Missing coal file linked to most influential firms

NEW DELHI: Of all the Coalgate record sought by the CBI, deliberations of the 35th meeting of the screening committee, which allotted coal blocks to host of influential entities on September 7, 2007, is perhaps the most crucial.

Firms awarded coveted blocks on the day read like the who's who of the power and steel industry. They include Monnet Ispat, Jindal, Navbharat, J L D Yavatmal, Lanco, Sterlite, Adani, Mittal, Bhushan and J A S Infrastructure.

It does not seem a coincidence that three firms with political connections - Jindal, Yavatmal and Navbharat - are being probed by the CBI in Coalgate cases under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

All three allocations date to when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had held charge of the coal portfolio, as highlighted by the comptroller and auditor general's (CAG) report tabled in Parliament last August.

Seen in the light of ongoing investigations, it seems no surprise that the minutes of the 35th screening committee do not contain a shred of evidence regarding a comparative analysis or evaluation of competing applications.

In contrast, the previous meeting of the screening committee has a spread sheet detailing end use capacity and preparedness of applicants, targeted production of power or steel, blocks applied for and track record.

The spread sheet is nothing much, but is a huge improvement on what the 35th meeting of the screening committee that made allocations to high-profile firms has to offer. And what the record does offer is more damning as the committee felt it "reasonable" to set a satisfaction level of 40%-70% in view of a large number of applicants.

The reasoning is so bare that both CAG and CBI rejected it as grossly inadequate. The minutes, accessed by TOI, merely state that "independent experts from Coal India Limited (a government-owned PSU)" have evaluated the financial claims of the applicants.

Then, the committee states that it received "

Finally, the record notes that "financial and technical" capabilities were also evaluated.

Asked repeatedly by Parliament's public accounts committee (PAC) why some applicants were selected, the coal ministry stoically notes, "The entire records related to the 35th meeting of the screening committee have been made available to the auditor."

Perhaps aware that the allocations will attract the charge of arbitrariness, the coal ministry frames its defence by stating that the screening committee followed a "broad set of guidelines" and that it is for the CBI to trace and establish misconduct.