319. The files of MOC show that a meeting with representatives of Nodal Administrative Ministries represented in the Screening Committee and with representatives of various other organizations such as CMPDIL, CIL etc who were also members of Screening Committee was held in MOC on 11.05.2007. The said meeting took place even prior to considering the applications so received either for allocation of coal blocks reserved for power sector or for blocks reserved for other end users by 35th or 36th Screening Committee. The minutes of the said meeting held under the Chairmanship of A-4 H.C. Gupta, Secretary, Coal clearly demonstrates that all the three accused persons i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were aware of the action taken so far on the applications beside other details of the applications. The said minutes were put to PW-13 V.S. Rana by Ld. Counsel for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha in his cross-examination only and the said minutes accordingly stands proved and exhibited as Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) [In file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (Colly) (D-9)]. The said meeting was attended by representatives of Nodal Ministries i.e. Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, DIPP and by the representatives of CIL, Coal Controller Organization and CMPDIL. The officers of MOC namely A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were also present alongwith Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P), MOC.
320. Before I advert on to discuss the contents of the said minutes, it will be worthwhile to reproduce the said minutes alongwith attendance sheet thereof of the officers who attended the said CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 223 of 350 meeting:
"Minutes of Meeting held under the chairmanship of Secretary (Coal) with the representatives of Nodal Ministries represented in the Screening Committee, representatives of CIL, Coal Controller's Organisation and CMPDIL.
A meeting was convened on 11th May 2007 at 10:30 AM in the office chamber of Secretary (Coal) with the representatives of Nodal Administrative Ministries represented in the Screening Committee, representatives of CIL, Coal Controller's Organization and CMPDIL to discuss the modalities for scrutiny and evaluation of applications received for allocation of 38 coal blocks for captive use. List of participants is attached as Annexure.
Opening the discussion, Secretary (coal) gave brief account of the process followed, the guidelines notified for allocation of captive coal blocks in this round, details of applications received, and action taken so far on the applications. He pointed out that as against 740 applications received during the last round of allocation of captive blocks, the number of applications received for 38 blocks this time is 1,422, which is almost double the applications received on the last occasion. The representative of CMPDIL informed that in terms of applicant companies, the number would be around 344. Going by the past experience, the exercise is anticipated to be far more cumbersome in case personal audience is given to each applicant. Also, in order to determine the most eligible applicant, it needs to be considered whether a set of more specific bench mark criteria, in conformity with the broad parameters indicated in the guidelines, could be evolved against which the eligibility of applicants could be measured based on information furnished in the application forms. He also sought the views of the members on whether based on such criteria, non serious applicants could be filtered in the first round of scrutiny, leaving only the more serious contenders who only could be called for personal hearing. This would ensure more objective and critical evaluation of the competing applicants. The conventional way of calling each applicant would be extremely time consuming and it may take a long time for the Screening Committee to complete the exercise and make its recommendation.
The Advisor, Ministry of Power stated that they had CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 224 of 350 already suggested broad guidelines for evaluation of applications based on which scrutiny can be made. Secretary(coal) observed that it would not serve the purpose as the parameters suggested are of very general nature and not very specific, against which the applicants could be evaluated.
The Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Steel suggested that parameters such as minimum capacity of end use plant, minimum net-worth, preparedness of the project etc. could be considered as criteria for initial scrutiny and short-listing. The Director, Ministry of Steel also endorsed this suggestion.
Some of the members expressed concern that the action of the Screening Committee in eliminating some applicants based on net-worth criteria alone may be challenged in Courts on the ground that it could be only one of the factors and not the sole factor to be taken into account while determining the eligibility of the applicants. Such elimination may, therefore, be challenged on the ground of equality of opportunity.
After detailed deliberations, it was agreed that the respective Administrative Ministries would examine this issue further and suggest some criteria based on specific parameters to determine the inter-se priority amongst the applicants from the respective sectors i.e. power, iron & steel and cement. This may be furnished to the Ministry of Coal on priority. Thereafter, if necessary, another meeting would be convened to discuss the matter further. In the meantime, CMPDIL will carry out an exercise to identify the applicant companies that have minimum net-worth of 20% of the investment required for projected capacities of end use plants."
(Emphasis supplied by me) "List of participants in the Screening Committee meeting held on 11th May 2007 at 10:30 AM in the office Chamber of Secretary (Coal).
Ministry of Coal
(i) Sh. H.C. Gupta, Secretary
(ii) Sh.K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Coal.
(iii) Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P).
(iv) Sh.K.C. Samria, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Coal. Ministry of Steel
(i) Sh. N.R. Dash, Director Coal India Limited CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 225 of 350
(i) Sh. N.C. Jha, Director (Tech.).
Coal Controller Organization
(i) Sh. An. Saha, Coal Controller.
(ii) Sh. A.Panda, Director.
Coal mine Planning and Design Institute.
(i) Sh.S.Chaudhuri,
(ii) Sh. A.K. Wahi, GM, ES, CMPDIL."
321. It will be also worthwhile to mention at this stage that in the same file at page No. 105-106 the draft minutes of the said meeting are available in which certain corrections have been made by hand. The said draft minutes were put to DW-12 H.C. Gupta (When he examined himself in his defence u/s 315 Cr.PC) by Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma in his cross-examination and he stated that the said draft minutes carries corrections in the hand of A-5 K.S. Kropha. In fact an endorsement dated 30.05.2007 in the hand of A-5 K.S. Kropha at note sheet page 23 in file Ex. PW 1/H (colly) (D-2) also supports the aforesaid fact. The said draft minutes as above are available in file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (colly) (D-9) and have been exhibited as Ex. DW 12/PX-7.
322. However from a bare perusal of the minutes Ex. PW-13/DX- 16 (colly) of the meeting held on 11.05.2007, it is clearly evident that Secretary Coal, i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta while opening the discussion not only gave brief account of the process followed and the guidelines notified for allocation of captive coal blocks in this round, but also stated about details of applications received, and action taken so far on the applications. He also pointed out that as against 740 applications received during the last round of allocation of captive CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 226 of 350 blocks the number of applications received for 38 blocks, this time was 1422 i.e. double the number of applications received on the last occasion. The minutes however further talks of the discussion held amongst the members about the procedure or modalities to be adopted so as to determine the most eligible applicant. The issue of laying down specific benchmark criteria in conformity with the broad parameters indicated in the guidelines was also discussed. The need to have an objective and critical evaluation of the competing applicants was also stressed upon. The meeting however finally concluded with the decision that the respective Administrative Ministries would examine and suggest some criteria based on specific parameters to determine the inter-se priority of the various applicant companies. At the end of the minutes it is also mentioned that in the meantime, CMPDIL will carry out an exercise to identify the applicant companies that have minimum net-worth of 20% of the investment required for projected capacities of end use plants. In this regard it will be also worthwhile to have a glance over the last paragraph of the draft minutes of the said meeting which have also been proved on record as Ex. DW 12/PX-7 [available at page 105- 106 in file Ex. PW 1/H-1 (colly) (D-9)]. The last para of draft minutes Ex. DW 12/PX-7 read as under:
"It was further suggested by Secretary (Coal) that 20% of the investment required for projected capacities of end-use plants may be accepted as a bench mark criteria for first round of scrutiny. However, at the end it was decided that nodal Ministries to come forward with their suggestion in this regard in respect of applications concerning their sector."
(Emphasis supplied by me) CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 227 of 350
323. I shall be reverting back to the said draft minutes again at a later stage of my present judgment while further discussing the manner in which applications were dealt with either by Screening Committee or in MOC.
324. However the purpose of reproducing and referring to the minutes of meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) at this stage is only to show the falsity in the claim made by the accused MOC officers that at no point of time the facts regarding total number of applications received in MOC or the manner of their processing or the details of the applications or the action taken so far on the applications were brought to their knowledge by CA-I, Section officers/officials. In fact in the note sheet pages of the files of MOC I have been unable to find any noting where the total number of applications so received or the manner in which they were processed or any other details of the applications were specifically mentioned at least till the date of aforesaid meeting i.e. till 11.05.2007. Even in the cross-examination of PW-13 V.S. Rana in response to a question put to him, he stated that no note was put up by CA-I, Section as to how many applications in all were received either for power sector or for non-power sector coal blocks. Thus in these circumstances when the minutes of aforesaid meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) have been relied upon by the accused MOC officers themselves then it was for them to explain only as to in what manner they came to know about the total number of applications so received or the action taken so far on the applications. The minutes says that CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 228 of 350 Secretary Coal also gave a brief account of details of applications received. The onus in this regard thus again remained on A-4 H.C. Gupta only as to what details of the applications were to his knowledge which were shared by him with the other members of the Screening Committee present in the said meeting. Moreover as per the attendance sheet of the officers who attended the said meeting, all the three accused persons i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were present from MOC beside Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P). The role of Sh. P.R. Mandal, Advisor (P) in the entire coal block allocation process has neither been asserted to by the prosecution nor the accused persons have ascribed any role or any knowledge of the process to him. Moreover the presence of PW- 13 V.S. Rana or any other officer of CA-I Section in the meeting can not be presumed as the attendance sheet is silent in this regard. Had it been so the attendance of such other officers of MOC would have been there in the attendance sheet in the same manner in which it was there in the attendance sheets of various meetings of 36th Screening Committee even though A-6 K.C. Samria and PW-13 V.S. Rana were admittedly not members thereof. Even otherwise, if the presence of said officers/officials of CA-I, Section is presumed in the said meeting then also the only irresistible conclusion which arises from the overall facts and circumstances is that the senior officers of MOC were informed at least on the day of meeting held on 11.05.2007, if not before by the officers/officials of CA-I, Section about the total number of applications received and action taken so far on the applications or other details of the applications. Thus the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 229 of 350 three accused senior officers of MOC can not claim that they were not aware of the details of the applications received or total number of applications received or the action taken on the applications so far, at least as on 11.05.2007 if not before thereto. Certainly when nothing has been stated by the three accused MOC officers as to what all knowledge they had about the details of the applications or the action taken on the applications till 11.05.2007 much less the source from whom they came to know about all such details so it will be completely logical and legal to presume that all the three accused MOC officers had knowledge that the applications have not been checked for their eligibility and completeness in accordance with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks before copies thereof were sent to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to CMPDIL. Otherwise the accused MOC officers ought to have stated as to what facts relating to action taken so far on the applications was shared by them with other members of Screening Committee in the meeting held on 11.05.2007. These facts certainly can be to the exclusive knowledge of accused MOC officers only and thus they ought to have disclosed about the same more so when the said minutes Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) have been relied upon by them only.
325. However, at this stage, I may make a note of caution that I am not trying to draw any conclusion merely based on the weaknesses of the defence but I am simply trying to reinforce my conclusion which is borne out from the files of MOC itself that the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 230 of 350 applications so received in MOC were neither contemplated to be dealt with as per the provisions of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure nor were ever dealt with as per the said provisions. There is admittedly no noting in any of the files of MOC from which any details of the applications so received in MOC or total number of applications so received or the manner in which they have been dealt with in MOC could be ascertained. Admittedly all the three accused senior MOC officers also did not put any noting in the files of MOC even after 11.05.2007 as to how and from whom they came to know about the total number of applications received, details of applications so received or the action taken so far on the applications much less to question CA-I, Section officers/officials as to for what reasons the guidelines qua checking of applications for eligibility and completeness were not complied with.
326. The aforesaid facts and circumstances not only goes to suggest that the working of MOC was completely adhoc in nature but also is a strong indicator of the malafide intention of the accused MOC officers who despite having acquired knowledge that the guidelines governing coal block allocation process have not been complied still chose to keep mum and probably because the same facilitated them in exercising their discretion in the coal block allocation process as per their whims and fancies. Arbitrary functioning and consequently lack of objectivity and transparency in the exercise of discretion seemed to be the order of day in MOC without any attention being paid to the rule of law.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 231 of 350
327. At the cost of repetition, I may mention that from my aforesaid discussion, it stands conclusively proved that all the three MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria irrespective of the volume of work being handled by them were well aware of the total number of applications received or the details of the applications or the manner in which the applications were dealt with in MOC. As regard the exact date when the three officers came to know about said non-compliance with the guidelines, it can be well stated that at least as on 11.05.2007 all the three senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria had acquired the said knowledge, if not before. Though I may mention that keeping in view the nature of functioning of MOC at least as regard coal block allocation process it is difficult to believe that the three accused MOC officers were not aware about all such details of applications or the manner in which they have been dealt with even prior to 11.05.2007.
328. Thus the only irresistible conclusion which arises in the overall facts and circumstances as discussed above is that all the three senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria at least as on 11.05.2007 were well aware that the applications have not been checked for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks. The said conclusion in no way can be stated to be based on any presumptions much less on conjectures and surmises.
329. There is yet another aspect of the matter. From the facts and CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 232 of 350 circumstances which stands proved on record it is also clear that the applications received even qua 34th and 35th Screening Committee were also never checked for their eligibility and completeness. Non- compliance with the guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks thus seems to be an accepted norm in MOC and that too with complete knowledge of the three accused MOC officers.
330. In his cross-examination, PW-13 V.S. Rana in response to a question put to him on behalf of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha, stated as under:
"The procedure with respect to application received for 36th Screening Committee followed in MOC right upto the time when the applications were put up before the Screening Committee for consideration was the same which was followed as regard the applications received for 34th or 35th Screening Committee.
331. Similarly both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha in their examination-in-chief when examined as DW-12 and DW-11 respectively also stated that the CA-I, Section undertook the scrutiny of the applications as per their understanding and as per the past practice. Admittedly both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha were respectively the Chairman and Member Convener of 34th Screening Committee and 35th Screening Committee also. Thus to state that the applications were dealt with as per the past practice clearly leads to only two conclusions. Firstly the applications were not even checked in MOC for their completeness and eligibility even at the time of 34th Screening Committee and 35th Screening Committee and this fact was well to the notice of both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 233 of 350 K.S. Kropha and for this reason only it was stated by them in their examination-in-chief that the applications on this occasion also i.e. at the time of 36th Screening Committee were dealt with by CA-I, Section as per their understanding and as per the past practice.
332. On the other hand, if both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha claims that even at the time of 34th and 35th Screening Committee also they were not aware as to in what manner the applications were dealt with by CA-I, Section then such a claim being made even after final allocation of various coal blocks having been made by 34th and 35th Screening Committee to different applicant companies clearly fortifies my earlier conclusion that the entire process of allocation of captive coal blocks as was undertaken in MOC was completely arbitrary and that too without paying any heed to the rules and regulations or guidelines governing such allocation of captive coal blocks. In these circumstances also it was for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha to explain as to in what context they stated in their examination-in-chief as recorded u/s 315 Cr.PC or it was put to PW-13 V.S. Rana in his cross-examination on their behalf that CA-I, Section undertook scrutiny of the applications as per their understanding and as per the past practice. They ought to have explained as to what understanding of CA-I, Section or past practice they were referring to qua the scrutiny of applications.
333. Thus in either of the two situations, it was for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha only to spell out their knowledge about the understanding of CA-I, Section in scrutinizing the applications or their CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 234 of 350 knowledge qua the past practice.
334. From my aforesaid discussion it thus stands reinforced that all the three accused MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were well aware at least as on 11.05.2007 that the applications have not been checked in MOC for their completeness and eligibility.
(E) Whether the three accused MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks.
335. In the light of my aforesaid discussion the next issue which is required to be examined is as to whether A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were responsible to ensure compliance with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of captive coal blocks. As earlier also mentioned it has been the consistent stand of all the three accused MOC officers that it was the sole responsibility of CA-I, Section officers/officials to comply with the said guidelines and in case they were finding it difficult to comply with the said guidelines they ought to have brought the said facts in writing to the notice of senior officers.
336. In this regard it will be worthwhile to mention that PW-13 V.S. Rana in his cross-examination stated that it was the job of CA-I, Section, MOC to receive the applications and to thereafter process them. Even otherwise since coal block allocation matters were admittedly being dealt with by CA-I, Section in MOC so it was CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 235 of 350 certainly the said section which was to remain associated with all the stages of coal block allocation process as were undertaken in MOC. However the issue of ensuring compliance with the guidelines in MOC needs to be seen on a broader platform keeping in view the importance of matter being dealt with and also as to what all steps were required to be undertaken in this regard. It also needs to be seen as to whether the senior officers of MOC who not only approved the guidelines as above but were also involved in the entire coal block allocation process either as officers of MOC or as Chairman and Member Convener of Screening Committee were even conscious of the consequences which may result in case the guidelines are not complied with especially as regard checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility or still whether they deliberately abdicated their responsibility in this regard so as to benefit certain given applicant companies. It also needs to be seen whether the senior officers of MOC were even alive to the voluminous nature of task involved in checking of applications or whether CA-I, Section officers/officials were capable and competent to undertake any such checking of applications as was envisaged in the guidelines.
337. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to mention that PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, CA-I, Section MOC stated in his deposition that beside him there was one other Section Officer and two Dealing Assistants working in CA-I, Section. However irrespective of the strength of officials/officers posted in CA-I, Section and before I advert on to the issue as to who all were responsible for complying CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 236 of 350 with the guidelines so issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks, I am unable to restrain myself from observing that if the contentions of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria are to be believed then the issue of complying with the guidelines qua the allocation of important Nationalised natural resources of the country i.e. coal which was essential for the overall industrial development of the country and had a great monetary value in the market was left to the mercy of LDC, UDC or a Section Officer or even to the level of an Under Secretary of the Ministry. All the three senior officers who were members of Indian Administrative Service have completely disowned their responsibility in the matter by stating that once the guidelines were approved and issued by them then it was the sole responsibility of the concerned section i.e. the lowest rung of the Ministry to comply with the said guidelines. They have taken a categorical stand that till the time matters were not brought to their notice by their subordinates that the guidelines have not been complied with neither the said facts came to their knowledge nor they had any reason to believe that the guidelines have not been complied with or more specifically that the applications have not been checked for their eligibility and completeness before sending copies thereof to the Administrative Ministries or to State Governments or to CMPDIL. However as I have already discussed and demonstrated in the earlier part of present judgment that from the minutes of meeting held on 11.05.2007 it is crystal clear that all the three senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria were well aware of the manner in which the applications have been dealt with CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 237 of 350 till then by MOC and they were also conscious of the requirement to scrutinize and evaluate applications in an objective manner so that non-serious applicants could be filtered out. Thus even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that it was the sole responsibility of CA-I, Section to comply with the said guidelines then also when the action taken so far on the applications as on 11.05.2007 had come to the knowledge of all the three senior officers then at least they ought to have raised a red flag as to why the guidelines have not been complied with in letter and spirit. Their silence in this regard or omission to act even after the meeting held on 11.05.2007 clearly reinforces the irresistible inference/conclusion that all the three accused officers of MOC deliberately and consciously ignored the issue of compliance with the guidelines i.e. to ensure that the applications are checked for their completeness and eligibility at least after 11.05.2007. One copy of the applications was admittedly available with MOC. It is in these circumstances, if the claim of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha as made in their examination-in- chief as DW-12 and DW-11 respectively that CA-I, Section undertook the scrutiny of the applications as per their understanding and as per the past practice is seen then it is found that even at the time of 34th and 35th Screening Committee meetings also no such checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility was undertaken by MOC. PW-13 V.S. Rana also in his cross-examination clearly stated that the process adopted by CA-I, Section, MOC for processing various applications received for allotment of different coal blocks with respect to 36th Screening Committee was the same which was CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 238 of 350 adopted by CA-I, Section with respect to applications received qua 34th and 35th Screening Committee. He also stated that even as regard applications dealt with by 34th and 35th Screening Committee no scrutiny of applications qua their completeness and eligibility was carried out. He thus categorically stated that the applications dealt with by 36th Screening Committee were also not checked for their eligibility and completeness in MOC.
338. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is thus clear that even if the responsibility to comply with the guidelines qua checking of applications for eligibility and completeness is presumed to be that of CA-I Section then also it was equally the responsibility of the senior officers of MOC i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria to ensure that the applications are duly got checked for their completeness and eligibility in MOC if not before 11.05.2007 then at least after the meeting held on 11.05.2007. Admittedly one copy of applications was still available with MOC. As already discussed that at least on the day of meeting held on 11.05.2007 all the three accused MOC officers were aware as to how the applications have been dealt with so far in MOC.
339. In fact as regard the deposition of PW-13 V.S. Rana, it has been argued that he is trying to introduce new facts over and above his earlier statement u/s 161 Cr.PC made to IO by stating that oral information was given to senior officers of MOC that applications have not been checked for their completeness and eligibility. It was submitted that PW-13 V.S. Rana was now making improvements CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 239 of 350 solely with a view to save his own skin as being Under Secretary, CA- I, Section, it was his responsibility only to comply with the guidelines or in case of any difficulty being faced in complying with the guidelines, then to bring the relevant facts to the notice of senior officers in writing and which act he clearly failed to do. His testimony was thus stated to be completely unreliable.
340. In this regard it will be worthwhile to reiterate that there is admittedly no written note in the files of MOC prior to 11.05.2007 from which it may be even slightly inferred as to how the applications so received have been dealt with in MOC. There is also no note prior to 11.05.2007 in which total number of applications received might have been mentioned. Similarly there is no note mentioning any details of the applications so received by MOC. In these circumstances when A-4 H.C. Gupta admittedly in the meeting held on 11.05.2007 talked about the details of the applications or the total number of applications received or the process followed or the action taken so far i.e. till 11.05.2007 on the applications, so it was incumbent upon A-4 H.C. Gupta only to furnish details of the information as was shared by him in the meeting or the source and mode of receiving the said information by him. Thus in the absence of any written note in the files of MOC it has thus to be presumed that the said information was provided to him and to A-5 K.S. Kropha who too was also present in the said meeting alongwith A-6 K.C. Samria, orally by CA-I, Section officers/officials only.
341. In these circumstances when PW-13 V.S. Rana stated that he CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 240 of 350 had orally informed both A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that applications have not been checked for their completeness or eligibility then he certainly appears to be stating true and correct facts. Moreover as already discussed and demonstrated above that even after receipt of applications the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure were hardly followed or adhered to in MOC. Also when admittedly none of the three senior officers of MOC raised any objection as to why the guidelines have not been followed than it is clear that it was an accepted practice in MOC from the time of 34th and 35th Screening Committee that before sending one copy of the applications to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to CMPDIL the applications were not to be checked for their eligibility and completeness even though the guidelines issued by MOC itself mandated so.
342. Thus as there was no practice or mechanism put in place in MOC regarding checking of applications in terms of the guidelines from the time of 34th Screening Committee itself so no efforts were made at any level of officers/officials in MOC to ensure checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines even at the time of 35th or 36 th Screening Committee also. It was for this reason only that there is no noting in any of the files of MOC mentioning that the applications have not been checked for their completeness and eligibility even though for various other issues, be it trivial or not there are notings in the files. Thus rightly or wrongly since the line of action to this extent of dealing with the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 241 of 350 applications was clear to CA-I, Section officers/officials so in accordance with para 5 (9) (f) of Manual of Office Procedure the drafts were put up without much noting by CA-I, Section officials.
343. In these circumstances even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that till 11.05.2007 it was the sole responsibility of PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under Secretary, CA-I Section, MOC or that of other officials of CA-I, Section to undertake checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility or to put up a note to the senior officers in the files of MOC regarding non-compliance with the guidelines then as discussed and demonstrated above at least after 11.05.2007 it was the duty of A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A- 6 K.C. Samria to ensure due compliance with the guidelines in both letter and spirit. Moreover if after 34th Screening Committee it was to the knowledge of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that CA-I, Section is not capable enough to carry out checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness then some proper mechanism ought to have been provided for in the guidelines framed qua 35th and 36th Screening Committee to ensure that the applications are duly checked for their eligibility and completeness in MOC. Again after 35th Screening Committee the three accused MOC officers could have put into place such a mechanism in MOC to ensure that applications are checked for their eligibility and completeness.
344. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there has been complete abdication of duties by the three accused MOC officers. The accused MOC officers acted in the most CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 242 of 350 arbitrary manner and that too without paying any heed to the rules, regulations or procedures governing allocation of captive coal blocks. Their conduct in not ensuring compliance with the guidelines at least after 11.05.2007 clearly shows that their all such acts were conscious and deliberate. However my subsequent discussion while examining the other acts of omission and commission as were undertaken by the three accused MOC officers in the later part of coal block allocation process which finally led to allocation of Thesgora- B/Rudrapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL will further fortify the aforesaid conclusion. The accused MOC officers thus so acted as if they were completely oblivious of the consequences of not complying with the guidelines governing allocation of captive coal blocks i.e. the consequences of not ensuring that the applications are checked for their eligibility and completeness.
(F) Consequences of not checking the applications for their eligibility and completeness in terms of the guidelines.
345. While discussing the role of private parties i.e. of A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, I have already demonstrated that the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was liable to be rejected at the initial stage being incomplete as it was not accompanied with all the required documents as mandated by the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks.
346. DW-12 H.C. Gupta in his cross-examination as conducted by Ld. Sr. P.P. Sh. V.K. Sharma also admitted that the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL in the absence of requisite documents having been not CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 243 of 350 enclosed with it was incomplete and thus ought to have been rejected. He however stated that he came to know about this fact only during the investigation of the present case and more clearly during the course of present trial. Similar has been the stand of A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria in their respective deposition when they entered the witness box as defence witnesses u/s 315 Cr.PC.
347. However A-4 H.C. Gupta also took a very strange stand in his deposition as DW-12 when he stated that irrespective of an applicant company being eligible or not his application was to be placed before the Screening Committee. He however further stated that recommendation for allocation of a coal block was in fact to be made in favour of most eligible company. A-5 K.S. Kropha also in his deposition as DW-11 denied the suggestion that in the Screening Committee the applications of only such applicant companies were to be placed for consideration whose applications were found to be complete and the applicants being eligible. He in fact further went on to state voluntarily that as per his understanding of the guidelines under the title "Processing of Application" all the applications received by MOC whether they were complete or not were to be sent to Administrative Ministries/State Governments for their evaluation and recommendations and upon receipt of their recommendations all the applications were to be put up before the Screening Committee for its consideration. Similarly A-6 K.C. Samria as DW-10 also denied the suggestion that incomplete applications or applications of companies which were not eligible ought not to have been placed before the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 244 of 350 Screening Committee. He also stated that it was the sole prerogative of Screening Committee to consider the applications of various applicant companies and to look into the aspect as to whether any given applicant company was an eligible company or not as per the guidelines issued by MOC for allotment of a captive coal block. As regard the completeness of any given application, he further stated that regardless of the said fact all the applications were to be placed before the Screening Committee for its consideration.
348. Before adverting further, I may however state that in view of the aforesaid nature of interpretation being now put to the guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks by the accused senior officers of MOC who in fact were actively involved in the entire coal block allocation process including the process vide which the said guidelines came to be framed and approved, it will be apt to refer to certain observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as were made while dealing with the principle of "Contemporanea Expositio" in its order dated 25.08.2014 in Manohar Lal Sharma case (Supra) "67. In Desh Bandhu Gupta 11, this Court has dealt with the principle of Contemporanea Expositio. While doing so, this Court referred to Crawford on Statutory Construction (1940 ed.) and the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Baleshwar Bagarti12 and Mathura Mohan Saha13 and culled out the legal position in para 9 (page 572 of the Report) as under: "9. It may be stated that it was not disputed before us that these two documents which came into existence almost simultaneously with the issuance of the notification could be looked at for finding out the true intention of the Government in issuing the notification in question, particularly in regard to the manner in which outstanding transactions were to be closed or liquidated. The principle of contemporanea expositio CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 245 of 350 (interpreting a statute or any other document by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority) can be invoked though the same will not always be decisive of the question of construction (Maxwell 12th ed.p. 268). In Crawford on Statutory Construction (1940 ed.) in para 219 (at pp. 393-
395) it has been stated that administrative construction (i.e. contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officers charged with executing a statute) generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned; such a construction, commonly referred to as practical construction, although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight; it is highly persuasive. In Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass [ILR 35 Cal 701 at 713] the principle, which was reiterated in Mathura Mohan Saha v. Ram Kumar Saha [ILR 43 Cal 790 : AIR 1916 Cal 136] has been stated by Mookerjee, J., thus:
'It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it, at the time of its enactment and since, by those whose duty it has been to construe, execute and apply it..... I do not suggest for a moment that such interpretation has by any means a controlling effect upon the courts; such interpretation may, if occasion arises, have to be disregarded for cogent and persuasive reasons, and in a clear case of error, a court would without hesitation refuse to follow such construction.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . ."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
349. Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter went on to further observe that in view of the aforesaid consistent view an interpretation to the statute received from contemporary authority is not binding upon the Courts and may have to be disregarded if such interpretation by the contemporary authority is clearly wrong.
350. It has been however also argued by Ld. Counsels for the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 246 of 350 accused MOC officers that as the guidelines so framed by MOC were not having any statutory force so the interpretation as understood and put to them by the officers concerned should prevail over any other view.
351. In this regard I may however state that not only such an argument is riddled with inconsistency but even otherwise such an interpretation appeals neither to logic nor can be stated as a meaning which could be assigned to the guidelines by a reasonably prudent person.
352. Firstly, the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court qua the principles of "Contemporanea Expositio", as is reflected in the observations itself will hold ground also qua the guidelines in question irrespective of the fact whether the guidelines were having any statutory force or not. Moreover, as already discussed the guidelines were framed in order to implement the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein-after referred to as MMDR Act) and that of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (herein-after referred to as 'CMN Act') and were having binding force both upon MOC officers as well as on the Screening Committee. Moreover it is not the case of anyone at all during the trial that guidelines were not having any binding force. On the other hand, it was rather argued by the accused persons that the guidelines were followed even for ascertaining the inter-se priority of the applicant companies during the Screening Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 247 of 350 In fact the guidelines were framed admittedly to control and regulate the discretion to be exercised by MOC officers and the Screening Committee in recommending allocation of captive coal blocks.
353. Secondly, if the interpretation as is being given by the MOC officers is accepted then the very purpose of framing of the guidelines shall stand defeated. If application of none of the companies was to be rejected despite being incomplete or the company being ineligible or in other words applications of all companies were to be put up before the Screening Committee irrespective of the fact as to whether they were eligible or not or their applications were complete or not then no purpose would have been served by carrying out their checking qua completeness or eligibility. Certainly no purpose could have been served by placing applications of any such companies before the Screening Committee for the said company(ies) could not have been recommended for allocation of any coal block. The very purpose of mentioning the words in the guidelines that applications without the requisite documents shall be rejected would loose their meaning and purpose.
354. It was also argued by Ld. Counsels for A-4 H.C. Gupta and A- 5 K.S. Kropha and by Ld. Counsel for A-6 K.C. Samria that State Governments concerned and Administrative Ministries were suppose to carry out detailed evaluation of the claims made by the applicant companies by carrying out techno-economic appraisal of the companies. However a bare perusal of minutes of meeting held on CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 248 of 350 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly) clearly shows that the Administrative Ministries were not carrying out any detailed scrutiny or evaluation of the applications so sent to them. Subsequently from the recommendations so received from the Administrative Ministries also it was evident that no such checking of applications for completeness or eligibility has been carried out by them. In fact Ministry of Steel in its communication dated 06.12.2007 Ex. PW 13/J- 1 (colly) in file Ex. PW 13/C (colly) (D-5A) clearly called upon the Screening Committee to consider the potential and credibility of the applicants in setting up capacity addition in steel sector or progress made in respect of the steel capacity projects. The minutes of 36th Screening Committee Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) also clearly shows that even during the course of Screening Committee meeting it was clear that the Administrative Ministries have not carried out any detailed scrutiny of applications much less verifying the claims made in the applications.
355. Thus, it was clear to the accused MOC officers that no checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness has been carried out by the Administrative Ministries to whom applications were sent for their comments/recommendations. It is thus crystal clear that the applications in accordance with the guidelines issued were to be checked for their completeness and eligibility by MOC only. It is also clear that in terms of the guidelines the applications of all such companies as were incomplete or the applicants being ineligible were to be rejected at the initial stage itself and were not to CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 249 of 350 be even sent to Administrative Ministries/State Governments or to CMPDIL much less placing them before the Screening Committee. Moreover, as already discussed and demonstrated that in terms of the guidelines, the application Ex. PW 1/F (colly) (D-10) of A-1, M/s KSSPL was clearly incomplete as it was not accompanied with all the requisite documents as were asked for by MOC. The application of the company was thus liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself being incomplete as per the mandate of the guidelines.
356. Thus, it will be completely fallacious to state that all the applications even if anyone of them or more was incomplete in terms of the guidelines were to be put up before the Screening Committee. The said plea of defence thus clearly seems to have been put forward only because on account of non-checking of the applications for their completeness and eligibility in MOC, the application of A-1, M/s KSSPL instead of getting rejected at the initial stage itself being incomplete came to be placed before the Screening Committee for consideration and in fact was even recommended by the Screening Committee for allocation of a coal block. The claim that all the applications whether they were complete or not or even if the said applicant companies were eligible or not, were to be put up before the Screening Committee for consideration is thus clearly an attempt to cover-up the acts of omission and commission on the part of accused MOC officers in not ensuring that the applications are checked for their completeness and eligibility.
357. Thus from the overall facts and circumstances of the case CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 250 of 350 and the manner in which the applications were dealt with in MOC, it will be entirely logical to infer and conclude that the accused MOC officers consciously and deliberately ignored compliance with the guidelines and that too without caring for the consequences which were likely to occur in case application of any company which is liable to be rejected being incomplete or company being ineligible on any factor, is processed further and is put at par with the applications of such other companies who were not only eligible but their applications were also complete, in as much as all the necessary documents asked for by MOC were duly annexed with the application. In fact the intention of accused MOC officers in doing so appear to be to keep the field open at the stage of initial scrutiny by not ruling out any applicant company from the zone of consideration of the Screening Committee. The subsequent events rather shows that in the Screening Committee the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was not only considered but was also recommended for allocation of a captive coal block by A-4 H.C. Gupta.
358. At this stage, I may also deal with yet one other submission of Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that prosecution has not proved on record that the applications of other companies who had applied for allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block were complete or that those companies were eligible for allotment of a captive coal block.
359. However in this regard it would be suffice to state that the aforesaid submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is based on a fallacious CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 251 of 350 assumption. If the checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness would have been undertaken in terms of the guidelines then not only the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL but also that of all such other companies whose applications would have been found to be incomplete or ineligible would have stood rejected. Thus applications of only such companies would have been placed before the Screening Committee whose applications would have been found to be complete or eligible. Yet another fallacy in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is that even if applications of all the applicant companies for any given coal block would have stood rejected, had checking of applications for eligibility and completeness undertaken in MOC, then also there was no compulsion either upon MOC or upon the Screening Committee to compulsorily allocate the said given coal block to one or the other applicant company. In such an eventuality the said coal block would have remain unallocated.
360. In fact the aforesaid circumstances in itself takes care of a number of other arguments put forth by Ld. Counsel for A-1 M/s KSSPL and A-2 Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia that A-1 M/s KSSPL was the most suitable and appropriate applicant company to be recommended by the Screening Committee. It was submitted by him that as per the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Steel, though for its internal use, the company M/s KSSPL ought to have been placed under category II(b) and not under II(a) as the company M/s KSSPL was already having a coal linkage. In order to bring home the fact that A-1 M/s KSSPL was the most suitable company alongwith M/s Revati CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 252 of 350 Cement Pvt. Ltd. to be recommended for allotment of Thesgora- B/Rudrapuri coal block a comparative analysis of the application of A- 1 M/s KSSPL with that of other applicant companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/Rudrapuri coal block was also attempted by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and in the deposition of defence witnesses.
361. However the said contentions of Ld. Counsels for the accused persons does not hold ground at all since the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL was liable to be rejected at the initial stage itself in MOC being incomplete. Had it been done so, the question of it being one of the most suitable company would not have arisen at all. Similarly the issue of change of its category by Ministry of Steel would not have come into picture at all, for the application of A-1 M/s KSSPL would not have been even sent to Ministry of Steel for examination by MOC. The question of any comparison of the claims made in the application by A-1 M/s KSSPL with that of other applicant companies would not have arisen at all.
362. Ld. Counsels for the accused MOC officers also placed strong reliance upon the description of duties of various levels of officers in a Ministry under Central Government as mentioned in the Manual of Office Procedure. Though I have already held that the applications received in MOC were never dealt strictly as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure and in fact the provisions were observed more in breach but still in order to appreciate the role CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 253 of 350 and responsibilities of various levels of officers in a Ministry under Central Government it will be appropriate to refer to the same as are mentioned in the Manual of Office Procedure. Para 5 in Chapter III titled "Machinery of Government" provides for the function of department and various levels of functionaries as under:
Chapter III Machinery of Government
1. . . . . .
. . . . .
2.
3.
4.
5. Department -
(1) A department is responsible for formulation of policies of the government in relation to business allocated to it and also for the execution and review of those policies. (2) For the efficient disposal of business allotted to it, a department is divided into wings, divisions, branches and sections.
(3) A department is normally headed by a secretary to the Government of India who acts as the administrative head of the department and principal adviser of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration within the department. (4) The work in a department is normally divided into wings with a Special Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in charge of each wing. Such a functionary is normally vested with the maximum measure of independent functioning and responsibility in respect of the business falling within his wing subject, to the overall responsibility of the Secretary for the administration of the department as a whole.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 254 of 350 (5) A wing normally comprises a number of divisions each functioning under the charge of an officer of the level of Director/Joint Director/Deputy Secretary. A division may have several branches each under the charge of an Under Secretary or equivalent officer.
(6) A section is generally the lowest organisational unit in a department with a well-defined area of work. It normally consists of assistants and clerks supervised by a Section Officer. Initial handling of cases (including noting and drafting) is generally done by, assistants and clerks who are also known as the dealing hands.
(7) While the above represents the commonly adopted pattern of organisation of a department, there are certain variations, the most notable among them being the desk officer system. In this system the work of a department at the lowest level is organised into distinct functional desks each manned by two desk functionaries of appropriate ranks e.g. Under Secretary or Section Officer. Each desk functionary handles the cases himself and is provided adequate stenographic and clerical assistance.
(8) The other notable variation is the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence where, the Vice Chiefs of Staff, the Principal Staff Officers of the concerned branches and other appropriate authorities, exercise the powers delegated by the Raksha Mantri through he various Branches and the Directorates of the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence.
(9) Functions of various levels of functionaries :
(a) Secretary - A Secretary to the Government of India is the administrative head of the Ministry or Department. He is the principal adviser of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration within his Ministry/Department, and his responsibility is complete and undivided.
(b) Special Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary - When the volume of work in a Ministry exceeds the manageable charge of a Secretary one or more wings may be established with Special Secretary/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, incharge of each wing. Such a functionary is entrusted with the maximum measure of independent functioning and responsibility in respect of all business falling within his wing subject, to the general responsibility of the Secretary for the administration of the wing as a whole.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 255 of 350
(c) Director/Deputy Secretary - Director /Deputy Secretary is an officer who acts on behalf of the Secretary. He holds charge of a Secretariat Division and is responsible for the disposal of Government business dealt within the Division under his charge. He should, ordinarily be able to dispose of the majority of cases coming upto him on his own. He should use his discretion in taking orders of the Joint Secretary/Secretary on more important cases, either orally or by submission of papers.
(d) Under Secretary - An Under Secretary is in charge of the Branch in a Ministry consisting of two or more Sections and in respect thereto exercises control both in regard to the despatch of business and maintenance of discipline. Work comes to him from the sections under his charge. As Branch Officer he disposes of as many cases as possible at his own level but he takes the orders of Deputy Secretary or higher Officers on important cases.
(e) Section Officer - A. General Duties -
(i) Distribution of work among the staff as evenly as possible;
(ii) Training, helping and advising the staff;
(iii) Management and co-ordination of the work;
(iv) Maintenance of order and discipline in the section;
(v) Maintenance of a list of residential addresses of the Staff.
B. Responsibilities relating to Dak -
(i) to go through the receipts;
(ii) to submit receipts which should be seen by the Branch Officer or higher officers at the dak stage;
(iii) to keep a watch on any hold-up in the movement of dak; and
(iv) to scrutinize the section diary once a week to know that it is being properly maintained.
C. Responsibilities relating to issue of draft -
(i) to see that all corrections have been made in the draft before it is marked for issue;
(ii) to indicate whether a clean copy of the draft is necessary;
(iii) to indicate the number of spare copies required;
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 256 of 350
(iv) to check whether all enclosures are attached;
(v) to indicate priority marking;
(vi) to indicate mode of despatch.
D. Responsibility of efficient and expeditious disposal of work and checks on delays -
(i) to keep a note of important receipts with a view to watching the progress of action;
(ii) to ensure timely submission of arrear and other returns;
(iii) to undertake inspection of Assistants' table to ensure that no paper of file has been overlooked;
(iv) to ensure that cases are not held up at any stage;
(v) to go through the list of periodical returns every week and take suitable action on items requiring attention during next week.
E. Independent disposal of cases -
He should take independently action of the following types -
(i) issuing reminders;
(ii) obtaining or supplying factual information of a non- classified nature;
(iii) any other action which a Section Officer is authorized to take independently.
F. Duties in respect of recording and indexing -
(i) to approve the recording of files and their classification;
(ii) to review the recorded file before destruction;
(iii) to order and supervise periodic weeding of unwanted spare copies;
(iv) ensuring proper maintenance of registers required to be maintained in the section;
(v) Ensuring proper maintenance of reference books, Office Orders etc. and keep them up-to-date;
(vi) Ensuring neatness and tidiness in the Section;
(vii) Dealing with important and complicated cases himself;
(viii) Ensuring strict compliance with Departmental Security Instructions.
(f) Assistant/Upper Division Clerk - He works under the orders and supervision of the Section Officer and is CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 257 of 350 responsible for the work entrusted to him. Where the line of action on a case is clear or clear instructions have been given by the Branch Officer or higher officers, he should put up a draft without much noting. In other cases he will put up a note keeping in view the following points :-
(i) to see whether all facts open to check have been correctly stated;
(ii) to point out any mistakes or incorrect statement of the facts;
(iii) to draw attention, where necessary, to precedents or Rules and Regulations on the subject;
(iv) to put up the Guard file, if necessary, and supply other relevant facts and figures;
(v) to bring out clearly the question under consideration and suggest a course of action wherever possible.
(g)Private Secretary/PersonalAssistant/Stenographer
- He will keep the officer free from routine nature of work by mailing correspondence, filing papers, making appointments, arranging meeting and collecting information so as to give the officer more time to devote himself to the work in which he has specialised. The Personal Assistant will maintain the confidentiality and secrecy of confidential and secret papers entrusted to him.  Some of the more specific functions are enumerated below :-
(i) taking dictation in shorthand and its transcription in the best manner possible;.
(ii) fixing up of appointments and if necessary canceling them;
(iii) screening the telephone calls and the visitors in a tactful manner;
(iv) keeping an accurate list of engagements, meetings etc. and reminding the officer sufficiently in advance for keeping them up;
(v) maintaining, in proper order, the papers required to be retained by the Officer;
(vi) keeping a note of the movement of files, seen by his officer and other officers, if necessary;
(vii) destroying by burning the stenographic record of the confidential and secret letters after they have been typed and issued;
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 258 of 350
(viii) carrying out the corrections to the officer's reference books and making fair copies of draft demi-official letters to be signed by the officer;
(ix) generally assisting him in such a manner as he may direct and at the same time, he must avoid the temptation of abrogating to himself the authority of his boss.
(h) Lower Division Clerk - Lower Division Clerks are ordinarily entrusted with work of routine nature, for example - registration of Dak, maintenance of Section Diary, File Register, File Movement Register, Indexing and Recording, typing, comparing, despatch, preparation of arrears and other statements, supervision of correction of reference books and submission of routine and simple drafts etc."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
363. Thus from a bare perusal of Para 5 (a), it is clear that a Secretary to the Government of India is not only the Administrative Head of the Ministry or Department but he is also the Principal Advisor of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration within his Ministry/Department. It has been further provided that the responsibility of the Secretary shall be complete and undivided. Similarly while describing the functions of Special Secretary/Joint Secretary, it has been stated that though such a functionary is entrusted with the maximum measures of independent functioning and responsibility in respect of all business falling within his wings but it is further stated that the same shall be subject to the general responsibility of the Secretary for the administration of the wing as a whole. As regard Director/Deputy Director, it has been provided that he is an officer who acts on behalf of the Secretary. It has also been stated that he should use his discretion in taking orders of Joint Secretary/Secretary on more important cases, either orally or by CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 259 of 350 submission of papers. Similarly, in the functions of Assistant/Upper Divisional Clerk as provided in the Manual of Office Procedure, it has been stated that though he works under the orders and supervision of the Section Officer and is responsible for the work entrusted to him but where the line of action on a case is clear or clear instructions have been given by the branch officer or higher officer he should put up a draft without much noting. In other cases he is supposed to put up a note keeping in view various points such as, whether all facts open to check have been correctly stated; to point out any mistakes or incorrect statement of the facts; to draw attention, where necessary, to precedents or Rules and Regulations on the subject; to put up the Guard file, if necessary, and supply other relevant facts and figures and to bring out clearly the question under consideration and suggest a course of action wherever possible etc.
364. Though as regard the responsibility of Secretary which has been stated to be complete and undivided, DW-12 H.C. Gupta stated that on account of volume of work handled by a Secretary, in a Ministry, the Secretary thereof can not be expected to look into the detailed working of each and every section of the Ministry. It was further stated that senior officers in a Ministry work on the basis of trust and belief that each section must have completed his work properly. He further stated that as number of files used to come before him everyday so the system functions on the basis of trust and the contribution of all concern towards final decision.
365. In order to better appreciate the aforesaid submissions of A-4 CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 260 of 350 H.C. Gupta, it will be worthwhile to once again revisit the circumstances in which the decision to allot captive coal blocks to private companies engaged in certain specified end uses was taken by the Central Government or the consequent guidelines governing allocation of coal blocks were issued. On account of acute scarcity of coal in the country, the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was amended in the year 1993 and thereafter provision was made for allocation of coal blocks to private companies engaged in specified end uses for their captive use. Admittedly the 7th Energy Co- ordination Committee in order to avoid undue delay also directed MOC to expedite the process of allocation of captive coal blocks and pursuant to which the advertisement in question was issued in November 2006 alongwith guidelines as above. The important question which however arises is whether any instructions were issued at any point of time by Ministry of Coal as to in what manner the guidelines shall be complied with or by whom. As already demonstrated above the applications were neither contemplated nor were dealt or processed strictly as per the provisions of Manual of Office Procedure. However an important issue to be kept in mind while appreciating all these aspects is that the issue being dealt with by MOC was of immense importance in which large business houses were expressing great interest. The pride of place which coal as an important raw material had, was also not unknown to the MOC officers. However the guidelines issued by MOC provided for various conditions which the applicant companies were to comply with or what all documents were required to be annexed with the applications CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 261 of 350 or what shall be the consequences if any of the said document(s) are not annexed, were completely silent as regard any implementation mechanism. Nothing was mentioned in the guidelines as to who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidelines or as to in what manner or by what mechanism the guidelines shall be complied with. It was thus imperative for the authorities approving the said guidelines to have given a thought as to how large number of applications which were expected to be received shall be dealt with. PW-13 V.S. Rana in his cross-examination stated that with respect to deciding modalities of allocation of coal blocks, the competent authority was Secretary Coal. As is evident from the records and the experience of 34th Screening Committee which A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha admittedly had, it is clear that the senior officers of MOC were well aware that large number of applications are likely to be received in response to the advertisement. They were also aware that applications will be voluminous in nature. From the minutes of the meeting held on 11.05.2007 Ex. PW 13/DX-16 (colly), it is clear that in the last round of allocation of captive coal blocks, 734 applications were received by MOC. The said fact was undisputedly to the knowledge of accused persons as A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha were Chairman and Member Convener, respectively, of 34th Screening Committee also. The said Committee had thus dealt with 734 applications. Moreover it was for this reason only that the place of receipt of applications was fixed at Coal India Limited office, Laxmi Nagar as not only large number of applications were expected to be received but also because the applications to be so received were CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 262 of 350 bound to be bulky in nature. It is for this reason only that certain officials from the office of Coal Controller, Kolkata as deposed to by PW-12 Amlendu Khamru were called to assist CA-I, Section officials in sorting out the applications. Even PW-13 V.S. Rana admitted in his cross-examination that due to paucity of space the applications were received only at Laxmi Nagar office of CIL and were never received at Shastri Bhawan office of MOC.
366. Thus in these circumstances it will be completely permissible for this Court to presume keeping in view the routine course of transaction of business in MOC that the senior officers thereof must have been aware as to the tedious and voluminous nature of work which will be required to be put for checking of applications for their eligibility and completeness in terms of the guidelines issued. As already mentioned such a knowledge can certainly be attributed to A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha primarily on account of their past experience of handling quite a large number of applications i.e. about 734 applications received qua 34th Screening Committee. Moreover after 34th Screening Committee and prior to the present meeting of 36th Screening Committee these very officers were also involved with the recommendation of various applicant companies qua different coal blocks reserved for power sector as the same were dealt with by 35th Screening Committee. At that time also about 700 applications were dealt with by 35th Screening Committee.
367. Thus if in the aforesaid circumstances, senior officers of MOC dare to claim that they were not aware as to in what manner the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 263 of 350 applications received qua 34th or 35th Screening Committee meeting were dealt with by MOC then without any further discussion it can be stated that the conduct of accused MOC officers be it in their capacity as MOC officers or as Chairman and Member Convener of various Screening Committees is shrouded with suspicion and is not free from doubts. Their actions are thus certainly not above board. In fact from the overall facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above coupled with various acts of omission and commission of the accused MOC officers, it is clear that it is not simplicitor a case where they were oblivious of the likely consequences of their acts of omission and commission but they deliberately ignored the guidelines so as to ensure that all applications whether complete or not or applicant companies being eligible for allotment of captive coal blocks or not are considered by the Screening Committee as the same would facilitate arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in them in the coal block allocation process. The intention was certainly clear in as much as they wanted to favour any applicant company as they may choose to at a subsequent stage.
368. The only purpose of discussing the aforesaid circumstances was to highlight that the task of checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines was a tedious and cumbersome task. Thus the senior officers of MOC despite being aware of the aforesaid nature of work involved chose to not issue any directions or instructions at the time of approving the guidelines as to whose responsibility will it be to comply with the said guidelines or as CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 264 of 350 to in what manner the same will be complied with. In fact the senior officers of MOC admittedly did not even care to enquire even at a later stage as to whether the guidelines qua checking of applications for completeness or eligibility have been complied with or not. Their consistent stand that unless the officers/officials of CA-I, Section had brought to their notice any difficulty, if faced by them in this regard, they were not supposed to look into the same has already been found to be not tenable or as being completely devoid of any merits.
369. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that A-4 H.C. Gupta being Secretary Coal can not shirk off his complete and undivided responsibility as mentioned in Manual of Office Procedure by merely stating that as Secretary Coal he can not be expected to look into the detailed working of each and every section. Similarly A-5 K.S. Kropha, Joint Secretary Coal or A-6 K.C. Samria, Director, CA-I, Section, also can not absolve themselves of their responsibilities with respect to coal block allocation process by stating that they were having work of other sections/wings of MOC also to look after. Moreover A-4 H.C. Gupta was aware that Ministry of Coal will allot various coal blocks based on the recommendations of Screening Committee only. Also as Secretary Coal, A-4 H.C. Gupta was not only the administrative head of the Ministry but was also the principle advisor of the Minister on all matters of policy and administration within his Ministry. Thus as the file containing recommendation of Screening Committee was to put up to Prime Minister as Minister of Coal so his responsibility all the more was CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 265 of 350 more onerous in ensuring that complete and correct facts are placed before him. However at a later stage I shall also discuss that MOC officers even with-held information from PMO that the guidelines governing of allocation of coal blocks have not been complied with either in MOC or in the Screening Committee.
370. While A-5 K.S. Kropha was associated with the entire coal block allocation process with A-4 H.C. Gupta from beginning but from March 2007 onwards even A-6 K.C. Samria was also associated with the said allocation process. In fact PW-12 Amalendu Khamru, the official of the office of Coal Controller who had come to assist CA-I, Section officials in processing of applications clearly stated that they were asked to only sort out the applications in five different boxes after putting serial numbers on them and they were never asked to check the applications for their eligibility and completeness. He also stated that A-5 K.S. Kropha had visited them when they were so carrying out the sorting work and had told them that we must first complete the sorting work before going back to our office at Kolkata. He further stated that on the asking of A-5 K.S. Kropha they extended their stay in Delhi beyond the initial period of 10 days. PW- 13 V.S. Rana also corroborated his testimony in this regard stating that A-5 K.S. Kropha was not only initially informed about the arrival of said four officials from the office of Coal Controller but later on he also visited them at Laxmi Nagar office.
371. At this stage as a mark of caution, I may mention that I am not trying to draw any presumption regarding the role and CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 266 of 350 responsibility of senior officers of MOC on the basis of conjectures and surmises. In fact all the inferences/conclusions being drawn by me are clearly borne out from the overall facts and circumstances of the case as stands proved on record.
372. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, the responsibility to comply with the guidelines issued by MOC governing allocation of coal blocks can not be solely attributed to CA-I, Section officers/officials. In fact even if the arguments put forth by Ld. Counsels for the three MOC officers are accepted that it was the responsibility of CA-I, Section officers/officials to carry out the actual physical work of checking the applications but even then the same was to be carried out under the supervision of senior officers of MOC only. The said supervision also can not be left at the level of Under Secretary, by simply stating that while sending one set of applications to State Governments concerned or to Administrative Ministries he did not care to put up the file to senior officers even though the file was put up to the senior officers on other innocuous matters such as procuring 130 locks and trunks or for making transport arrangements. In this regard, I may simply state that since the applications in MOC were being dealt with in the same manner as were handled on earlier occasions so as per Manual of Office Procedure where the line of action on a case is clear then without much noting, the file was to be put up. Thus since the line of action on sending one set of applications to State Governments concerned or to Administrative Ministries or to CMPDIL was clear in as much as on earlier occasions CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 267 of 350 also the applications were dealt with in the similar manner so the noting in that regard ended at the level of Under Secretary, V.S. Rana (PW-13). The Manual of Office Procedure clearly states that an Under Secretary as branch officer disposes of as many cases as possible. In fact while approving the said note on 19.02.2007, PW-13 V.S. Rana also made an endorsement that "Issue to only those states for which applications are ready". Thus if in the aforesaid circumstances the arguments of senior officers of MOC are considered that it was the sole responsibility of PW-13 V.S. Rana as under Secretary and Branch Incharge of CA-I, Section to ensure compliance with the guidelines then vide his aforesaid noting one can say that he had also put a mark of caution to his subordinates that applications be sent to only those states for which applications are ready. Thus the final responsibility will then rest somewhere with the Section Officer or even on the two dealing Assistants under him who in fact had put up the note dated 19.02.2007 as available at note-sheet page 10 in file Ex. PW 1/H (colly) (D-2) of MOC stating that applications received for allocation of 39 coal blocks are ready to dispatch.
373. Thus if in the overall facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the detailed nature of guidelines issued governing allocation of such important Nationalised natural resources of the country, the responsibility of checking the applications for their completeness and eligibility is left at the level of a dealing assistant of the rank of LDC or UDC in one section of the Ministry then the senior officers of MOC certainly failed grossly in not only supervising the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 268 of 350 functioning of the officers below them but also in not putting in place a system comprising of responsible officers/officials who could have ensured compliance with the guidelines. In fact as stands reflected from the subsequent events which took place in the coal block allocation process the acts of accused senior officers of MOC in not ensuring compliance with the guidelines was also part of a well planned strategy to keep the field open so that during Screening Committee meetings they may exercise their discretion in favour of any applicant company, they may choose to. As regard the issue that the file regarding arrangement of 130 big size trunks and transport arrangements to be made by CIL for carrying the applications was put up to the level of Joint Secretary, Coal K.S. Kropha, it would be suffice to state that since the procurement of big size trunks or making of transportation arrangements can not be stated to be part of a routine nature of working of a Ministry and also the said issue involved financial implications qua purchase of big size trunks or for making transportation arrangements and that too to be made by another department i.e. CIL so in those circumstances one can reasonably infer that file was put up to the level of Joint Secretary for necessary approval. If that be not so then at least the Director through whom the file moved to the desk of Joint Secretary could have always approved the note at his own level without forwarding it to the desk of Joint Secretary. One may however say that as mentioned on the said note sheet page 9 the concerned Director CA- I, Section was on election duty and thus the file was put up before the Link Director and he thus could not have approved the note at his CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 269 of 350 own level. The aforesaid submission however may not hold ground at all for various reasons. Firstly the link Director was also an officer of MOC and there can not be an order or direction issued to any such link Officer that he will not take any final decision at his level being a link officer. The Manual of Office Procedure also does not say so. Secondly the Link Director while forwarding the file to Joint Secretary specifically made an endorsement "May kindly see before issue". He was thus conscious of the matter which he was forwarding to Joint Secretary and he thus put a note of caution for the Joint Secretary.
374. At this stage, I may however mention that in the present case what is being examined is the role played by the three accused MOC officers in the coal block allocation process in as much as whether the same constitutes any criminal offence or not. The role and responsibility of either PW-13 V.S. Rana or that of other officials of CA-I, Section is being referred only to the extent as is necessary to appreciate the role played by the three accused MOC officers.
375. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, I may also state that both DW-10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha stated in their deposition that to scrutinize the applications for their eligibility was the job of Screening Committee. If that be so then the record of MOC is completely silent as to whether the Screening Committee ever scrutinized the applications for their eligibility or not. The two accused persons themselves highlighted the said eligibility conditions viz. the applicant should be a registered company or that it should be engaged in one or the other end uses i.e. generation of power, CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 270 of 350 production of iron and steel or cement. Yet another eligibility condition was that the applications ought to be received in MOC by the last date i.e. 12.01.2007. Though there are certain issues dealt with in the files of MOC, where clarifications were sought from Secretary Coal as to whether last date of receipt of applications in the light of request made by certain applicant companies be extended or not. However there is no noting in any of the MOC files as to whether any enquiry was made at any point of time either by the senior MOC officers or by the Screening Committee regarding checking of applications for their completeness or that the eligibility of the applicant companies was checked or not. One may refer back to the guidelines titled "Processing of Application" wherein it has been clearly provided that the applications so received shall be checked for their completeness and eligibility. Thus if the applications were to be checked for eligibility by the Screening Committee as deposed to by DW-10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha and as per the consistent stand of all three accused MOC officers, the applications were to be checked for completeness by CA-I, Section then the guidelines were completely silent in this regard. In such a situation the guidelines ought to have stated under "Processing of Application" itself that while the applications will be checked for completeness by CA-I, Section but qua eligibility the applications will be scrutinized by the Screening Committee.
376. However in view of the aforesaid nature of stand taken by both DW 10 K.C. Samria and DW-11 K.S. Kropha in their deposition it CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 271 of 350 would be difficult to presume or conclude that to check the applications for their completeness and eligibility in terms of the guidelines titled "Processing of Application" was the sole responsibility of officers/officials of CA-I, Section only.
377. The important question which however arises for consideration is as to why the MOC despite being headed by a senior and well experienced IAS officer or having other senior Indian Administrative Service officers looking after the work of important sections/Wings in MOC relating to coal block allocation matters and despite being aware of the important nature of work being dealt with by them chose to put an adhoc system to deal with the applications so received by MOC seeking allocation of captive coal blocks. The answer in the overall facts and circumstances appears to be only that the aforesaid attitude of accused MOC officers towards the coal block allocation process was part of a well designed strategy by them to keep the field open so that they may exercise their discretion at a later stage in favour of any applicant company they may choose to.
378. However in this regard if one was to say that it was due to inefficiency or incapability of the officers at the helm of affairs in MOC as was submitted by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons then this Court would seriously not believe the said claim. Though during the course of final arguments or rather during the course of trial it used to be repeatedly urged by Ld. Counsels for accused MOC officers that all these lacunas in different coal block allocation matters may be the result of inefficiency or incapability of the officers of MOC but there CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 272 of 350 was no criminal element involved in their said action.
379. However in the overall facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above coupled with the vast experience which the three accused MOC officers were having at their command, it can not be stated by any stretch of imagination that the aforesaid casual and adhoc nature of arrangement put in place in MOC to deal with coal block allocation matters was on account of inefficiency or incapability of the senior officers of MOC. However, it will not be wrong to say if the attitude of senior MOC officers in dealing with the coal block allocation matters is termed as that of "WHO CARES".
380. Moreover as earlier also discussed, by not undertaking any such checking of applications for their completeness and eligibility the field was sought to be kept open by MOC officers whereby none of the applicant companies will ever be ruled out either on the ground that their application is not complete in terms of the guidelines issued by MOC or that they were not eligible for allocation of a captive coal block and thereafter in the Screening Committee they will have an open field to arbitrarily exercise their discretion in favour of any applicant company. In fact from a perusal of the minutes of 36th Screening Committee Ex. 13/L (colly) (D-6A) it is clear that objectivity and transparency were two alien concepts to the working of Screening Committee. As admitted by both DW-11 K.S. Kropha and DW-12 H.C. Gupta, the minutes Ex. 13/L (colly) of 36th Screening Committee meeting were completely silent as to on what ground A-1 M/s KSSPL was recommended for allocation of a coal block or M/s CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 273 of 350 BLA power Ltd. i.e. the company which was recommended by Government of Madhya Pradesh was not recommended. Nothing can even be ascertained from the minutes as to why other applicant companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block were not recommended for allocation of the said coal block. Similar is the situation with respect to recommendation made by 36th Screening Committee even qua other coal blocks in favour of other applicant companies.
381. During the course of trial Ld. Counsels for the accused persons though tried to point out various factors on which the other applicant companies who had applied for Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block could not have been recommended for allocation of the said coal block or as to why A-1 M/s KSSPL alongwith M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. were the only two most appropriate companies who could be recommended by Screening Committee for joint allocation of Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block. It was also submitted that since Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block was reserved for non-power sector so M/s BLA Power Ltd. who intended to establish a power project could not have been recommended for the said coal block.
382. However in this regard it would be suffice to state that even if all the aforesaid arguments being now put forth during trial by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons are considered as correct then also the fact remains that the minutes of 36th Screening Committee are completely silent in this regard. It is no where ascertainable from the records as to what prevented 36th Screening Committee in CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 274 of 350 recording the reasons as to why M/s BLA Power Ltd. though recommended by Government of Madhya Pradesh was not being recommended by the Screening Committee for Thesgora-B/ Rudrapuri coal block or as to why from amongst 10 applicant companies A-1, M/s KSSPL and M/s Revati Cement Pvt. Ltd. are only being recommended. Though the MOC officers have now argued that all relevant factors for deciding inter-se priority were duly taken into consideration but as is reflected from the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly). The said fact is no where ascertainable. DW-12 H.C. Gupta however further stated that whenever there used to be unanimity qua any coal block then as Chairman A-4 H.C. Gupta he used to announce the recommendation of the Screening Committee but where there used to be no such unanimity then the decision used to be arrived at by way of broad consensus. It was however claimed by A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha, that the detailed reasons were not mentioned in the minutes as all the members of the Screening Committee were at unanimity qua all the recommendations. However DW-13 Shivraj Singh who was present in the 36th Screening Committee meeting as a representative of Government of Jharkhand categorically stated that in cases where there used to be no unanimity then Chairman Screening Committee used to announce recommendation of Screening Committee after hearing the views of all and such recommendations used to be on the basis of broad consensus which used to develop during the course of discussion. Thus from the deposition of DW-13 Shivraj Singh, a witness examined by A-4 H.C. Gupta, only it is clear that there were certain recommendations of CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 275 of 350 Screening Committee which were based on broad consensus only as emerged during the course of discussion but the said recommendations strictly speaking were not unanimous in nature. However a bare perusal of minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) of 36th Screening Committee meeting shows that nothing is ascertainable as to which of such recommendations of Screening Committee were not unanimous or were simply based on broad consensus. In fact the word "unanimous" or there being unanimity in the recommendations so made is completely missing from the minutes.
383. At this stage it would be pertinent to reproduce the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) (D-6A) of 36th Screening Committee meeting as the same will give a clear and better understanding of the nature of proceedings which took place in the various meetings of 36th Screening Committee. (As already mentioned common minutes of all 5 meetings of 36th Screening Committee were prepared after the last meeting as was held on 03.07.2008) "MINUTES OF THE 36TH MEETING OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HELD ON 7TH-8TH DECEMBER 2007, 7TH-8TH FEBRUARY 2008 AND 3RD JULY 2008 IN NEW DELHI TO CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF 23 COAL BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR NON-POWER SECTOR **** The 36th meeting of the Screening Committee for screening applications submitted by the applicants for allocation of coal blocks earmarked for allocation to specified end-uses other than power was held on the 7 th-8th December 2007 and 7th February, 2008. The Secretary (Coal) gave the background relating to advertisement, total 674 applications were submitted by 184 companies for allocation of coal blocks earmarked for non-power sector. Some companies had applied for more than one block and some had submitted more than one application for a single block for different end-use plants located at different CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 276 of 350 locations. The applications of the companies were sent to the Central Ministries of Steel, Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) etc and the concerned States where the blocks are located and also to the States where the proposed end use projects are located, for their comments. He pointed out that in exercise to screen the proposals and advised the members to take note of minute details of each application, for taking collective decision. He further drew the attention of the Committee members to the guidelines (which are displayed on the website of the Ministry) on the matter of allocation of coal blocks notified along with the officer notice. It was also explained that the inter-se priority among the applicants for allocation of coal blocks is to be determined on the basis of the criteria of suitability of the block to the requirement of the end use plant, techno-economic viability of the project, level of progress is setting up of the end- use project by the applicants, track record and financial strength of the company, recommendations of the Administrative Ministry and the State Governments concerned etc. It was decided that all the applicants would be given an opportunity to present their case one by one and thereafter the Committee would discuss and make it s recommendation in respect of each block. In case an applicant has applied for more than one block, he would make his presentation for all the applied blocks together.
2. Accordingly, the Committee screened the proposals of the applicants on three days i.e. on 7th and 8th December 2007 and 7th February 2008. The applicant companies were invited int eh alphabetical order to make their presentation with regard to information given in the application form and to clarify points, if any, raised by the members. The list of members of the Screening Committee that attended the meeting is placed at Annexure-I. The list of the representatives of the applicant, companies that appeared before the Committee is given at Annexure-II.
3. The committee met again on 8th February, 2008 to finalise its recommendation. However, there were some differences of opinion amount the Committee members with regard to accommodation of prospective allocatees in coal blocks based on mine capacity or minable reserves. Accordingly, a decision was taken to get the mine capacity and reserves reassessed by CMPDIL. The report received from CMPDIL was circulated to the members of the Committee for their comments. The members had taken note of the revised details of reserves etc. for giving their views.
4. The 23 coal blocks (4 coking and 19 non-coking) under CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 277 of 350 consideration were - Urtan, Beharaband North Extn., Tandsi-III & Tandsi-III extn., Urtan North (coking blocks), Macherkunds, Rajhara North (Central & Eastern), Moira-Madhujore (North & South), Datima, Bhaskarpara, Kudari, Bikram, Vijay Central, Rajgamar Dipside (South of Phulakdih Nala), Kesla North, Gondkhari, Kappa & Extn. Dahegaon-Makardhokra-IV, Bander, Hurilong, Hutar Sector C, Rajgamar Dispside (Deavnara), Tehsgora-B/Rudrapuri and Andal East (Non Coking blocks). The status of geological reserves of 23 blocks is given at Annexure-III, the mine capacities and extractable reserves of b locks are only tentative. Some blocks are either partially explored or only regionally explored. The share of quantities among the joint allocatees shall remain in the same proportion subsequent to exploration, formulation of GR and approval of mining plan.
5. The details of each applicant company in respect of core business, proposed capacity of end-use plant, location etc. as per the application forms are given at Annexure-IV.
6. Some of the companies did not appear for presentation despite the notices issued to them through individual letters, as well as through the Ministry's web-site. However, their applications were also considered by the Screening Committee as per the information submitted by them in their application forms.
7. In the meeting of the Screening Committee convened on rd 3 July 2008, the Secretary (coal) informed the members that there were a few issues which need to be brought to the notice of the Committee. The were as follows:-
i) Representations were received from some companies, which were not able to present their case due to delay in receipt of notice, to be considered in the meeting. The following companies have made the representation:
• M/s Shanno Business • M/s Shanti GD Ispat • M/s Special Blasts Limited • M/s Eastern Steel and Power Limited Though the notices were issued individually and was also placed in the Ministry's Website, however, keeping in view the request made by the above companies, the information submitted by them was placed before the Screening Committee for consideration of their cases also, along with the others.
ii) Modification in the boundaries of Moira Modhujore and Behraband North Extn. Coal blocks offered for allocation;
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 278 of 350
(iii) SECL and CMPDIL have intimated that the reserves in the Kudri block have been exhausted. Therefore, it may not be considered for allocation.
The Screening Committee took note of the information submitted by the above companies for consideration and also change in the status of blocks offered for allocation.
8. (i) The Chairman then invited the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Steel to brief the members about the rationale followed by the Ministry of Steel for evaluating the applications relating to sponge iron, pig iron and steel projects. The Joint Secretary, MoS explained that the present capacity of steel production in the country is around 60 MT and the Ministry of Steel is projecting a capacity expansion of 6% to 7% int eh immediate future. Therefore, the blocks be allocated to those companies which are genuine, technically and financially sound to take up the project and where capacity addition is expected to be accomplished by the year 2010. These companies need to be encouraged with assured supply of coal as raw material and those who are not expected to set up the projected capacities based on their track record etc. should be discouraged. Allocation of coal block to smaller players though desirable, but keeping in view their technical and financial constraints, it would be difficult for them to get the block developed in a time bound manner. He suggested that the requirement of small producers, which are genuine, should be met through linkages granted from CIL subsidiaries. He further stated that priority for allocation of coking coal blocks may be determined in the following order:-
I. To those companies which have integrated steel plants without any coking coal block;
II. To those companies which are opting for blast furnace route, and the end use plants are likely to be commissioned by 2010; III. To those big companies, which are yet to commission their plants, but are opting for blast furnace route;
IV. Stand-alone pig iron producers supplying foundry grade pig iron may not be considered for coking coal blocks.
(ii) It was further suggested that for cling coal blocks, companies with minimum capacity of 0.5 MTPA and for non- coking coal blocks, DRI plants with minimum capacity of 0.3 MTPA be given priority in view of scarcity of resource, it was suggested that ceiling of maximum end use plant capacity of 2 MTPA for coking coal blocks (coal requirement 2 MTPA) and 1.2 MTPS for non-coking coal blocks (Coal requirement 1.96 MTPS) be imposed to ensure equitable distribution of CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 279 of 350 resources. This has been arrived at by multiplying the minimum capacity by a factor of 4 (four) and keeping in view that maximum applicants have applied for plant capacities in range of 0.3-1.0 MTPA (for DRI route) and 0.5-1.5 MTPS (for Blast Furnace route).
9. Representative of DIPP observed that since hardly any blocks were allocated to cement plants in the past this sector should get a higher share in this round, as large number of established companies have applied for coal blocks. He further advised that preference may accorded to cement plants with minimum capacity of 2 MTPA.
10. Chief Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh expressed the view that as per the past trends, major players have been getting the coal blocks but the smaller players are not getting coal blocks for the reason of smaller capacity and weaker financial strength compared to major players. For this reason, they are finding it difficult to compete with those bigger companies which are enjoying assured raw material at a lower coast for captive iron ore and coal mines. Therefore he suggested that the interest of smaller players may be taken care of by allocating coal blocks to consortium formed by these companies. The representative from the State Governments reiterated that location of end-use project within the coal bearing State and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with that State Government should e the main consideration for allocation of coal blocks. The Chairman observed that while the views expressed by the State Governments would be given due weightage, these cannot be accepted as the sole basis or a mandatory qualifying prerequisite for allocation of coal blocks. This would not be in conformity with the guidelines laid down for allocation of coal blocks. There are many other factors which would have to be taken into account before the Screening Committee makes its recommendations. Coal is a national resource, and needs to be tapped optimally to sub-serve the economic interest of the whole country. However, he assured the representatives of the State Govts. That the Committee would take into consideration the interests of State Govts. As well.
11. The Screening Committee suggested that in case of allocation to consortium companies, it should be ensured that consortium is a well defined entity in terms of equity participation by the member units. It was, therefore, decided that thorough verification be made about the consortium in terms of number of participants, equity participation, end use capacity, coal requirement etc. before the allocation of coal CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 280 of 350 block to consortium company is made.
12. After detailed deliberations the parameters suggested by the Ministry of Steel and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, were agreed to. It was also accepted that an upper cap on projected capacity should be placed in order to secure more equitable distribution of limited resources. Therefore, ceiling of 1.2 MTPA for DRI, 2 MTPA for Steel and 4 MTPA for cement were agreed upon. It was also decided that in case companies have been allocated blocks in the past for the same project, then reserves allocated for such blocks may be adjusted while assessing the total requirement and share of coal of such companies.
13. The Screening Committee, thereafter, deliberated at length over the information furnished by the applicant companies in the application forms, during the presentations and subsequently. The Committee also took into consideration the views/'comments of Ministry of Steel, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, State Governments concerned, guidelines laid down for allocation of coal blocks, and other factors as mentioned in paragraphs 8 to 12 above, as regards inter-se distribution of shares among the joint allocattees, it was decided by the Committee that capacity of end-use projects shall be determined as follows:
i) The capacity indicated in the application form;
ii) The capacity indicated in the MoU entered into between the applicant company and the State Govt. concerned, wherever applicable;
iii) The realistic capacity addition likely to materialize by the year 2010, as assessed by the nodal Ministry/Department concerned;
Whichever is the lowest.
14. Based on the data furnished by the applicants, and the feedback received from the State Governments, the Ministry of Steel and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the Committee assessed the applications having regard to matters such as techno-economic feasibility of end-use project, status of preparedness to set up the end-use project, past track record in execution of projects, financial and technical capabilities of applicant companies, recommendations of the State Governments and the Administrative Ministries concerned etc. the Screening Committee, accordingly decided to recommend for allocation of coal blocks in the manner as follows:
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 281 of 350 S. State Name of Geological Tentative Mine Name of End Use Location Share No. the Block Reserves Extractable Capacity Company Plant Reserves Capacity (in MTPA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR PIG IRON (Coking coal) 1 2
3...
BLOCKS EARMARKED FOR OTHER END USES - NON COKING COAL 1 2
3....
15. A signed copy of the recommendations of the Screening Committee is placed at 'Annexure-V'.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair."
384. Thus the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) as reproduced above clearly shows that the same are completely sketchy in nature and are also completely silent about any discussion which is stated to have taken place during the meeting qua allocation of various coal blocks. Moreover if the claim of accused persons that as all the decisions of the Screening Committee were unanimous so the details of the discussion which took place were not mentioned is believed even for the sake of arguments, then also the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) are also silent even about this fact. The word "unanimous" or the phrase that the decision of Screening Committee were arrived at with unanimity of all members present are completely missing from the minutes. It is in these circumstances, it will be worthwhile to once again refer to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court as were made in the order dated 25.08.2014 in Manohar Lal Sharma case (Supra) as regard the nature of minutes of 36th Screening Committee.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 282 of 350
154. To sum up, the entire allocation of coal block as per recommendations made by the Screening Committee from 14.07.1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the Government dispensation route suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and legal flaws. The Screening Committee has never been consistent, it has not been transparent, there is no proper application of mind, it has acted on no material in many cases, relevant factors have seldom been its guiding factors, there was no transparency and guidelines have seldom guided it. On many occasions, guidelines have been honoured more in their breach. There was no objective criteria, nay, no criteria for evaluation of comparative merits. The approach had been ad- hoc and casual. There was no fair and transparent procedure, all resulting in unfair distribution of the national wealth. Common good and public interest have, thus, suffered heavily. Hence, the allocation of coal blocks based on the recommendations made in all the 36 meetings of the Screening Committee is illegal. "
(Emphasis supplied by me)
385. The question which next arises for consideration in these circumstances is that if no such scrutiny or review of the process so undertaken by MOC in allocating various coal blocks for captive use to different applicant companies was carried out in the Courts then whether the record of MOC or even that of Screening Committee reflects that there was objectivity and transparency in the entire coal block allocation process. The answer is a big "No". The accused MOC officers can not claim that even though the minutes Ex. PW 13/L (colly) are silent about reasons for recommending allocation of any coal block in favour of any given applicant company but if someone would have questioned them then they would have explained the said reasons or basis of their decision. Such a claim, if made would not be even worth considering.
386. Thus if such important nationalised natural resources of the CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 283 of 350 country are dealt with in such a vague and arbitrary manner then the accused MOC officers can not ever complain, if their actions are subject of judicial scrutiny either with a view to assess whether their actions constitute any civil wrong or the same were actuated with any malice or malafide intention. The coal block allocation process which finally led to allocation of Thesgora-B/Rudapuri coal block in favour of A-1 M/s KSSPL was clearly handled by MOC officers both in MOC as well as in Screening Committee as if their actions can never be subject of any such judicial scrutiny. On the other hand no such judicial scrutiny can be possible if from the entire process it is not ascertainable as to what prevailed either in MOC or in the Screening Committee which led to making of recommendations for allocation of various coal blocks in favour of different applicant companies. The reasons will then have to be gathered from the overall facts and circumstances and especially from the manner in which the entire issue of coal block allocation has been dealt with by Ministry of Coal officers. Their intention in so handling or dealing with such an important matter involving large public interest will also be gathered from all such circumstances only.
387. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the following passage of Justice Holmes in United States Vs. Wurzbach 1930 (280) US
396.
"Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does so it is familiar to the criminal law to make him take the risk."
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 284 of 350
388. At this stage, it would be also worthwhile to mention that since the guidelines were laid down by MOC itself to govern the allocation of captive coal blocks to various applicant companies so it was equally binding upon the MOC as it was on the applicant companies. Thus the applications were to be submitted by applicant companies in accordance with the said guidelines and the method of processing of applications in MOC was also spelled out in the said guidelines with a view to inform the public at large as to how MOC proposes to deal with their applications or in other words as to how MOC proposes to allocate the Nationalised natural resources of the country i.e. coal. Thus undoubtedly the said guidelines were equally binding mandatorily upon both MOC and the Screening Committee. It also need not be re-emphasized that the entire issue involved great public interest as the property involved i.e. coal was an important raw material for the industrial development of the country. Major industrial houses of the country were having interest in the allocation of said captive coal blocks.
389. In fact at a later stage, I shall be also discussing that apart from the issue that applications were not checked for their completeness and eligibility as mandated by the guidelines, even the subsequent part of the guidelines which talked of various factors on which inter-se priority from amongst competing applicant companies was to be arrived at was also not followed. Thus from the over all facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that irrespective of the claim of accused MOC officers that PW-13 V.S. Rana, Under CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 285 of 350 Secretary, MOC, is now improving upon his earlier statements made to the IO in order to save his own skin, they themselves i.e. the accused MOC officers are also now furnishing various reasons or explanations for non-compliance with the guidelines only with a view to cover their follies as committed by them in the entire coal block allocation process. Undoubtedly as contrasted to PW-13 V.S. Rana who is a prosecution witness the three MOC officers i.e. A-4 H.C. Gupta, A-5 K.S. Kropha and A-6 K.C. Samria being accused are entitled to take as many plea(s) of defence as may be permissible to them under the law. However as is evident from my aforesaid discussion, none of the said plea of defence taken by the accused persons is either cogent, convincing or reliable even for the sake of preponderance of probability in as much as they have miserably failed in making any dent in the evidence led by prosecution to prove various circumstances.
(G) Whether the recommendation of 36th Screening Committee were unanimous in nature.
390. It has been the constant and consistent stand of A-4 H.C. Gupta and A-5 K.S. Kropha that during the Screening Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008 detailed discussion were held qua the claim of each of the applicant company when the issue of allocation of various coal blocks were individually taken up. It was also submitted that since the recommendation of Screening Committee were unanimous in nature so in accordance with the letter and spirit of Para 54 (4) (c) of Manual of Office Procedure the essence of CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 286 of 350 outcome of the deliberations was duly recorded. As regard non- mentioning of reasons for choosing one or the other company from amongst many applicant companies for any given coal block it was submitted that had such detailed discussion was to be mentioned then the minutes would have run into hundreds of pages. While referring to the deposition of various prosecution witnesses as well as that of DW-13 Shivraj Singh, it was submitted that all the members were free to air their views and there was no restriction on anyone to give any contrary or conflicting opinion. It was also submitted that at the conclusion of the meeting held on 03.07.2008 recommendation sheets containing final decision of the Screening Committee were prepared and all the members so present duly signed the said recommendation sheets without recording any objection or dissenting views. It was also submitted that even subsequent to the Screening Committee meeting held on 03.07.2008, no objections were received from either Administrative Ministries or from the State Governments concerned or from any other member of Screening Committee regarding the final recommendations so arrived at by the Screening Committee. It was also submitted that in the minutes itself, it is clearly mentioned in para 14 that the Committee assessed the applications having regard to matters such as techno-economic feasibility of end use project, status of preparedness to set up the end use project, past track record in execution of project, financial and technical capabilities of applicant companies, recommendations of the State Governments and the Administrative Ministries concerned etc. CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 287 of 350
391. However before I advert on to discuss the circumstances under which the 36th Screening Committee appears to have made its recommendations, it would be appropriate to first discuss the nature and purpose of constitution of Screening Committee. Admittedly the Screening Committee was constituted with a view to expedite the captive coal block allocation process. While MOC was the Nodal Ministry for allocation of coal blocks but the views of Administrative Ministries such as Ministry of Power, Ministry of Steel, DIPP were important as the coal blocks were proposed to be allocated to those companies who were engaged in either generation of power or production of iron and steel or cement. Thus as the end use projects pertained to the jurisdiction of said other Administrative Ministries so their views were certainly important in considering the issue of allocation of various coal blocks to different applicant companies engaged in production of one or the other end use products. Similarly the views of the State Governments where either the coal blocks proposed to be allotted or the existing or proposed end use plant was established/to be established were equally important. Similarly the views of CMPDIL or CIL or its other subsidiary companies were important from the point of view of obtaining technical details of the coal blocks proposed to be allocated or the progress made by any applicant company, if previously allocated any coal block. An effort was thus made by Government of India to constitute such an inter- departmental body called Screening Committee so as to screen the proposals of various applicant companies by obtaining views/comments of all concerned at one single place and thereafter CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 288 of 350 to make recommendation for allocation of various coal blocks in favour of different applicant companies in an objective and transparent manner. It was in order to achieve the said objective only that MOC framed detailed guidelines and brought them to the notice of the public at large as to in what manner the applications will be received in MOC or in what manner they shall be processed or how the inter-se priority amongst various applicant companies for any given coal block shall be decided.
392. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid objective for which the Screening Committee came to be constituted i.e. to screen the proposals received for captive mining in an objective and transparent manner, all the applicants were directed to submit their applications in five copies. Four copies thereof were accordingly sent to concerned Administrative Ministry(ies) and to the concerned State Government(s) beside also sending one copy to CMPDIL. One copy of the application was however retained in MOC. Thus one set of applications of all such companies which were either having an existing steel plant or were proposing to establish a sponge iron plant was sent to Ministry of Steel and not to Ministry of Power. Similarly one set of applications of all such companies who were proposing to establish a power project was sent to Ministry of power and not to Ministry of Steel or to any other Administrative Ministry. Similar was the situation qua the applications of companies proposing to establish an end use project in cement sector. Copy of their application was sent only to DIPP for comments and not to Ministry of Power or Steel.
CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 289 of 350 On similar lines, one copy of the applications was sent to only those State Governments where any given coal block was situated qua which applications were submitted by the company(ies) or their existing end use plant was situated or any end use plant was proposed to be established. In this manner the copy of applications of all the applicant companies was sent only to concerned State Governments and to concerned Administrative Ministries and not to all State Governments or Administrative Ministries who were members of Screening Committee.
393. Thus from the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that in the Screening Committee meetings, representative of any given State Government was not concerned with application of any such company who was neither applying for any coal block situated in the said state nor was proposing to have its end use project in the said State. Admittedly application of any such company was not even sent to those states. Similarly the Administrative Ministries were also not concerned with the applications of all such companies who were neither engaged nor were proposing to engage in any end use product relating to their Ministry. A natural consequence of the aforesaid scheme of arrangement was that such state governments or Administrative Ministries were neither having any knowledge of the claims of the applicant companies qua any factor much less their financial strength or their technical capabilities or progress made by them towards establishing their end use project nor they were concerned as to for which coal block any such given applicant CBI Vs. M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. & Ors., Judgement dated 19.05.2017 Page No. 290 of 350 company is being recommended as long as the said coal block is not situated in their state.