108 applicants only 2 applicants were
scheduled for making presentation before the
Screening Committee.
i. The Screening Committee, however,
recommended six companies (viz. Sterlite
Energy Limited, GMR Energy Limited, Lanco
Group Limited, Navbharat Power Limited,
Tvrittal Steel India Limited and Reliance
Energy Limited) for allocation of Rampia and
Dip side of Rampia coal blocks.
22. That Sterlite Energy ltd belongs to Anil
11
Agarwal’s VEDANTA group and PMO has allotted on
17th Jan 2008 coal block at dip side of Rampia at
Orissa and another coal block at Rampia.
23. That BALCO is also belong to Anil Agarwal
group to whome PMO has allotted on 6th Nov, 2007
coal block Durgapur II and Taraimar coal blocks At
Chattisgarh.
24. That Anil Agrawal Chairman of Vedanta Resources
plc , a foreign company having registered office at United
Kingdom, had declared in its annual report and press
about donation to Indian political parties, about Rs. 28
crores during last three years. None of the political
parties including National Congress Party disclosed about
such donation in their declaration before EC or have any
permission under FCRA Act.. True copy of the times of
India dt. 26.8.2012 couple with true copy of the relevant
page of Vedanta’s annual report of 2012 are being filed as
ANNEXURE P-2 colly. ( 86-88)
25.That allotment to S.K.S Ispat and power and M/s
Prakash Industy at fatehpur block at Chattisgarh
were done on 6.2.2006 under PM direction due to
request letter dt. 5.2.2006 issued by Subhiodh Kant
Sahai , then minister of state for food processing
Industry. Subhod kant’s brother was one of the
director of SKS Ispat and he was also present in 36
screening committee meeting dt.7.2.2006 for
securing his interest.
12
26.That impugned allotments were done without having
mining plan , forest & other clearances required
under MMDR Act.
27.That manner in which exercise to grant the coal
block to the impugned allottee private companies
leave no room for doubt that every thing was
managed to provide coal block free of cost to
impugned allottees under corruption discarding law
and rule as well as decided principles of auction
specially then auction rule has been framed and
amended law also has been put forward in
parliament.
28.The Ministry of Coal (MOC) has the overall
responsibility of framing policies and strategies for
exploration and development of coal reserves. It also
lays down general guidelines for productions supply
and distribution of coal.
29.The Coal Controller's Organisation (CCO) is a
subordinate office of MOC having its headquarters at
Kolkata. The CCO discharges various statutory
functions such as inspection of collieries for
ensuring class, grade and size of coal, adjudicating
claims of consumers on grade and size of coal;
collection and publication of statistical information
on coat and to grant opening/ reopening of coal
mines. In 2005, MOC appointed CCO as the nodal
13
agency for monitoring the production of coal
blocks allocated for captive mining.
30.Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister since May
2004 and was personally in-charge of the Coal Ministry
from November 2006 to May 2009. Under his watch a
major coal allocation scam took place which allowed
private firms to make windfall gains, as is clear from the
facts that are now out in the public domain and the report
of the CAG.
31.That Under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act
1973, coal mining was exclusively reserved for the
public sector. However, Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 allowed the
following exceptions to the above policy:
a. Captive mining by private companies engaged in
production of iron and steel, and
b. Sub lease for coal mining to private parties in
isolated small pockets not amenable to
economic development and not requiring rail
transport,
32. In July 1992, Government of India constituted a
Screening Committees for screening proposals
received for captive mining by the private power
generation companies.
33.That process was carried further by another
amendment to the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Amendment At in 1993 which allowed coal mining for
captive consumption for power generation and
14
other end uses to be notified by the Government
from time to time. Thus, mining of coal by Indian
private companies was allowed in phases for their
end use in iron and steel project, generation of
power, and cement production.
34.The government of India framed (1993) the
guidelines for allocation of coal blocks which, in order
to improve the system and bring transparency for
deciding the inter se priority amongst the
competing applicants, were modified by the MOC in
2005, 2006 and 2008. Brief of these guidelines is
given below:
a. MOC in consultation with public sector coal
companies would identify and prepare a list of
such coal blocks for allocation,
b. From the blocks so identified, MOC would
invite applications for a few blocks at a time
through advertisements in important national
and regional newspapers.
c. For allocation under Government
dispensation, the list of identified blocks
would be circulated inviting applications from
the concerned Government companies.
d. These applications would be scrutinised by a
Screening Committee under the Chairmanship
of Secretary (Coal) and recommended for
allocation of the blocks.
15
35. In December, 2004 GOI constituted an
Expert Committee on Road Map for Coal S e c t o r
R e f o r m s ( E x p e r t Committee) headed by Shri T. L
Sankar, Chairman., Energy Group Administrative
Staff College of India to prepare a comprehensive
roadmap for modernisation of the c o a l s e c t o r .
a. That in the 10th Plan and thereafter, the
number of applicants for coal blocks
increased as compared to the availability of
blocks due to increased demand of coal in the
country. There was an urgent need to bring in
a process of selection that was not only
objective but also demonstrably transparent.
Allocation through competitive bidding was
considered as one such acceptable selection
process.
b. The average allotment of coal blocks was 3-4 per
year until a few years back. But this number shot up
drastically to 22-24 during 2006-09 when Dr. Singh
was in charge, raising questions about the manner
in which these allotments were made. All the
allotments were made without transparency, without
protecting the interest of public exchequer, and
without any competitive process.
c. A comprehensive note on competitive bidding for the
allocation of coal blocks was given by the Coal
Secretary to the Minister of State for Coal on 16 July
2004. It noted the substantial difference between
16
the price of coal supplied by Coal India Limited
(CIL) and the cost of coal produced through captive
mining. This ensured a "windfall gain" to the party
which was allocated a captive block. That same
month, the Minister of State sought clarification on
what he feared would be "likely opposition from the
power sector". The Coal Secretary was explicit that
the existing system of allocation, even with
modifications, would not be able to achieve the
objectives of revenue maximisation, transparency
and objectivity in the allocation process.
d. However, rather than accept this advice, in
September 2004, the PMO forwarded a note
detailing what it claimed were certain disadvantages
of the proposed system. Subsequently, the Coal
Secretary remarked that "there was hardly any
merit in the objections raised" by the PMO.
e. The secretary also highlighted some of the "pulls
and pressures" experienced by the screening
committee during the decision making process and
stressed that all pending applications were
recommended on the basis of competitive bidding,
and that allocations should be made on such a basis.
This recommendation was ignored by the PMO.
36.In October 2004, the MoS ( minister of state) again argued
that the proposal for competitive bidding may not be
pursued as the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment
Bill 2000 was pending in the Rajya Sabha with stiff
opposition from trade unions. He also disagreed with the
17
opinion that the screening committee could not ensure
transparent decision making. He said that this was "not an
adequate ground for switching over (to) a new
mechanism".
a. The matter was once again put before the PMO,
after which, 28 June 2004 was decided as the cut-off
date for considering applications as per the current
policy rather than the proposed policy.
37.In March 2005, the Coal Secretary again put up a note to
the PM stating that if the revised system was not put in
place quickly enough, pressure would again mount on the
government for continuing with the existing procedure.
Subsequently, the PMO in August 2005 asked the coal
ministry to amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act
1973 before the new system became operational. "Since
this was likely to take considerable time it was decided
that the coal ministry would continue to allot coal blocks
for captive mining through extant screening committee
procedure till the new competitive bidding procedure
became operational," the note states. Again in November
2005, the MoS said that the PMO had taken a view to
amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, which was a
"time consuming exercise and as such allowed the
department to proceed with the existing system" ... "there
was no immediacy..."
38.In April 2006, it was decided to amend the MMDR Act so
that the system of competitive bidding could be made
applicable to all minerals. Later on, delaying the matter
further, the MoS opined that the issue of amendment
18
should be "revisited" as it had the potential to become
controversial.
39.Finally, the bill to amend the MMDR Act was introduced in
Parliament in October 2008 and passed in August 2010.
40.While the amendment to ensure coal allocation by auction
remained in abeyance because of the Dr. Singh’s
interventions as head of the Cabinet and in-charge of the
coal ministry, 24 blocks were allocated in 2005, 53 in
2006, 52 in 2007, 24 in 2008 and 16 in 2009.
Interestingly, post amendments, only one coal block was
allocated in 2010, and not even one in 2011.
41. There was a rush for coal blocks allocated under the old,
noncompetitive, system. As on June 2004, only 39 coal
blocks stood allocated.
a. "But since July 2004, 155 coal blocks were allocated
to government and private parties following the
existing process. The CAG in its draft report has
pegged the losses running in lakhs of crores.
42.The CAG draft report remarked that steps could have been
taken to allocate coal blocks through competitive bidding
well in September 2004 itself.
43.Till March 2011, the MOC has allocated 194 coal
blocks (net 44,440 million tonnes) for captive mining
of which 142 were explored blocks (GR: 23,39]
million tonne) and the balance 52 were either
regionally explored or unexplored coal blocks (GR:
21,049 million tones).
19
44. The concept of allotment through competitive
bidding was first made public by the Government
on 28 June 2004. Further, sequence of events in
this regard till 2012 is indicated below:
28.06.2004 The concept of allocation of captive
coal blocks through competitive
bidding was first made public.
16.07.2004 Comprehensive note on
'Competitive Bidding for allocation
of coal blocks' placed by then
Secretary (Coal) to MoS (Coal and
Mines), mentioning that "since
there is a substantial difference
between price of coal supplied by
Coal India and coal produced
through captive mining, there is a
windfall gain to the person who is
allotted a captive block.. "The note
further indicated that " the bidding
system will only tap part of the
windfall profit for the public
purposes."
30.07.2004 Secretary (Coal) mentioned that
the present system of allocation in
the changed scenario, even with
modifications would not be able to
achieve the objectives of
20
transparency and objectivity in the
allocation process.
20.08.2004 Minister (Coal and Mines) directed
that a draft Cabinet Note be
prepared for placing the same
before the Cabinet for
consideration and decision.
11.09.2004 A note was initiated from the PM0
detailing certain disadvantages of
allocation of coal blocks through
competitive bidding.
2`5.09.200
4
In response, Secretary (Coal)
submitted draft Cabinet Note to
MoS with the remarks that there
was hardly any merit in the
objections raised. Different kinds
of pulls and pressures experienced
by the Screening Committee
during the decision-making process
was also highlighted. The note
stressed on the desirability of
taking decision in respect of all
pending applications on the basis
of competitive bidding.
4.10.2004 MoS stated that the proposal for
competitive bidding may not be
pursued further as it would invite
further delay in the allocation of
21
blocks, considering that the Coal
Mines (Nationalisation)
Amendment till 2000 envisaging
competitive bidding as a selection
process for allocation of blocks for
commercial purposes was pending
in the Rajya Sabha with stiff
opposition from Trade Unions and
others concerned. MoS disagreed
with the views that the Screening
Committee could not ensure
transparent decision-making and
added that this alone was not an
adequate ground for switching
over to a new mechanism.
15.10.2004 Secretary (Coal) stated that the
policy of allotment of coal blocks
through competitive bidding was
discussed in the PM0 and it was
felt that since a number of
applicants requested for allotment
of blocks based on the current
policy, it would not be appropriate
to change the allotment policy
through competitive bidding in
respect of applications received on
the basis of existing policy,
22
Accordingly, the policy of allotment
through competitive bidding could
be made prospective and pending
applications might be decided on
the basis of the existing policy.
Therefore, the cut-off date for
considering applications as per the
current policy and the proposed
revised policy was taken as 28 Jun
2004.
1.11.2004 The PMO directed Secretary (Coal)
to amend the draft Cabinet Note
for approval of the Minister (Coal
and Mines) after taking into
account the following:
1. the cut-off date for competitive
bidding.
2. the fact that the MOC had
already moved the Coal Mines.
(Nationalisation) amendment
Bill 2000 envisaging
commercial purposes.
3. the change in the policy of
allocation of coal blocks for
captive mining will be made
effective prospectively.
4. The PMO stated “the change in
23
the policy of allocation of coal
blocks for captive mining will be
made effective prospectively.
Therefore, there is no urgency in
the matter. Accordingly, there is
no need to bring in the required
amendment in the Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act through an
Ordinance. It would be
appropriate to bring in the
required amendment through a
Bill to be moved in the coming
Parliament Session.”
25.02.2005 On resubmission (23 December
2004) of the revised draft Cabinet
Note, Minister (Coal) opined that
he was in complete agreement with
the views expressed by MoS in his
note dated 04 October 2004 and as
such the proposal need not be
proceeded further.
7.03.2005 The Secretary (Coal) put up a note
for approval of the Draft Cabinet
Note to the Minister (Coal) ,
stating that decision on all
applications received as on 28 June
2004 would have been taken by the
24
end of March 2005 and if the
revised procedure for allocation of
coal blocks was not put in place
quickly enough, pressures would
again mount on the Government
for continuing with the present
procedure, which might not be
desirable in the interests of
bringing about total transparency
in allocation of coal blocks.
16.03.2005 The PM0 communicated that the
draft Cabinet Note be updated and
sent back urgently,
24.03.2005 The PM0 communicated the
approval or the updated draft
Cabinet Note by the Minister (Coal)
21.06.2005 The draft Cabinet Note
incorporating the views of various
States and comments of the
Ministries and Departments with
the observations of the Minister of
Coal was placed by the Secretary
(Coal) before the MoS for approval
of the Minister (Coal), stating that
it was desirable that decision on
allocation of captive block through
bidding route was taken at the
25
earliest so that the process of
allocation of coal blocks could
continue unhindered.
4.07.2005 MoS in his note to the Minister
(Coal), inter alia, stated that the
implications of such a decision by
the Cabinet needed to be
considered in great detail and that
there was a general reluctance on
the part of power utilities to
participate in the competitive
bidding due to cost implications.
25.07.2005 A meeting was taken by the PM0
wherein it was decided that MOC
would amend the Cabinet Note to
take into account the concerns of
the State Governments, where the
coal blocks were located. The Coal
Mines Nationalisation) Act, 1973
would need to be amended before
the proposed competitive bidding
became operational. Since this was
likely to take considerable time, it
was decided that MOC would
continue to allot coal blocks for
captive mining through the extant
Screening Committee procedure till
26
the new competitive bidding
procedure became operational, hi
the meeting, Secretary (Coal)
stated that" the competitive
bidding procedure will only tap part
of the windfall profit that accrued
to the companies which were
allocated captive coal blocks under
the Screening Committee
procedure for public purposes."
9.08.2005 The PM0 requested MOC to take
urgent action as per the decisions
taken in the meeting held on 25 July
2005.
12.01.2006 MoS stated that the PMO had
taken a view to amend the Coal
Mines (Nationalisation) Act which
was a time consuming exercise and
as such allowed the Department to
proceed with the allocation of
captive coal blocks under the
extant mechanism. MoS stated that
"several applications were
received in respect of coal and
lignite blocks already put on
offer and which were under
process and as such there was
27
no immediacy in the matter
and that the Note be
resubmitted at an appropriate
time keeping in view the
issues involved".
7.02.2006 Secretary (Coal) submitted a note
to the Minister (Coal) through
MoS, stating that the PM0 had
been pressing for expeditious
submission of the Cabinet Note,
The matter was seen by the
Minister (Coal) on 07 March 2006.
16.01.2006 Secretary (Coal) approved the
submission of the final note to the
Cabinet Secretariat.
7.04.2006 A meeting was held in the PM()
wherein it was generally felt that it
would be more appropriate to make
an amendment in the Mines and
Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, (IVIMDR Act) 1957
so that the system of competitive
bidding could be made applicable to
all minerals covered under the said
Act.
20.04.2006 Secretary (Coal) approved a draft
note to the Ministry of Mines with a
request to obtain the comments of
28
the Department of Legal Affairs on
the legal feasibility of the proposed
amendment to the IVIMDR Act,
1957 to address competitive
bidding.
27.04.2006 MoS opined that the issue to
amend the MMDR Act should be
revisited, as it involved
withdrawing the current powers of
the State Governments and it bad
the potential to become a
controversial issue.
Minister of Coal stated that the
views expressed by the MoS were
appropriate and MOC should
refrain from making suggestions
which had implications for federal
polity.
2.05.2006 The advice of the Minister (Coal)
was sent to the Ivlinistry of Mines
to suggest appropriate
modifications in the tentative draft.
The draft with the suggestions of
the Ministry of Mines was referred
to the Ministry of Law and Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs for
their views on the legal feasibility
29
of the proposed amendment.
15.09.2006 MOC communicated to the PMO
and the Cabinet Secretariat that the
Ministry of Law and Justice has
advised MOC to initiate suitable
measures for amendment of the
MMDR Act, 1957 for addressing the
Competitive Bidding,
17.10.2008 A Bill to amend the MMDR Act,
1957 was introduced in the
Parliament by the Ministry of
Mines.
31.10.2008 The Amendment Bill was referred
to the Standing Committee on Coal
and Steel for examination and
report.
19.02.2009 The Standing Committee submitted
its report to the Parliament and
made certain recommendations.
10.08.2009 MoS held a meeting with the State
Ministers of Mining and Geology of
coal and lignite bearing States.
18.02.2010 The Minister (Mines) moved the
motion for passage of the MMDR
Amendment Bill, 2008 in the
Budget Session of Parliament
(2010) after the Cabinet approved
30
(28 January 2010) the Cabinet Note.
9.09.2010 The MMDR Amendment Act, 2010
was notified in the Gazette of India
(Extraordinary) after the same was
passed by both the Houses of the
Parliament in the Monsoon Session
(26 July 2010 to 31 August 2010).
22.09.2010 The Secretary (Coal) chaired a
meeting with the representatives
of the Ministries of Power, Mines,
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Steel,
Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion and the Planning
Commission to discuss various
issues on finalisation of the
modalities for competitive bidding
as the selection process for
allocation of coal and lignite
blocks.
31.01.2011 Draft bid documents were discussed
in the meeting of the Committee.
45. That till March 2011 MOC has allocated 194 coal
blocks net ( 44,440 Million tonne ) for captive mining of
which 142 were explored block.
46. That as per CAG report in fact Government had
decided to bring in transparency and objectivity in
the allocation process of coal blocks, with 28 June 2004
taken as the cut-off date. This process kept getting
31
delayed at various stages. Even after a lapse of seven
years, the same is yet to materialize (February 2012).
As per the note of the Secretary (Coal), steps could have
been taken to allocate coal blocks through competitive
bidding as of September 2004.
47. MOC referred the matter of introduction of
competitive bidding process for allocation of coal blocks to
the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA) in June 2004 for
seeking an opinion whether coal blocks could be
allocated through auction/ competitive bidding route
by making rules -under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973 read with Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act (MMDR Act), 1957 and Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960. After a series of correspondences
and after two years DLA stated (28 July 2006) that it was
open to the government to introduce the auctioning of
coal mining blocks for captive use through competitive
bidding as the selection process for allocation was
possible by amending the existing administrative
instructions and such a process could be governed by the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus,
competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006
(as per the advice of DLA in July 2006). DLA also stated
that the course which was to be adopted in the instant
case, Le. to amend the Act or to effect changes in the
administrative instructions, was a matter of policy to be
decided by the referring Ministry. The same opinion
was reiterated by the Law Secretary also in August
2006.
32
48.That major player in power, Reliance Power, which
is setting up the Sasan and Tilayia ultra-mega power
projects (UMPPs), is missing from the list because the
section on "Windfall benefit to private companies"
does not include 12 coal blocks given for the
government's showpiece power projects as they were
allocated through a tariff-based competitive bidding
route.
49. That The blocks given to Reliance Power are dealt
with in a separate section. CAG's estimate of the
"undue benefit" to Reliance Power for these two
projects is now placed at Rs 15,849 crore over a 25-
year period.)
50.That Jindal Steel and Power Ltd promoter Naveen
Jindal responded to TIMES OF INDIA , saying:
a. "It is all project specific. Often you find (state-
run) companies unable to start work. I am proud
to say that JSPL has started two of our blocks
and is contributing towards creating wealth for
the country. For all these 155 blocks, Coal India
did not have any mining plans as it found them
unattractive... CAG may have its view but
whether it is JSPL or any other private company,
they are all Indian entities and are creating
wealth for the country."
51.That allotment to the reliance group is due to earnest
& Young report who has been appointed as consultant
33
by the GOI
52.That CAG report has been placed in the parliament.
On 24th August 2012 finance minister , on the behest
of the Congress party declared that there is no mining
is started in the above said 155 allotted coal block
therefore there is no loss to the country.
53.That it is pertinent to say that concerned companies
share prices has been sharply fluctuated in the share
market and these companies secured maximum
benefits due to impugned allocations.
54. That the petition is being filed on the following
amongst other
GROUNDS
a. Because Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment dt. 2nd
Feb 2012 in W.P. (C.) NO.10 of 2011 , Hon’ble
Justice G.S. Singhavi and Ashok Ganguly J , has
already decided above question of law pertaining to
2G spectrum allocation case declaring that natural
resources must be allotted via auction systems.
Hon’ble Supreme Court declared process &
allotment of the 2G spectrum as "unconstitutional
and arbitrary," and quashed all the 122 licenses
issued in 2008 by Telecom ministry..
b. Because State legally owns the natural resources on
behalf of citizens of India. Prime minister and coal
minister hold state office in trust. Respondent no.2
and 3 , knowingly and deliberately did impugned
allotment in arbitrary manner under choose and
pick method, favouring private parties. The way
34
Respondents has allotted coal bock to private
companies it has created huge loss about 1.84 lakhs
crores to the national consolidated fund of India. It
is a serious criminal breach of trust and is also
attracted PC Act-92.
c. Because impugned allotment process has been
carried out for 7 years just to secure proper funding
in political party account. Within declaration of
Vedanta’s Chairman Mr. Anil Agarwal pertaining to
Rs.28 crores donation to the Indian political parties
it is a subject matter of bribe for the allotment of
the coal mines and others resources. BALCO and
Sterlite energy ltd. belong to Anil Agarwal’s group of
the compnaies. Sterlite energy ltd belong to
VEDANTA itself who had donated Rs.28 crores. It is
a subject matter further to investigate amount of
donation to the ruling party in exchange of coal
block allotment and others for proper prosecutions.
d. Because within the above facts impugned allotment
of coal block to the private parties are outcome of
corruption and fraud therefore impugned allotments
are liable to be quashed with heavy cost couple with
further action.
e. Because within the above facts it is clearly shown
that Dr. Singh, PM & Sriprakash Jaiswal minister of
CoM abused their positions to give huge pecuniary
benefits to private parties, which is an offence under
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore the said matter needs a thorough
35
independent investigation.
f. Because respondent Dr. Manmohan Singh Prime
minister of India and Sriprakas Jaiswal, minister of
MoC , both belong to ruling congress party and as
per VEDANTA they had given donation to Indian
political parties. However name of the parties has
not disclosed. VEDANTA is an NRI firm and any
such fund from foreign company requires prior
permission from the ministry of home affairs.
Otherwise it is an offence under FCRA,2010 subject
to imprisonment for three years with penalty.
Therefore also subject matter of donation and its
effect in coal allotment must be inquired and
decided for legal action in the interest of general
public.
g. Because respondent no. 4, 5 & 6 did not declare to
ECI about impugned donation received from
VEDANTA what was mandatory u/s 29B & 29C of
the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 and is a
serious offence.
h. Because u/s 19 of MMDR Act-1957 an allotment of
mining lease, in contravention of the provision of the
act, is void.
i. Because impugned coal block have been allotted
without previous approval of the central government
by the prime minister and coal minister contrary to
the provision of s.5 of The MMDR Act-1957.
j. Because impugned coal block has been allotted
without having mining plan in hand which is a
36
violation of s.5 (2)(b) of MMDR Act 1957. According
to the CAG report list more than 50 companies has
been allotted coal block in Jharkhand , Orissa &
Chattisgarh without having coal mining plan. It is a
serious case of violation of MMDR Act. Sterlite
energy and SKS Ispat Power Ltd are one of the
same companies.
k. Because for allotment of impugned coal block
provision of s.10 of the act was not complied & coal
block were allotted as per pick and choice basis for
benefitting to the private companies in exchange for
donations and others which is a serious violation of
law & also corruption attracting prevention of
corruption act -1992.Therefore these allotment must
be quashed with further prosecution under PC act-
92.
l. Because offence and activities has seriously
damaged National interest and properties.
Therefore CBI investigation must be within the
supervision of this Hon’ble High court and to file
their report before this court for complete justice.
55. That Petitioner has not filed any Petition before this
Hon’ble Supreme court or in any High court for the relief
prayed herein.
PRAYER
37
Therefore within the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the
interest of citizen of India for justice , equity and fair play this
Hon’ble court
1. Be pleased to declare and quash allotment of impugned
194 coal blocks in (1) Jharkhand, (2) Chattisgarh , (3)
Maharastra (4) West Bengal (5) Orissa and (6) Madhya
Pradesh to private companies/ parties , being as
arbitrary, illegal , unconstitutional and against the
public interest. AND
2. Be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to conduct
independent inquiry and to file their inquiry report
before this Hon’ble court for fixing the responsibility of
the respondents 4 to 5 and others in the impugned coal
allotment scam for proper prosecution u/s 409 & 420 of
IPC and PC ACT-92 & others. AND
3. Be pleased to issue direction for further inquiry under
FCRA ACT 2010 pertaining to donation from NRI
company, Vedanta, to Indian National Congress and to
file their report before this Hon’ble Court for further
action & proper prosecution. AND
4. Pass such other order or further orders, as this Hon’ble
court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS
ARE DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAYS.
38
Drawn & settled by: Filed by: Manohar Lal Sharma
Advocate
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Petitioner-in-person
Drawn on : 27.8.2012
Filed on : 29.8.2012
39
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) no. OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Petitioner Versus
The principle secretary & Others
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Manohar Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri P.L. Sharma ,practicing
advocate presently practicing in Supreme Court at S.C.B.
Lib. No.-1 Supreme Court of India ,New Delhi, Petitioner
do hereby solemnly affirm, state and declares as under
1. That I am the petitioner in the above writ petition and as
such I am aware of the facts of this case and I am
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That contents of this accompanied writ & contents of the
date of events ( page B- ) writ petition (para 1-55) and
(pages 1-32) and contents of the filed applications for stay
and directions are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
3. That filed copy of the annexure P-1 & P-2 colly are true
and correct to their original.
Deponent
Verification
I , the above named deponent do hereby declare and
verify on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true
to my knowledge ,nothing material has been concealed
therefrom and no part of it is false. Verified at New
Delhi on this 28.8.2012
DEPONENT
40
INDEX
1. LISTING PROFROMA A-A1
2. DATE OF EVENTS B-D
3. Writ Petition with affidavit 1-33
4. Annexure P-1
True copy of the list of coal block
allotments to the private companies
couple with CAG report dt. 7th May
2012
34-85
5. Annexure-P2 Colly
True copy of the times of India news
report dt. 26.8.2012
True copy of the relevant page of
Vedanta’s annual report of 2012
86-87
88
6. I.A. no. OF 2012
Application for direction
89-90
7. I.A. no. OF 2012
Application for stay
91-92
8. True copy of identity card of the
petitioner