SOCIOLOGY PROJECT TOPIC: CAG- AS AN ORGANISATION AND ITS FUNCTIONS

SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Sangeet Kumar

SUBMITTED BYTEJASWINI RANJAN ROLL NO. :829 FIRST SEMESTER 2012-2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all I want to thank GOD for enabling me to successfully complete this project. Then I would like to give my sincere thanks to our respected SOCIOLOGY faculty, Mr. Sangeet Kumar, who has guided me all the way in completing this project and enlightening me from time to time in understanding the technicalities pertaining to the project. Then I would like to give sincere thanks to our librarians who have helped me all the way in searching through the source materials and guiding me in my research work at the library. The list couldnt be completed without thanking all my friends and family who have encouraged me in successful accomplishment of this project and been a pillar of support all through the completion of the project. TEJASWINI RANJAN

ROLL NO.- 829

FIRST SEMESTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION

2.HISTORY OF CAG AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS

3. AUDIT OF COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

4.REPORTS ON VARIOUS SCAMS

5.CONCLUSION

6.FIELD WORK

7.BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. INTRODUCTION The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India is an authority, established by the Constitution of India under Chapter V, who audits all receipts and expenditure of the Government of India and the state governments, including those of bodies and authorities substantially financed by the government. The CAG is also the external auditor of governmentowned companies. The reports of the CAG are taken into consideration by the Public Accounts Committees, which are special committees in the Parliament of India and the state legislatures. The CAG is also the head of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, which has over 58,000 employees across the country.The CAG is ranked 9th and enjoys the same status as a judge of Supreme Court of India in Indian order of precedence. The current CAG of India is Vinod Rai, who was appointed on 7 January 2008. He is the 11th CAG of India.Recently the CAG under Vinod Rai has constantly been in the limelight for its reports exposing mega corruption, particularly in 2G spectrum scam, CWG scam and Coal mining scam . (a). AIMS AND OBJECTIVES- The aim of this project is to produce a detailed study of CAG as an organisation and its functions. The project also aims to show how important is the role of CAG to bring out the cases of corruption as in 2G spectrum scam,CWG scam and Coal mining scam. (b). SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:Though the topic is an immense project and pages can be written over the topic but because of certain restrictions and limitations we might not have dealt with the topic in great detail. (b).HYPOTHESIS- CAG is a constitutional authority who can examine the revenue allocation and matters relating to the economy. CAG is the principal auditor whose function is to go into the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of the use of resources by the government. If the CAG will not do, then who else will do it.

(c).METHODOLOGY- Keeping in mind the objectives of this project, the material for the theoretical part of the project was collected from different websites and was compiled together. The methodology of my project is doctrinaire method. (d).SOURCES OF DATA- The secondary sources of data used is internet along with some newspaper articles.

2. CAG : CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS Appointment The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India is appointed by the President of India[5] following a recommendation by the Prime Minister. On appointment, he/she has to make an oath or affirmation before the President of India. Compensation The salary and other conditions of service of the CAG are determined by the Parliament of India through "The Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Power and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971". As per the act, his salary is the same as salary of a Judge of Supreme Court of India.[1] Neither his salary nor rights in respect of leave of absence, pension or age of retirement can be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. The CAG is not eligible for further office either under the Government of India or under the Government of any State after he has ceased to hold his office. These provisions are in order to ensure the independence of CAG. Removal The CAG shall only be removed from office in like manner and on the like grounds as a judge of the supreme court. Indian Audits and Accounts Service The Constitution of India [Article 148] provides for an independent office to the CAG of India. He/she was the head of Indian Audit and Accounts Department. His/her duty is to uphold the constitution of India and laws of the Parliament in the field of financial administration Scope of audits

Audit of government accounts (including the accounts of the state governments) in India is entrusted to the CAG of India who is empowered to audit all expenditure from the revenues of the union or state governments, whether incurred within India or outside. Specifically, audits include:

Transactions relating to debt, deposits, remittances, Trading, and manufacturing Profit and loss accounts and balance sheets kept under the order of the President or Governors

Receipts and stock accounts.CAG also audits the books of accounts of the government companies as per companies act.

In addition, the CAG also executes performance and compliance audits of various functions and departments of the government. Recently, the CAG as a part of thematic review on "Introduction of New Trains" is deputing an auditors' team on selected trains, originating and terminating at Sealdah and Howrah stations, to assess the necessity of their introduction.CAG has been appointed as external auditor of three major UN organisations: the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and World Food Organisation(WFO).Present CAG, Vinod Rai has been elected the Chairman of the United Nations' panel of external auditors.Rebecca Mathai, is an Indian who is presently the External Auditor of UN organisation World Food Programme(WFP) Headquartered at Rome, Italy.

3. AUDIT OF COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Audit Jurisdiction The organisations subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India are:

All the Union and State Government departments and offices including the Indian Railways and Posts and Telecommunications.

About 1500 public commercial enterprises controlled by the Union and State governments, i.e. government companies and corporations.

Around 400 non-commercial autonomous bodies and authorities owned or controlled by the Union or the States.

Over 4400 authorities and bodies substantially financed from Union or State revenues

Audit of Government Companies (Commercial Audit) There is a special arrangement for the audit of companies where the equity participation by Government is 51 percent or more. The primary auditors of these companies are Chartered Accountants, appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, who gives the directions to the auditors on the manner in which the audit should be conducted by them. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India is also empowered to comment upon the audit reports of the primary auditors. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India conducts a test audit of the accounts of such companies and reports the results of his audit to Parliament and State Legislatures. Audit Board Setup in Commercial Audit A unique feature of the audit conducted by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department is the constitution of Audit Boards for conducting comprehensive audit appraisals of the working of Public Sector Enterprises engaged in diverse sectors of the economy.

These Audit Boards associate with them experts in disciplines relevant to the appraisals. They discuss their findings and conclusions with the managements of the enterprises and their controlling ministries and departments of government to ascertain their view points before finalisation. The results of such comprehensive appraisals are incorporated by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his reports Nature of Audit While fulfilling his Constitutional obligations, the Comptroller & Auditor General examines various aspects of Government expenditure. The audit done by C&A G is broadly classified into Regularity Audit and Performance Audit. Regularity Audit (Compliance)

Audit against provision of funds to ascertain whether the moneys shown as expenditure in the Accounts were authorised for the purpose for which they were spent.

Audit against rules and regulation to see that the expenditure incurred was in conformity with the laws, rules and regulations framed to regulate the procedure for expending public money.

Audit of sanctions to expenditure to see that every item of expenditure was done with the approval of the competent authority in the Government for expending the public money.

Propriety Audit which extends beyond scrutinising the mere formality of expenditure to it wisdom and economy and to bring to light cases of improper expenditure or waste of public money.

While conducting the audit of receipts of the Central and State Governments, the Comptroller & Auditor General satisfies himself that the rules and procedures ensure that assessment, collection and allocation of revenue are done in accordance with the law and there is no leakage of revenue which legally should come to Government.

Performance Audit Performance audit to see that Government programmes have achieved the desired objectives at lowest cost and given the intended benefits. Regularity Audit (Financial) In regularity (financial) audit and in other types of audit when applicable, auditors should analyse the financial statements to establish whether acceptable accounting standards for financial reporting and disclosure are complied with. Analysis of financial statements should be performed to such a degree that a rational basis is obtained to express an opinion on financial statements. Action on Audit Reports The scrutiny of the Annual Accounts and the Audit Reports thereon by the Parliament as a whole would be an arduous task, considering their diverse and specialised nature, besides imposing excessive demands on the limited time available to the Parliament for discussion of issues of national importance. Therefore the Parliament and the State Legislatures have, for this purpose, constituted specialized Committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU), to which these audit Reports and Annual Accounts automatically stand referred. Public Accounts Committee The Public Accounts Committee satisfies itself:a.that the moneys (shown in the accounts) were disbursed legally on the service or purpose to which they were applied. b.that the expenditure was authorised. c.that re-appropriation (i.e. distribution of funds.

It is also the duty of the PAC to examine the statement of accounts of autonomous and semiautonomous bodies, the audit of which is conducted by the Comptroller & Auditor General either under the directions of the President or by a Statute of Parliament. Committee on Public Undertakings The Committee on Public Undertakings exercises the same financial control on the public sector undertakings as the Public Accounts Committee exercises over the functioning of the Government Departments. The functions of the Committee are:a. to examine the reports and accounts of public undertakings. b. to examine the reports of the Comptroller & Auditor General on public undertakings. c. to examine the efficiency of public undertakings and to see whether they are being managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices. The examination of public enterprises by the Committee takes the form of comprehensive appraisal or evaluation of performance of the undertaking. It involves a thorough examination, including evaluation of the policies, programmes and financial working of the undertaking. The objective of the Financial Committees, in doing so, is not to focus only on the individual irregularity, but on the defects in the system which led to such irregularity, and the need for correction of such systems and procedures. CAG's Role The Comptroller & Auditor General of India plays a key role in the functioning of the financial committees of Parliament and the State Legislatures. He has come to be recognised as a 'friend, philosopher and guide' of the Committee. His Reports generally form the basis of the Committees' working, although they are not precluded from examining issues not brought out in his Reports. He scrutinizes the notes which the Ministries submit to the Committees and helps the Committees to check the correctness submit to the Committees and helps the Committees to check the correctness of facts and figures in their draft reports.

The Financial Committees present their Report to the Parliament/ State Legislature with their observations and recommendations. The various Ministries / Department of the Government are required to inform the Committees of the action taken by them on the recommendations of the Committees (which are generally accepted) and the Committees present Action Taken Reports to Parliament / Legislature. In respect of those cases in Audit Reports, which could not be discussed in detail by the Committees, written answers are obtained from the Department / Ministry concerned and are sometimes incorporated in the Reports presented to the Parliament / State Legislature. This ensures that the audit Reports are not taken lightly by the Government, even if the entire report is not deliberated upon by the Committee. UNION AUDIT REPORTS The Union Audit Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, contain the findings of transaction audit and performance audit in the areas of:

Civil Audit Audit of Autonomous Bodies Defense Services Railways Receipts of the Government Central Commercial

The Audit of the CAG is bifurcated into two streams namely Performance Audit and Regularity (Compliance) Audit. While audit of the Civil Departments, Railways and Defense are conducted as per the direct mandate in the constitution and relevant provisions of the DPC Act, the Commercial Audit is conducted under the provisions of Company Act. Autonomous Bodies are audited as per the mandate in the act establishing the body. The reports of the CAG are deliberated upon by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the parliament, save the commercial reports which are examined by the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU).

4.REPORTS ON VARIOUS SCAMS A. 2G SCAM The 2G spectrum scam involved politicians and government officials in India illegally undercharging mobile telephony companies for frequency allocation licenses, which they would then use to create 2G subscriptions for cell phones. The shortfall between the money collected and the money which the law mandated to be collected is estimated to be 176,645 crore (US$33.39 billion), as valued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India based on 3G and BWA spectrum auction prices in 2010. However, the exact loss is disputed. In a chargesheet filed on 2 April 2011 by the investigating agency, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the loss was pegged at 30,984.55 crore (US$5.86 billion) whereas on 19 August 2011 in a reply to CBI, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) said that the govt gained over 3,000 crore (US$567 million) by giving 2G Spectrum. Similarly Kapil Sibal, the Minister of communications & IT, claimed in 2011, during a press conference, that "zero loss" was caused by distributing 2G licenses on first-come-first-served basis. All the speculations of profit, loss and no-loss were put to rest on 2 February 2012 when the Supreme Court of India delivered judgement on a public interest litigation (PIL) which was directly related to the 2G spectrum scam. The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary," and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT) the main official accused in the 2G scam case. The court further said that A. Raja "wanted to favour some companies at the cost of the public exchequer" and "virtually gifted away important national asset." The "zero loss theory" was further demolished] on 3 August 2012 when as per the directions of the Supreme Court, Govt of India revised the base price for 5 MHz 2G spectrum auction to 14,000 crore (US$2.65 billion), which roughly gives the value of spectrum to be around 2,800 crore (US$529.2 million) per MHz that is close to the CAG's estimate of 3,350 crore (US$633.15 million) per MHz. The original plan for awarding licences was to follow a first-come-first-served policy to applicants. A. Raja manipulated the rules so that the first-come-first-served policy would kick in - not on the basis of who applied first for a license, but who complied with the conditions. On 10

January 2008, companies were given just a few hours to provide their Letters of Intent and cheques. Those allegedly tipped off by Mr Raja were waiting with their cheques and other documents. Some of their executives were sent to jail along with the Minister himself. In 2011, Time magazine listed the scam at number two on their Top 10 Abuses of Power list. SUPREME COURTS VERDICT On 2 February 2012 Supreme Court of India delivered judgement on petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) which had challenged allotment of 2G licenses granted in 2008. The Supreme Court quashed all 122 spectrum licences granted during the tenure of former communications minister A.Raja and described the allocation of 2G spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary". The bench of Justice GS Singhvi & Justice AK Ganguly imposed fine of 5 crore (US$0.95 million) on Unitech Wireless, Swan telecom and Tata Teleservices and 50 lakh (US$94,500) fine on Loop Telecom, S Tel, Allianz Infratech and Sistema Shyam Tele Services Ltd. The Supreme Court's ruling said the current licences will remain in place for four months, in which time the government should decide fresh norms for issuing licences. The Supreme Court said in its order that then telecom minister A. Raja "wanted to favour some companies at the cost of the public exchequer" and listed seven steps he took to ensure this happened. According to the Supreme Court of India the seven steps were : 1. After taking over as telecom minister, Raja directed that all applications received for UAS licenses should be kept pending till receipt of the TRAI's recommendations. 2. The recommendations made by TRAI on 28 August 2007, were not placed before the full Telecom Commission which would have included the finance secretary. The notice of the meeting of the Telecom Commission was not given to any of the non-permanent members though TRAI's recommendations for allocation of 2G spectrum had serious financial implications and it was therefore necessary for DoT to take the finance ministry's opinion under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.

3. The DoT officers who attended the Telecom Commission meeting held on 10 October 2007, had no choice but to approve Trai's recommendations, since they would otherwise have "incurred" Raja's "wrath".[4][209] 4. Since Cabinet had approved recommendations made by the Group of Ministers, the DoT had to discuss the issue of spectrum pricing with the finance ministry. But, since Raja knew that the finance secretary had objected to the allocation of 2G spectrum at rates fixed in 2001, he did not consult the finance minister or other officials.[4][209] 5. Raja brushed aside the law minister's suggestion that the matter should be placed before the empowered group of ministers. Also, within hours of the receipt of the suggestion made by the PM in his letter dated 2 November 2007, that keeping in view the inadequacy of spectrum, transparency and fairness should be maintained in allocation of the spectrum, Raja rejected it saying that it would be unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious to auction spectrum to new applicants because it would not give them a levelplaying field. He also introduced a cut-off date of 25 September 2007, for considering applications though only the previous day a DoT press release had said 1 October 2007, would be the last date. This arbitrary action of Raja "though appears to be innocuous was actually intended to benefit some of the real estate firms who did not have any experience in dealing with telecom services and who had made applications only on 24 September 2007, i.e. one day before the cut-off date fixed by the C&IT minister on his own".[4][209] 6. The cut-off date of 25 September 2007, decided by Raja on 2 November 2007, was not made public till 10 January 2008, and the first-come-first-served principle followed since 2003 was changed by him at the last moment through a press release dated 10 January 2008. "This enabled some of the applicants, who had access either to the minister or DoT officers, get bank drafts prepared towards performance guarantee of about Rs 1,600 crore". 7. "The manner in which the exercise for grant of LoIs to the applicants was conducted on 10 January 2008 leaves no room for doubt that everything was stage managed to favour those who were able to know in advance change in the implementation of the first-comefirst-served policy." As a result, some firms which had submitted applications in 2004 or 2006 were pushed down in the priority and those who had applied between August and September 2007 succeeded.

B.COALGATE SCAM: Coal allocation scam or Coalgate, as referred by the media, is a political scandal concerning the Indian government's allocation of the nation's coal deposits to public sector entities (PSEs) and private companies. In a draft report issued in March 2012, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) office accused the Government of India of allocating coal blocks in an inefficient manner during the period 2004-2009. Over the Summer of 2012, the opposition BJP lodged a complaint resulting in a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into whether the allocation of the coal blocks was in fact influenced by corruption. The essence of the CAG's argument is that the Government had the authority to allocate coal blocks by a process of competitive bidding, but chose not to As a result both public sector enterprises (PSEs) and private firms paid less than they might have otherwise. In its draft report in March the CAG estimated that the "windfall gain" to the allocatees was 1,067,303 crore (US$201.72 billion). The CAG Final Report tabled in Parliament put the figure at 185,591 crore (US$35.08 billion) On August 27, 2012 Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh read a statement in Parliament rebutting the CAG's report both in its reading of the law and the alleged cost of the government's policies While the initial CAG report suggested that coal blocks could have been allocated more efficiently, resulting in more revenue to the government, at no point did it suggest that corruption was involved in the allocation of coal. Over the course of 2012, however, the question of corruption has come to dominate the discussion. In response to a complaint by the BJP, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) directed the CBI to investigate the matter. The CBI has named a dozen Indian firms in a First Information Report (FIR), the first step in a criminal investigation. These FIRs accuse them of overstating their net worth, failing to disclose prior coal allocations, and hoarding rather than developing coal allocations. The CBI officials investigating the case have speculated that bribery may be involved. The issue has received massive media reaction and public outrage. During the monsoon session of the Parliament, the BJP protested the Government's handling of the issue demanding the

resignation of the Prime Minister and refused to have a debate in the Parliament. The deadlock resulted in Parliament functioning only seven of the twenty days of the session. First CAG charge: the Government had the legal authority to auction coal blocks In Chapter 4 of the Final Report, the CAG continued its contention that the Government had the legal authority under the existing statute to auction coal by making an administrative decision, rather than needing to amend the statute itself. Pages 2227 chronicle key correspondence between the Secretary (Coal), the Minister of State (Coal), the Prime Minister's Office, and the Department of Legal Affairs from 2004 to 2012. From this record, the CAG draws the following conclusions:

The Government decided to bring transparency and objectivity in the allocation process of coal blocks, with 28 June 2004 taken as the cutoff date.

The DLA advice of July 2006 was sufficient grounds upon which to introduce competitive bidding, by means of an administrative decision.

Despite this DLA advice, there was prolonged legal examination as to whether an administrative decision or amendment of the statute was necessary for competitive bidding to be introduced. This stalled the decisionmaking process through 2009.

In the period between July 2006 and the end of 2009, 38 coal blocks were allocated under the existing process of allocation, "which lacked transparency, objectivity, and competition."[59]

[edit] Second CAG charge: "windfall gains" to the allocatees were 185,591 crore (US$35.08 billion) The biggest change from the Draft Report was the dramatic reduction in the windfall gains from 1,067,303 crore (US$201.72 billion) to 185,591 crore (US$35.08 billion)[62] This change is due to:

windfall gain/ton decreased 8% from 322 (US$6.09) in the Draft Report to 295 (US$5.58) in the Final Report

number of tons decreased 81% from 33.169 to 6.283 billion metric tons of coal. This is because the Final Report considers "extractable coal" (i.e. coal that could actually be used

in production) as against the Draft Report, which considered coal in situ (i.e. coal in the ground without taking into account losses that occur during mining and washing the coal).

6.CONCLUSION India faces a daunting task in improving its governance as it has the largest number of poor, illiterate and malnourished people in the world. More than 250 million people go to bed hungry every night. One third of Indian women are under weight and 40 per cent of low birth babies are born in India. Fifty seven million children under five are undernourished. India's undernourished children have even surpassed the rate of Ethiopia at 47 per cent. Further, six out of every seven Indian women are illiterate. The cities, too, are beset with mushrooming growth of slums and squatters. All such challenges would be result of bad governance. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as CAG) which is a supreme audit institution (SAI) to the centre and a unique one in itself plays an important role in solving such issues which are a challenge to good governance in the matters relating to financial administration and in the socio economic sector. CAG with its powers and functions is envisaged to be the most important functionary under Constitution of India. Public Accounting and Auditing carried out by CAG can be seen as an important exercise which facilitates the removal of bad governance from the public delivery system. CAG derives its powers from The Constitution of India 6 and The CAGs (DPC) Act, 1971 for compiling the accounts of the Union and of each State from the initial and subsidiary account rendered to the audit. Both these legislations give a certain responsibility to the CAG to guard the national treasure and ensure accountability in public financial administration. It allows CAG to create an environment of good accounting system which serves as a means to good governance as it has done by uncovering the different scams which took place in our nation. Government accounting practices are frequently characterized by lack of transparency, inconsistency and incompleteness and these lead to poor quality accounts and result in inefficient use of public resources. CAG plays a pivotal role through its independent auditors to bring transparency and accountability by unearthing such kind of discrepancies and bringing the people involved and convicting them under the rule of law. After independence, the emphasis of audit has shifted from checking compliance with the rules to scrutinizing the propriety of an expenditure and thence to examining fulfillment of the objective of the expenditure in a cost

effective manner to deliver a performance audit where the basic objective is to provide value for money and bring efficiency and effectiveness in carrying such an audit. It has hence helped in sensitizing the people and has created a trust among them by depicting that accountability and empowerment is the prime driving force of good governance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. "Cabinet decision on 2G auction price demolishes zero-loss theory". The Hindu. August 8, 2012. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3739078.ece?homepage=true. Retrieved 8 August 2012. 2. ^ "Turmoil-ridden Monsoon session of Parliament ends". DNA. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_turmoil-ridden-monsoon-session-of-parliamentends_1737812. Retrieved September 7, 2012. 3. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Stalling-Parliament-is-also-part-of-democracySushma-says/articleshow/16296444.cms 4. ^ a b ""Draft Performance Audit, Allocation of Coal Blocks and Augmentation of Coal Production by Coal India Limited" Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Union Government (Commercial))". Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Union Government (Commercial)). http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/4/40/Draft_CAG_report_Pt_1.pdf. Retrieved 8 September 2012.Hereafter Draft CAG Report. 5. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/08/27/transcript-prime-minister-singhcounters-coalgate-allegations/ 6. ^ a b http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Firms-hid-earlier-allocationsto-get-new-blocks-says-CBI/Article1-925788.aspx 7. ^ http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/coalgate-now-dmk-leader-in-thedock_798230.html 8. ^ "CBI orders prosecution of Laloo, Mishra in fodder scam". Rediff.com. April 1996. Archived from the original on 31 May 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20100531143055/http://www.rediff.com//news/apr/28bihar.ht m. Retrieved 1 October 2012. 9. ^ "Fodder scam case: 58 convicted, given jail terms", Times of India, 2007-05-31, http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2088947.cms, retrieved 2008-1105, "Snippet: ... A total 63 cases were registered in the scam and 41 were transferred to Jharkhand after it was created from Bihar in November 2000 ... The CBI has filed charge sheets in almost every case and trials are under progress. Till now the special CBI court

has passed judgment in 16 cases and nearly 200 accused in different cases have been punished with two to seven years imprisonment ..."k 10. ^ "Former CAG". http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/about_us/former.html. Retrieved May 09, 2012 11. "CVC asks CBI to probe alleged coal scam despite UPA govt's attempt to brush it under the carpet". 31 May 2012. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/cvc-refersalleged-coal-scam-to-cbi-for-preliminary-inquiry/1/198459.html. Retrieved 31 May 2012. 12. ^ "CVC Refers Coal Block Allocation Case to CBI". Outlook India. 31 May 2012. http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=764309. Retrieved 31 May 2012. 13. ^ "CAG report on coal allocation only a draft: Pranab". Press Trust of India. The Hindu. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3118116.ece. Retrieved 21 August 2012. 14. ^ "Potential coal mining scam in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh?". IBN Live. 22 March 2012. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/potential-coal-mining-scam-in-mpchhattisgarh/241626-3.html. Retrieved 22 March 2012. 15. ^ "Coal scam shakes parliament; opposition says PM held portfolio, must explain". NDTV. 22 March 2012. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/row-overcags-coal-mining-report-188735. Retrieved 22 March 2012. 16. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/coal-scam-full-textof-pm-manmohan-singhs-statement-in-parliament/articleshow/15816145.cms 17. ^ "Report on coal fields creates fresh furor for Indian government". CNN. March 23, 2012. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/23/world/asia/india-coalscandal/?hpt=hp_bn1. Retrieved March 23, 2012. 18. ^ "Will quit if coalgate charges against me are proved: PM Manmohan Singh". 30 may 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Will-quit-if-coalgate-chargesagainst-me-are-proved-PM-Manmohan-Singh/articleshow/13651105.cms. 19. ^ a b "IMG to decide on coal block deallocation". The Indian Express. Jun 28 2012. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/img-to-decide-on-coal-blockdeallocation/967540/0. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

20. ^ "6 More Coal Blocks to Be Cancelled, 7 to Lose Guarantee". Outlook India. 26 September 2012. http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=776399. Retrieved 26 September 2012. 21. ^ a b c d e "Four coal blocks de-allocated; 3 firms to lose bank guarantee". The Hindu. September 13, 2012. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3892968.ece. Retrieved 19 September 2012. 22. ^ a b c d "IMG recommends de-allocation of two more coal blocks". Economic Times. Sep 16, 2012. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-0916/news/33880239_1_bijahan-new-patrapara-block-coal-blocks. Retrieved 19 September 2012. 23. ^ a b c d e f g "Deallocate 3 more coal blocks: IMG". The Hindustan Times. 19 September 2012. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Indianews/NewDelhi/Deallocate-3-more-coal-blocks-IMG/Article1-932597.aspx. Retrieved 19 September 2012. 24. ^ a b "IMG recommends deallocation of 2 more coal blocks". India Today. 21 September 2012. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/img-recommendsdeallocation-of-2-more-coal-blocks/1/221556.html. Retrieved 21 September 2012. 25. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/topic/cag-report-tabled-in-parliament 26. ^ "Performance Audit on Allocation of Coal Blocks and and Augmentation of Coal Production." Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, May 21, 2012. www.cag.gov.in Hereafter CAG Final Report. 27. ^ a b CAG Final Report, p. 27-28. 28. ^ CAG Final Report, p. 29-31. 29. ^ www.cag.gov.in 30. ^ CAG Final Report, p. 31. 31. ^ CAG Final Report, p. 28. 32. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/prime-minister-s-statement-in-parliament-oncag-report-on-coal-block-allocations-full-text-259556, para 2. 33. ^ Prime Minister's Statement, para 20.