7/31/2019 Team Anna's Rebuttal to PMO's Clarification

1/3

Team Annas clarification to PMOs rebuttal

Allegations of corruption were made by Team Anna in the allotment of coal blocks

especially during the period 2006-09 when the PM was handling the charge of Coal

Ministry. The PMO has issued a 7 point clarification in this regard. It is unfortunate that

this clarification is misleading and seeks to hide many critical facts.

Our response to the said clarification is as follows:

1. It is being said that the Government decided to introduce the concept of

competitive bidding in 2005. However, according to the Government, it is the

consensus building for the proposed legislative amendments required to achieve

that is what took so much of time.

Our response: This argument of PMO is misleading as:

Between 2004 and 2006 there was a series of communication that happened

between the Ministry of Coal (MoC) and Department of Legal Affairs (DLA). TheMoC wanted DLA's views on the way in which competitive bidding can be

introduced as the mechanism for allocation of coal blocks. The Law Secretary

repeatedly opined in July 2004, July 2006 and again in August 2006

that amendment to any existing Act (CMN or MMDR) is not a prerequisite to

introduce competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks. Therefore,

introduction of competitive bidding was legally feasible for MoC. Despite this the

MoC employed screening committee route to allocate coal blocks till 2009. Why?

Moreover, why did it take 6 years to build consensus on the amendment to the

Act and pass it. So many Acts have been passed in days. In fact, it was the PMO

which shot down the proposal for issuing an ordinance saying that there was no

urgency.

2. PMO has given the following arguments for not opting for auction or competitive

bidding:

a. It is being said that Coal blocks was never looked upon as a potential

source for generating revenue for the central government Hence the

question of maximizing revenue does not arise at all.

Our response:

i. This appears to be the most specious argument presented by the

PMO. It was not ordinary revenue that the government was

foregoing. It is possible for different agencies to estimate this loss

differently. However, CAG has estimated this loss as Rs. 1.8 Lakh

Crore which certainly is not ordinary. Who took this decision to

forego this revenue? Coal Secretary kept on opposing allocation of

coal blocks through the Screening Committee method. He wanted

auctions. His opinion was repeatedly rejected by the PMO.

7/31/2019 Team Anna's Rebuttal to PMO's Clarification

2/3

Therefore Coal Secretary was not a party to the decision to forego

this revenue. So was this decision taken by PMO or the PM himself?

Who in the PMO took this decision to forego revenue of this order?

Does the PMO or PM have the power to take this decision? Is this

decision recorded somewhere and can the minutes of this meeting

be made public?

ii. The same argument was given by Mr. A Raja in 2G spectrum. This

argument has already been rejected by the honorable Supreme

Court.

iii. One fails to understand the internal contradiction in PMOs

clarification. On one hand they say that it was decided to introduce

competitive bidding in 2005 and the consultation process was

started accordingly. Obviously the method of competitive bidding

would have led to increase in revenue. So, in principle, they

decided to maximize revenue. However, in practice they started

allocating mines in an arbitrary manner foregoing revenues. So

there seems to be an apparent contradiction in the policy decision

and its implementation.

b. The demand for coal was increasing substantially, legislative changes

would have taken a long time and therefore the Screening Committee was

adopted.

Our response: This logic is far from truth. While upto 2005 a total 75 coal

blocks were allocated, this number went upto 145 from 2006 to 2009.

Surprisingly, only 1 coal block has been allocated since 2010.

Is the PMO saying that the demand for coal was limited before 2005,

increased suddenly between 2006 and 2010 and again came down to

negligible after that. What are the factors that can explain such a trend in

the economy?

3. According to the PMO-Since the blocks are allocated to private companies only

for captive purposes for the specified end use, the question of linking the blocks

to the Market Price/CIL price of coal does not arise at all.

Our response: This argument is also misleading and factually incorrect. Earlier

the policy of government was that coal blocks were given only to those

companies which had captive requirements and only for their captive use. This

policy was changed and it was decided to allocate coal blocks to even mining

companies who would be required to have legal binding and enforceable supply

contracts with subsequent end users. This clearly shows that these middlemen

mining companies would make all the windfall gains. The government allocates

7/31/2019 Team Anna's Rebuttal to PMO's Clarification

3/3

coal blocks at a very cheap price with the hope that the benefit will go to the

consumers. However, the mining companies dont do that. The mining company

obtains coal blocks at throwaway prices from the government and provides coal

to the end-user at Market Price thus making windfall gains. So it is not the

consumer but the middleman mining company that benefits.

It is learnt that several companies which had no experience in steel, cement,

power or mining were allocated coal blocks. Most of these coal blocks are yet to

start production. In fact some of those companies which did not start coal

production after receiving the blocks were subsequently again given more coal

blocks despite their earlier violation.

How would the PM explain all these wrongdoings?

In this connection, pointed attention is brought to the following two extracts from the

CAG report:

1. Audit observed that the procedure followed for allocation of coal blocks lacked

transparency and it failed to arrive at the optimal price at which allocation of

blocks should have been made. MoC had recognized (June 2004) that there was

substantial difference between the price of coal supplied by CIL and the cost of

coal produced through coal blocks allocated for captive mining and as such there

was a windfall gains to the allocattees. (pg 84)

2. The concept of competitive bidding was first made public by the Government in

June 2004 but was yet to be given effect to (Nov 2011). Competitive bidding

would not only bring about objectivity and transparency in allocation

procedure, but would also bring in revenue for the Government as part of thesubstantial windfall gains accruing to the allocattees of captive coal blocks was

to be tapped through competitive bidding. (pg 86)