With the Centre taking a position in the coal scam that its job was only to identify coal blocks, the Supreme Court on Thursday sought response from seven coal-bearing States to the PIls alleging irregularities in allocation of coal blocks.
The SC Bench, headed by Justice RM lodha, framed four questions for the States of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal to respond upon and fixed the matter for hearing on October 29.
The four questions framed by the court are as follows: How did the States understand about allocation of coal blocks by the CentreIJ What was the role of the State Government in the allocation of coal blocksIJ What was the role of the States in the subsequent steps after allocation of coal blocksIJ And lastly, the details of the agreement entered into by the public sector undertakings (PSU), which got coal blocks jointly with private parties in their States.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati had argued on Wednesday that allocation or allotment of coal blocks only meant "identification". Once the block was identified and reserved for a particular individual or company, the focus shifted to the concerned State Government for grant of forest clearance, approval of mining plan and actual grant of mining lease.
Vahanvati also said that the process undertaken by the Centre did not vest any right with the block beneficiary as the State may choose not to sign the lease.
While the Centre may have managed to shift the focus to the States as well, the stand of the States could even contradict the submission made by Attorney General. Presently, a lot of bad blood has developed between the Centre and States on the question of allotment of coal blocks. Throwing light on this fact, AG informed that one State in particular had blocked 27 mining leases from becoming operational since it had opposed to let coal from the state to be used for projects of other States.
The court even sought the States' version on the crucial question of competitive bidding of coal blocks. AG had complained that when the decision relating to competitive bidding was floated, most of them opposed it. "They are the owners and that is their view," he said.