The Centre admitted on Monday that it went against its own policy to allocate five out of 47 coal blocks to private players in areas already leased out to Coal India limited, during 1993 and 2005.
Guidelines adopted by the Coal Ministry on private exploration for captive mining in coal blocks had specified as early as on August 29, 1992 that private players would not be allotted blocks within CIl sphere of operation. The private sector mines were meant to be “virgin” blocks having no rail, road or power lines. This meant that “blocks already decided for development by Coal India limited (CIl) should not be offered for private mining.”
Stating this fact, the Centre in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, produced minutes of the August 29, 1992 meeting of Board of Directors of CIl where this decision was adopted by the Government for all future coal mining operations involving private players.
Caught on the wrong side of its policy, the Centre may face questioning from the Supreme Court on Tuesday during the coal scam hearing. The bench headed by Justice RM lodha had on the earlier occasion questioned Attorney General GE Vahanvati on how the areas leased to CIl for development of coal mine went to private hands. It had then asked the Centre to provide full details with regard to each allocation during that period.
The latest affidavit of the Centre said, “Out of 47 blocks allocated to private parties from 1993 till 2005, five blocks were located in an area where there was a subsisting mining lease or were subject matter of Coal Bearing Areas Act notification in favour of CIl subsidiaries.”
Providing details of these five mines, the affidavit said that the lease at Sarisatolli was obtained after CIl subsidiary surrendered lease. Subsequently, the private company got lease from the State Government. In another case (Ardhagram), sub-lease was executed with the private company. On the earlier date of hearing, the bench headed by Justice RM lodha monitoring the coal scam investigation, had asked the Centre that in areas held under lease by CIl, private player could not have obtained an independent right. The CIl or its subsidiary would have to execute a sub-lease with the private party in such a case, the bench had observed.
With regard to the three remaining blocks, affidavit said that the Centre was in the process of collecting information regarding procedure to be followed after allocation since they were subject matter of notification under Coal Bearing Areas Act.