1

INT ES P E EC U TO IN IA H UR M O R F D ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (CRL.) IN THE MATTER OF

Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate S.C.B.L.No.-1 Supreme court of India New Delhi-01 Resident of , 31, Gyangudery Vrindaben Mathura , U.P. VERSUS 1. The principle secretary Prime minister office Race court road New Delhi-1 2. UNION OF INDIA Through secretary The Ministry of coal Shastry Bhavan , New Delhi 3. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Director Plot no.5-B , 6th floor , CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 11,0003
4. Mr. Manmohan Singh

of 2012

Petitioner

At present Prime minister of India Race course road , New Delhi.

5. Mr. Sriprakas Jaiswal

At present Coal minister of India Ministry of coal Shastry Bhavan , New Delhi-1
6. Indian national Congress

Through President

2
24 Akbar road , New Delhi
7.

VEDANTA Resources PLC. Through Managing director

registered office at 2nd Floor, Vintners Place, 68 Upper Thames Street, London EC4V 3BJ United Kingdom.

India office at
Vedanta House 75 Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai 400099 India Respondents

Writ petition (PIL) U/Art. 32 of the constitution of India r.w. s.409 of IPC , PC ACT-92 and FCRA Act 2010. To, The Honble Chief Justice of India And His Companion Judges of The Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner most respectfully

Showeth:
1. That Petitioner, citizen of India & by profession an advocate

practicing at above address , is filing the present writ petition (PIL) under Art.32 of the constitution of India read with 406 & 409 of IPC & Prevention of Corruption Act-92 for the protection of the public properties and in the interest of the general public & seeking quashing of allotment of coal block, being

unconstitutional and arbitrary as well as undervalued created huge loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.1.60 lakhs crores that is also contra to the cabinet decision.
8. That Petitioner has not approached to the respondents in this

regards.

3
9. That Petitioner is filing the present petition to decide following

constitutional question of law;a. Whether the Government has the right to alienate, or distribute natural resources/national assets

transfer

otherwise than by following a fair and transparent method consistent with the fundamentals of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution?
b.

Whether impugned allotments, contrary to the MMDR

Act 1957, recommendation & approval by the coal secretary, Ministry of state, planning commission and cabinet (GOM), are not illegal, void , unconstitutional and arbitrary?
c.

Whether central government means a prime minister or

minister of Union of India?

d.

Whether undervaluing public property for favouring

private companies does not attract PC Act-92?

e.

Whether taking donation , directly /indirectly, from for favoring them is a bribe or not for

allottees companies prosecution? f.

Whether donation from NRI contra to the FCRA act 2010

is an offence or not for prosecution of the person concerned i.e. political partys president as well as its office bearers?
10. That petitioner is challenging impugned

actions of the

Respondents , i.e. Shri Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India , Sriprakas jaiswal , Coal minister of India and president of Congress party and its office bearers who are controlling the executive office of the Union of India as a ruling party, for allotment of 194 coal block to private companies under pick and choose manner favouring them undervaluing public

4
properties just free of cost creating a huge loss about 1.64 lakhs crores to the country within the CAG report filed in the parliament on 16th August 2012.
11. That petitioner is also challenging donation given by foreign

company Vedanta and received by the Indian political parties including ruling party All India Congress party, for favouring them in allotment of natural resources and others, and seeking enquiry for proper prosecution being an offence under FCRA Act 2010.
12. That Petitioner is further under apprehension that impugned

coal allotment has been conducted in exchange of money and bribes which is also liable to be inquired in the interest of the general public.
13. That petitioner is challenging respondents action for allotment of

194 coal block to private companies at free of cost. Even no notional cost/ amount has been taken. During 2004 till march 2011

respondents no.2 & 3

allotted 194 coal blocks in (1)

Jharkhand, (2) Chattisgarh , (3) Maharastra (4) West Bengal (5) Orissa and (6) Madhya Pradesh in arbitrary manner favouring them against the public & National interest by way of securing undue advantages from them. Major private sector beneficiaries / allottees are as follow:1. Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. 2. Usha Martin Ltd. 3. Neelanchal Iron & Power Generation 4. Bajrang Ispat 5. Bhusan Steel & Strips Ltd, 6. Electrosteel Casting

5
7. Essar Power Generation Ltd, 8. Rungta Mines Ltd. 9. Essex Power Ltd. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Hindalco TATA Power Ltd, Tata steel ltd. DB Power Ltd Adam Power Ltd Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd, Jindal Photo Ltd. ( JSPL) Jindal steel Power ltd. Gagan Sponge Iron Ltd SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. Prakash Industries Himanchal EMTA JSW Steel Ltd. Adhunik thermal energy Ltd. Strategic energy tech. Systems Ltd. Mukund Ltd. VIni Iron & Steel Udyog Ltd Bhusan Steel & Power, Jai Balaji BALCO Tata spong Birla corpo. Ltd. Grasim Industries Electrotherm India Ltd.

6
35. 36. 37. 38.

Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Topworth Urja & Metals Ltd. Corporate Ispal & Alloys Ltd Chhattisgarh Captive (JVC of Ispat Crodavari (J VC of Hindustan Coal Win:Ling

Ltd.
39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

Madanpur South Zinc Ltd.)

JLD Yavatmal Energy R.K.M. Powergen Bihar Sppong Iron Co. Ltd. Kohinoor steels Pvt. Ltd. IST Steel & Power, Gujarat Ambuja Cements, Lafarg India Ltd. Domco smokless fuels Pvt ltd. Essar power ltd. AES chattisgarh Energy Pvt ltd. Arcelor Mittal India Ltd. GVK powers Sterlite energy GMR Energy Lanco group Reliance energy

14.

That GMR , GVK companies are also belong to above list favoured for
coal block allotment. Lanco Group and a host of small to medium players also figure in the list. Petitioner is filing application for calling complete list with address along with this application for

7
further necessary action. True copy of the list of coal block allotments to the private companies couple with CAG report dt. 7th May 2012 is being filed as Annexure P-1 ( 34-85 ) 15. That Dr. Manmohan Singh , being as a prime minister of India, is also having control and power to effect working of the C.B.I. as well as CVC office who is silent in the so called coal block allotment enquiry since last one year.
16. That Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister since May 2004

and was personally in-charge of the Coal Ministry from November 2006 to May 2009. During his tenure Dr. Manmohan Singh did coal block allotment to private companies from 2005 till 2009 as per his own wish.
17. Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal took charge of the coal portfolio in May

2009. According to the CAG report MOC allotted coal mines to 6 private companies as follow:a. Tata Steel Ltd. b. Aadhunik Thermal Energy Ltd. Jharkhand Jharkhand 28 May 2009 28 May 2009

c. Himanchal EMTA d. JSW Steel Ltd. e. Jindal steel & Power Ltd.
f.

W.Bengal W. Bengal Orissa Jharkhand ,,

10 July 2009 10 July 2009 27 Feb 2009 28 May 2009 28 May 2009

Rungta Mines Ltd.

g. Kohinoor Steel Pvt Ltd. h. IST Steel and power i. Gujrat Ambuja Cement j. Lafarge India Ltd.

Chattisgarh 17 Jun 2009 Chattisgarh 17 Jun 2009 Chattisgarh 17 Jun 2009

18. That during 2004 till 2010 year-wise allocation of captive coal

blocks to the Government companies, private companies and Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPPs) as on 31 March 2011 are given in table below.

8
YEAR-WISE ALLOCATION OF COAL BLOCKS FOR CAPTIVE MINING

Year of I Govt. Allocation Companies No. of GR (in Blocks million tonne)

Private Companies No. of GR (in Blocks million tonne)

Ultra Mega Power No. Projects (in of GR Blocks million tonne)

Total No. of Blocks GR (in million tonne)

1993 to 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

19.

29 32 34 3 1

6294.72 12363.15 8779.08 337

41 15 17 12

3336.88 0 3793.14 2111.14 2939.53 5216.53 6 1 1 3 1

0 70 1635.24 53 972 52 100 24 1339.02 16 800.00 1

9631.60 17791.53 11862.22 3549.52 6892.55 800.00

509.99 20

99 28283.94 105 17397.22 12 4846.26

216 50527.42

That total 216 coal block has been allotted during 2004 till 2011. Out of the above 216 blocks, 24 blocks were de-allocated (three blocks in 2003, two blocks in 2006, one block in 2008, one block in 2009, three blocks in 2010 and 14 allocated blocks were

subsequently re-allocated (2003 and 2005) to others. Net 194 coal blocks, with aggregate geological reserves of 44,440 million tonne, stood allocated fresh as of 31 March 2011.
20.

That impugned allotment of coal blocks has been allocated with underlying condition of political funding of the party in power, indicating that mining licences were given on assurance that private parties would fund the ruling UPA. For this PMO & COM adopted pick and choose as per their choice and allotted coal mines free of cost to the private companies.

21.

That upon test check of file/ documents maintained by MOC in respect of Fatehpur and Rampia (SE, dip side of Rampia by audit in April, 2012 it is revealed to CAG that:
a.

In case of Fatehpur coal block, 69 applications

9
were received of against coal the advertisement Out of these for 69

allocation

blocks.

applicants only 36 applicants were scheduled for making presentation before the Screening

Committee.
i. The Screening Committee recommended only S K S

Ispat & Power Limited and Prakash Industries Limited for allocation of Fatehpur coal block.
b.

In case of Rampia and dip side of Rampia coal

block, 108 (67-41) applications were received against the advertisement for allocation of coal blocks. Out of these 108 applicants only 2 applicants were scheduled for making presentation before the Screening Committee.
i. The Screening Committee, however, recommended

six companies (viz. Sterlite Energy Limited, GMR Energy Limited, Lanco Group Limited, Navbharat Power Limited, Tvrittal Steel India Limited and Reliance Energy Limited) for allocation of Rampia and Dip side of Rampia coal blocks.
22.

That Sterlite Energy ltd belongs to Anil

Agarwals VEDANTA group and PMO has allotted

on 17th Jan 2008 coal block at dip side of Rampia at Orissa and another coal block at Rampia.
23.

That BALCO is also belong to Anil Agarwal

group to whome PMO has allotted on 6th Nov,

2007 coal block Durgapur II and Taraimar coal

10
blocks At Chattisgarh.
24.

That Anil Agrawal Chairman of Vedanta

Resources plc , a foreign company having registered office at United Kingdom, had declared in its annual report and press about donation to Indian political parties, about Rs. 28 crores during last three years. None of the political parties including National Congress Party disclosed about such donation in their declaration before EC or have any permission under FCRA Act.. True copy of the times of India dt. 26.8.2012 couple with true copy of the relevant page of Vedantas annual report of 2012 are being filed as ANNEXURE P-2 colly. ( 86-88)
25.

That allotment to S.K.S Ispat and power

and M/s Prakash Industy at fatehpur block at Chattisgarh were done on 6.2.2006 under PM direction due to request letter dt. 5.2.2006 issued by Subhiodh Kant Sahai , then minister of state for food processing Industry. Subhod kants brother was one of the director of SKS Ispat and he was also present in 36 screening committee meeting dt.7.2.2006 for securing his interest.
26.

That impugned allotments were done

without having mining plan , forest & other clearances required under MMDR Act.
27.

That manner in which exercise to grant the allottee private

coal block to the impugned

11
companies leave no room for doubt that every thing was managed to provide coal block free of cost to impugned allottees under corruption discarding law and rule as well as decided principles of auction specially then auction rule has been framed and amended law also has been put forward in parliament.
28. The Ministry of Coal (MOC) has the overall responsibility

of framing policies and strategies for exploration and development of coal reserves. It also lays down general guidelines for productions supply and distribution of coal.
29. The Coal Controller's Organisation (CCO) is a subordinate

office of MOC having its headquarters at Kolkata. The CCO discharges various statutory functions such as inspection of collieries for ensuring class, grade and size of coal, adjudicating claims of consumers on grade and size of coal; collection and publication of statistical information on coat and to grant opening/ reopening of coal mines. In 2005, MOC appointed CCO as the nodal agency for monitoring the production of coal blocks allocated for captive mining.
30.Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister since May 2004 and was personally in-charge of the Coal Ministry from November 2006 to May 2009. Under his watch a major coal allocation scam took place which allowed private firms to make windfall gains, as is clear from the facts that are now out in the public domain and the report of the CAG.

12
31. That Under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973,

coal mining was exclusively reserved for the public sector. However, Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 allowed the following exceptions to the above policy:
a. Captive mining by private companies engaged in

production of iron and steel, and

b. Sub lease for coal mining to private parties in

isolated small pockets not amenable to economic development and not requiring rail transport,
32. In July 1992, Government of India constituted a Screening

Committees for screening proposals received for captive mining by the private power generation companies.
33. That

process to

was the

carried Coal

further Mines

by

another

amendment

(Nationalisation)

Amendment At in 1993 which allowed coal mining for captive consumption for power generation and other end uses to be notified by the Government from time to time. Thus, mining of coal by Indian private companies was allowed in phases for their end use in iron and steel project, generation of power, and cement production.
34. The government of India framed (1993) the guidelines for

allocation of coal blocks which, in order to improve the system and bring transparency for deciding the inter se priority amongst the competing applicants, were modified by the MOC in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Brief of these guidelines is given below:

13
a. MOC

in

consultation

with

public

sector

coal

companies would identify and prepare a list of such coal blocks for allocation,
b. From the blocks so identified, MOC would invite

applications for a few blocks at a time through advertisements in important national and regional newspapers.
c. For allocation under Government dispensation, the

list of identified blocks would be circulated inviting applications companies.

d. These applications would be scrutinised by a Screening

from

the

concerned

Government

Committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Coal) and recommended for allocation of the blocks.
35. In

December,

2004

GOI

c on st i t ut e d

an

Expert

Committee on Road Map for Coal S e c t o r R e f o r m s (Expert Committee) headed by Shri T. L Sankar,

Chairman., Energy Group Administrative Staff College of India to prepare a comprehensive roadmap for modernisation of the c o a l s e c t o r .
a. That in the 10 th Plan and thereafter, the number of

applicants for coal blocks increased as compared to the availability of blocks due to increased demand of coal in the country. There was an urgent need to bring in a process of selection that was not only objective but also demonstrably transparent. Allocation

through competitive bidding was considered as one such acceptable selection process.

14
b. The average allotment of coal blocks was 3-4 per year until a few years back. But this number shot up drastically to 22-24 during 2006-09 when Dr. Singh was in charge, raising questions about the manner in which these allotments were made. All the allotments were made without transparency, without protecting the interest of public exchequer, and without any competitive process. c. A comprehensive note on competitive bidding for the allocation of coal blocks was given by the Coal Secretary to the Minister of State for Coal on 16 July 2004. It noted the substantial difference between the price of coal supplied by Coal India Limited (CIL) and the cost of coal produced through captive mining. This ensured a "windfall gain" to the party which was allocated a captive block. That same month, the Minister of State sought clarification on what he feared would be "likely opposition from the power sector". The Coal Secretary was explicit that the existing system of allocation, even with modifications, would not be able to achieve the objectives of revenue maximisation, transparency and objectivity in the allocation process. d. However, rather than accept this advice, in September 2004, the PMO forwarded a note detailing what it claimed were certain disadvantages of the proposed system. Subsequently, the Coal Secretary remarked that "there was hardly any merit in the objections raised" by the PMO. e. The secretary also highlighted some of the "pulls and pressures" experienced by the screening committee during the decision making process and stressed that all pending applications were recommended on the basis of competitive bidding, and that allocations should be made on such a basis.

15
This recommendation was ignored by the PMO. 36. In October 2004, the MoS ( minister of state) again argued that the proposal for competitive bidding may not be pursued as the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Bill 2000 was pending in the Rajya Sabha with stiff opposition from trade unions. He also disagreed with the opinion that the screening committee could not ensure transparent decision making. He said that this was "not an adequate ground for switching over (to) a new mechanism". a. The matter was once again put before the PMO, after which, 28 June 2004 was decided as the cut-off date for considering applications as per the current policy rather than the proposed policy. 37. In March 2005, the Coal Secretary again put up a note to the PM stating that if the revised system was not put in place quickly enough, pressure would again mount on the government for continuing with the existing procedure. Subsequently, the PMO in August 2005 asked the coal ministry to amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 before the new system became operational. "Since this was likely to take considerable time it was decided that the coal ministry would continue to allot coal blocks for captive mining through extant screening committee procedure till the new competitive bidding procedure became operational," the note states. Again in November 2005, the MoS said that the PMO had taken a view to amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, which was a "time consuming exercise and as such allowed the department to proceed with the existing system" ... "there was no immediacy..." 38.In April 2006, it was decided to amend the MMDR Act so that the system of competitive bidding could be made applicable to all

16
minerals. Later on, delaying the matter further, the MoS opined that the issue of amendment should be "revisited" as it had the potential to become controversial. 39. Finally, the bill to amend the MMDR Act was introduced in Parliament in October 2008 and passed in August 2010. 40.While the amendment to ensure coal allocation by auction remained in abeyance because of the Dr. Singhs interventions as head of the Cabinet and in-charge of the coal ministry, 24 blocks were allocated in 2005, 53 in 2006, 52 in 2007, 24 in 2008 and 16 in 2009. Interestingly, post amendments, only one coal block was allocated in 2010, and not even one in 2011. 41. There was a rush for coal blocks allocated under the old, noncompetitive, system. As on June 2004, only 39 coal blocks stood allocated. a. "But since July 2004, 155 coal blocks were allocated to government and private parties following the existing process. The CAG in its draft report has pegged the losses running in lakhs of crores. 42. The CAG draft report remarked that steps could have been taken to allocate coal blocks through competitive bidding well in September 2004 itself.
43. Till March 2011, the MOC has allocated 194 coal blocks (net

44,440 million tonnes) for captive mining of which 142 were explored blocks (GR: 23,39] million tonne) and the balance 52 were either regionally explored or unexplored coal blocks (GR: 21,049 million tones).
44. The concept of allotment through competitive bidding

was first made public by the Government on 28 June

17
2004. Further, sequence of events in this regard till 2012 is indicated below:

28.06.2004

The concept of allocation of captive coal blocks through competitive bidding was

16.07.2004

first made public. Comprehensive note on 'Competitive Bidding for allocation of coal blocks' placed by then Secretary (Coal) to MoS (Coal and Mines), mentioning that "since there is a substantial difference between price of coal supplied by Coal India and coal produced through captive mining, there is a windfall gain to the person who is allotted a captive block.. "The note further indicated that " the bidding system will only tap part of the windfall

30.07.2004

profit for the public purposes." Secretary (Coal) mentioned that the present system of allocation in the changed scenario, even with

modifications would not be able to achieve the objectives of transparency

20.08.2004

and objectivity in the allocation process. Minister (Coal and Mines) directed that a draft Cabinet Note be prepared for placing the same before the Cabinet for

11.09.2004

consideration and decision. A note was initiated from the PM0 detailing allocation certain of coal disadvantages blocks of

through

18
2`5.09.2004
competitive bidding. In response, Secretary (Coal) submitted draft Cabinet Note to MoS with the remarks that there was hardly any merit in the objections raised. Different kinds of pulls and pressures experienced by the Screening Committee process during was the also

decision-making

highlighted. The note stressed on the desirability of taking decision in respect of all pending applications on the basis

4.10.2004

of competitive bidding. MoS stated that the

proposal

for

competitive bidding may not be pursued further as it would invite further delay in the allocation of blocks, considering that the Coal Mines till (Nationalisation) 2000 as a envisaging selection

Amendment competitive

bidding

process for allocation of blocks for commercial purposes was pending in the Rajya Sabha with stiff opposition from Trade Unions and others concerned. MoS disagreed with the views that the Screening Committee could not ensure transparent decision-making and added that this alone was not an adequate ground for switching over to a new mechanism.

19
15.10.2004
Secretary (Coal) stated that the policy of allotment of coal blocks through

competitive bidding was discussed in the PM0 and it was felt that since a number of applicants requested for allotment of blocks based on the current policy, it would not be appropriate to change the allotment policy through competitive bidding in respect of applications

received on the basis of existing policy, Accordingly, the policy of allotment through competitive bidding could be made prospective and pending

applications might be decided on the basis of the existing policy. Therefore, the cut-off date for considering

applications as per the current policy and the proposed revised policy was

1.11.2004

taken as 28 Jun 2004. The PMO directed Secretary (Coal) to amend the draft Cabinet Note for approval of the Minister (Coal and Mines) following:
1.

after taking into account the

the cut-off date

for competitive bidding.

2.

the fact that the had already

MOC

20
moved the Coal Mines. (Nationalisation) amendment Bill 2000 envisaging commercial purposes.
3.

the

change

in

the policy of allocation of coal blocks for

captive mining will be made prospectively.

4.

effective

The PMO stated change in the

the

policy of allocation of coal blocks for captive mining will be made effective prospectively. Therefore, there is no urgency in the matter. Accordingly, there is no need to bring in the required amendment in the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act through an Ordinance. It would be appropriate to bring in the

required amendment through a Bill to be moved in the coming Parliament

25.02.2005

Session. On resubmission (23 December 2004) of the revised draft Cabinet Note, Minister

21
(Coal) opined that he was in complete agreement with the views expressed by MoS in his note dated 04 October 2004 and as such the proposal need not be

7.03.2005

proceeded further. The Secretary (Coal) put up a note for approval of the Draft Cabinet Note to the Minister (Coal) , stating that decision on all applications received as on 28 June 2004 would have been taken by the end of March 2005 and if the revised procedure for allocation of coal blocks was not put in place quickly enough, pressures would again mount on the Government for continuing with the present procedure, which might not be desirable in the interests of bringing

about total transparency in allocation of

16.03.2005

coal blocks. The PM0 communicated that the draft Cabinet Note be updated and sent back

24.03.2005

urgently, The PM0 communicated the approval or the updated draft Cabinet Note by the

21.06.2005

Minister (Coal) The draft Cabinet Note incorporating the views of various States and comments of the Ministries and Departments with the observations of the Minister of Coal was placed by the Secretary (Coal) before the

22
MoS for approval of the Minister (Coal), stating that it was desirable that decision on allocation of captive block through bidding route was taken at the earliest so that the process of allocation of coal

4.07.2005

blocks could continue unhindered. MoS in his note to the Minister (Coal), inter alia, stated that the implications of such a decision by the Cabinet needed to be considered in great detail and that there was a general reluctance on the part of power utilities to participate in the competitive bidding due to cost

25.07.2005

implications. A meeting was taken by the PM0 wherein it was decided that MOC would amend the Cabinet Note to take into account the concerns of the State Governments, where the coal blocks were located. The Coal Mines Nationalisation) Act, 1973 would need to be amended before the proposed competitive bidding became operational. Since this was likely to take considerable time, it was decided that MOC would continue to allot coal blocks for captive mining through the extant Screening Committee procedure till the new competitive bidding procedure

became operational, hi the meeting,

23
Secretary (Coal) stated that" the competitive bidding procedure will only tap part of the windfall profit that accrued to the companies which were allocated captive coal blocks under the Screening Committee procedure for

9.08.2005

public purposes." The PM0 requested MOC to take urgent action as per the decisions taken in the

12.01.2006

meeting held on 25 July 2005. MoS stated that the PMO had taken a view to amend the Coal Mines

(Nationalisation) Act which was a time consuming exercise and as such allowed the Department to proceed with the allocation of captive coal blocks under the extant mechanism. MoS stated that "several applications were received in respect of coal and lignite blocks already put on offer and which were under process and as such there was no immediacy in the matter and that the Note be resubmitted at an appropriate time keeping in view the issues

7.02.2006

involved". Secretary (Coal) submitted a note to the Minister (Coal) through MoS, stating that the PM0 had been pressing for

24
expeditious submission of the Cabinet Note, The matter was seen by the

16.01.2006

Minister (Coal) on 07 March 2006. Secretary (Coal) approved

the

submission of the final note to the

7.04.2006

Cabinet Secretariat. A meeting was held in the PM() wherein it was generally felt that it would be more appropriate to make an amendment in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, (IVIMDR Act) 1957 so that the system of competitive bidding could be made applicable to all minerals

20.04.2006

covered under the said Act. Secretary (Coal) approved a draft note to the Ministry of Mines with a request to obtain the comments of the Department of Legal Affairs on the legal feasibility of the proposed amendment to the IVIMDR

27.04.2006

Act, 1957 to address competitive bidding. MoS opined that the issue to amend the MMDR Act should be revisited, as it involved withdrawing the current

powers of the State Governments and it bad the potential to become a

controversial issue. Minister of Coal stated that the views expressed by the MoS were appropriate and MOC should refrain from making suggestions which had implications for

25
2.05.2006
federal polity. The advice of the Minister (Coal) was sent to the Ivlinistry of Mines to suggest appropriate modifications in the

tentative draft. The draft with the suggestions of the Ministry of Mines was referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs for their views on the legal feasibility of the

15.09.2006

proposed amendment. MOC communicated to the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat that the Ministry of Law and Justice has advised MOC to initiate suitable measures for amendment of the MMDR Act, 1957 for addressing

17.10.2008

the Competitive Bidding, A Bill to amend the MMDR Act, 1957 was introduced in the Parliament by the

31.10.2008

Ministry of Mines. The Amendment Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Coal and Steel

19.02.2009

for examination and report. The Standing Committee submitted its report to the Parliament and made

10.08.2009

certain recommendations. MoS held a meeting with the State Ministers of Mining and Geology of coal

18.02.2010

and lignite bearing States. The Minister (Mines) moved the motion for passage of the MMDR Amendment Bill, 2008 in the Budget Session of

26
Parliament (2010) after the Cabinet approved (28 January 2010) the Cabinet

9.09.2010

Note. The MMDR Amendment Act, 2010 was notified in the Gazette of India

(Extraordinary) after the same was passed by both the Houses of the Parliament in the Monsoon Session (26

22.09.2010

July 2010 to 31 August 2010). The Secretary (Coal) chaired

meeting with the representatives of the Ministries and of Power, Gas, Mines, Steel,

Petroleum

Natural

Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and the Planning

Commission to discuss various issues on finalisation of the modalities for competitive bidding as the selection process for allocation of coal and lignite

31.01.2011

blocks. Draft bid documents were discussed in the meeting of the Committee.

45.

That till March 2011

MOC has allocated 194 coal blocks net

( 44,440 Million tonne ) for captive mining of which 142 were explored block.
46.

That as per CAG report in fact Government had decided to bring in transparency and objectivity in the allocation process of coal blocks, with 28 June 2004 taken as the cut-off date. This process kept getting delayed at various stages. Even after a lapse of seven years, the same is yet to materialize (February 2012).

27
As per the note of the Secretary (Coal), steps could have been taken to allocate coal blocks through competitive bidding as of September 2004.
47.

MOC referred the matter of introduction of competitive bidding process for allocation of coal blocks to the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA) in June 2004 for seeking an opinion whether coal blocks could be allocated through auction/ competitive bidding route by making rules -under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 read with Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (MMDR Act), 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. After a series of correspondences and after two years DLA stated (28 July 2006) that it was open to the government to introduce the auctioning of coal mining blocks for captive use through competitive bidding as the selection process for allocation was possible by amending the existing

administrative instructions and such a process could be governed by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 (as per the advice of DLA in July 2006). DLA also stated that the course which was to be adopted in the instant case, Le. to amend the Act or to effect changes in the administrative instructions, was a matter of policy to be decided by the referring Ministry. The same opinion was reiterated by the Law Secretary also in August 2006.
48. That major player in power, Reliance Power, which is setting

up the Sasan and Tilayia ultra-mega power projects (UMPPs), is missing from the list because the section on "Windfall benefit to private companies" does not include 12 coal blocks given for the government's showpiece power projects as

28
they were allocated through a tariff-based competitive bidding route.
49. That The blocks given to Reliance Power are dealt with in a

separate section. CAG's estimate of the "undue benefit" to Reliance Power for these two projects is now placed at Rs 15,849 crore over a 25-year period.) 50. That Jindal Steel and Power Ltd promoter Naveen Jindal responded to TIMES OF INDIA , saying: a. "It is all project specific. Often you find (state-run) companies unable to start work. I am proud to say that JSPL has started two of our blocks and is contributing towards creating wealth for the country. For all these 155 blocks, Coal India did not have any mining plans as it found them unattractive... CAG may have its view but whether it is JSPL or any other private company, they are all Indian entities and are creating wealth for the country." 51. That allotment to the reliance group is due to earnest & Young report who has been appointed as consultant by the GOI
52.

That CAG report has been placed in the parliament. On 24th August 2012 finance minister , on the behest of the Congress party declared that there is no mining is started in the above said 155 allotted coal block therefore there is no loss to the country.

53.That it is pertinent to say that concerned companies share prices has been sharply fluctuated in the share market and these companies secured maximum benefits due to impugned allocations.

29
54.That the petition is being filed on the following amongst other GROUNDS
a. Because Honble Supreme Court in judgment dt. 2nd Feb

2012 in W.P. (C.) NO.10 of

2011 , Honble Justice G.S.

Singhavi and Ashok Ganguly J , has already decided above question of law pertaining to 2G spectrum allocation case declaring that natural resources must be allotted via auction systems. Honble Supreme Court declared process & as "unconstitutional and

allotment of the 2G spectrum

arbitrary," and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 by Telecom ministry..
b. Because State legally owns the natural resources on behalf of

citizens of India. Prime minister and coal minister hold state office in trust. Respondent no.2 and 3 , knowingly and deliberately did impugned allotment in arbitrary manner under choose and pick method, favouring private parties. The way Respondents has allotted coal bock to private companies it has created huge loss about 1.84 lakhs crores to the national consolidated fund of India. It is a serious criminal breach of trust and is also attracted PC Act-92.
c.

Because impugned allotment process has been carried out for 7 years just to secure proper funding in political party

account. Within declaration of Vedantas Chairman Mr. Anil Agarwal pertaining to Rs.28 crores donation to the Indian political parties it is a subject matter of bribe for the

allotment of the coal mines and others resources. BALCO and Sterlite energy ltd. belong to Anil Agarwals group of the compnaies. Sterlite energy ltd belong to VEDANTA itself who had donated Rs.28 crores. It is a subject matter further to investigate amount of donation to the ruling party in

30
exchange of coal block allotment and others for proper prosecutions.
d. Because within the above facts impugned allotment of coal

block to the private parties are outcome of corruption and fraud therefore impugned allotments are liable to be quashed with heavy cost couple with further action.
e.

Because within the above facts it is clearly shown that Dr. Singh, PM & Sriprakash Jaiswal minister of CoM abused their positions to give huge pecuniary benefits to private parties, which is an offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore the said matter needs a thorough independent investigation.

f.

Because respondent Dr. Manmohan Singh Prime minister of India and Sriprakas Jaiswal, minister of MoC , both belong to ruling congress party and as per VEDANTA they had given donation to Indian political parties. However name of the parties has not disclosed. VEDANTA is an NRI firm and any such fund from foreign company requires prior permission from the ministry of home affairs. Otherwise it is an offence under FCRA,2010 subject to imprisonment for three years with penalty. Therefore also subject matter of donation and its effect in coal allotment must be inquired and decided for legal action in the interest of general public.

g.

Because respondent no. 4, 5 & 6 did not declare to ECI about impugned donation received from VEDANTA what was

mandatory u/s 29B & 29C of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and is a serious offence.
h.

Because u/s 19 of MMDR Act-1957 an allotment of mining lease, in contravention of the provision of the act, is void.

31
i.

Because impugned coal block have been allotted without previous approval of the central government by the prime minister and coal minister contrary to the provision of s.5 of The MMDR Act-1957.

j.

Because impugned coal block has been allotted without having mining plan in hand which is a violation of s.5 (2)(b) of MMDR Act 1957. According to the CAG report list more than 50 companies has been allotted coal block in Jharkhand , Orissa & Chattisgarh without having coal mining plan. It is a serious case of violation of MMDR Act. Sterlite energy and SKS Ispat Power Ltd are one of the same companies.

k.

Because for allotment of impugned coal block provision of s.10 of the act was not complied & coal block were allotted as per pick and choice basis for benefitting to the private companies in exchange for donations and others which is a serious violation of law & also corruption attracting prevention of corruption act -1992.Therefore these allotment must be quashed with further prosecution under PC act-92.

l.

Because offence and activities has seriously damaged National interest and properties. Therefore CBI investigation must be within the supervision of this Honble High court and to file their report before this court for complete justice.

55.

That Petitioner has not filed any

Petition before this Honble

Supreme court or in any High court for the relief prayed herein.

PRAYER Therefore within the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the interest of citizen of India for justice , equity and fair play this Honble court

32
1. Be pleased to declare and quash allotment of impugned 194 coal

blocks in (1) Jharkhand, (2) Chattisgarh , (3) Maharastra (4) West Bengal (5) Orissa and (6) Madhya Pradesh to private companies/ parties , being as arbitrary, illegal , unconstitutional and against the public interest. AND
2. Be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to conduct independent

inquiry and to file their inquiry report before this Honble court for fixing the responsibility of the respondents 4 to 5 and others in the impugned coal allotment scam for proper prosecution u/s 409 & 420 of IPC and PC ACT-92 & others. AND
3. Be pleased to issue direction for further inquiry under FCRA ACT

2010 pertaining to donation from NRI company, Vedanta, to Indian National Congress and to file their report before this Honble Court for further action & proper prosecution. AND 4. Pass such other order or further orders, as this Honble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS ARE DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAYS.

Drawn & settled by:

Filed by: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Petitioner-in-person

Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Drawn on : 27.8.2012 Filed on : 29.8.2012

33
INT ES P E EC U TO IN IA H URM O R F D ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Crl.) no. OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Versus The principle secretary & Others AFFIDAVIT I, Manohar Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri P.L. Sharma ,practicing advocate presently practicing in Supreme Court at S.C.B. Lib. No.-1 Supreme Court of India ,New Delhi, Petitioner do hereby solemnly affirm, state and declares as under 1. That I am the petitioner in the above writ petition and as such I am aware of the facts of this case and I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That contents of this accompanied writ & contents of the date of

Petitioner Respondents

events ( page B-

) writ petition (para 1-55) and (pages 1-32) and

contents of the filed applications for stay and directions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3. That filed copy of the annexure P-1 & P-2 colly are true and correct to their original. Deponent Verification I , the above named deponent do hereby declare and verify on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true to my knowledge ,nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. Verified at New Delhi on this 28.8.2012 DEPONENT

34

IN E DX

LISTING PROFROMA 2. DATE OF EVENTS 3. Writ Petition with affidavit 4. Annexure P-1
1.

A-A1 B-D 1-33

True copy of the list of coal block allotments to 34-85 the private companies couple with CAG report dt. 7th May 2012
5.

Annexure-P2 Colly True copy of the times of India news report 86-87 dt. 26.8.2012 True copy of the relevant page of Vedantas

annual report of 2012 6. I.A. no. OF 2012 Application for direction 7. I.A. no. OF 2012 Application for stay 8. True copy of identity card of the petitioner

88 89-90 91-92