Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
All Collated Covering Note

All Collated Covering Note

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,292|Likes:
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...
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...

More info:

Published by: Shivendra Singh Chauhan on May 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IndexS. No. Name Page No.1.
Mr. Manmohan Singh 2-4
Mr. P Chidambaram 5-29
Mr. Pranab Mukherjee 30-33
Mr. Sharad Pawar 34-37
Mr. S M Krishna 38-40
Mr. Kamal Nath 41-43
Mr. Praful Patel 44-48
Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh 49-52
Mr. Virbhadra Singh 53-54
Mr. Kapil Sibal 55-58
Mr. Salman Khurshid 59-63
Mr. G K Vasan 64-65
Mr. Farooq Abdullah 66
Mr. M K Alagiri 67
Mr. S K Shinde 68-79
Dr. Manmohan Singh
Dr. Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister since May 2004 and waspersonally in-charge of the Coal Ministry from November 2006 to May2009. Under his watch a major coal allocation scam took place whichallowed private firms to make windfall gains, as is clear from the facts thatare now out in the public domain and the report of the CAG. The average allotment of coal blocks was 3-4 per year until a few yearsback. But this number shot up drastically to 22-24 during 2006-09 whenDr. Singh was in charge, raising questions about the manner in whichthese allotments were made. All the allotments were made withouttransparency, without protecting the interest of public exchequer, andwithout any competitive process.A comprehensive note on competitive bidding for the allocation of coalblocks was given by the Coal Secretary to the Minister of State for Coal on16 July 2004. It noted the substantial difference between the price of coalsupplied by Coal India Limited (CIL) and the cost of coal produced throughcaptive mining. This ensured a "windfall gain" to the party which wasallocated a captive block. That same month, the Minister of State soughtclarification on what he feared would be "likely opposition from the powersector". The Coal Secretary was explicit that the existing system of allocation, even with modifications, would not be able to achieve theobjectives of revenue maximisation, transparency and objectivity in theallocation process. However, rather than accept this advice, in September2004, the PMO forwarded a note detailing what it claimed were certaindisadvantages of the proposed system. Subsequently, the Coal Secretaryremarked that "there was hardly any merit in the objections raised" by thePMO. The secretary also highlighted some of the "pulls and pressures"experienced by the screening committee during the decision makingprocess and stressed that all pending applications were recommended onthe basis of competitive bidding, and that allocations should be made onsuch a basis. This recommendation was ignored by the PMO. The CAG draft report remarked that steps could have been taken toallocate coal blocks through competitive bidding well in September 2004itself.In October 2004, the MoS again argued that the proposal for competitivebidding may not be pursued as the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Amendment Bill 2000 was pending in the Rajya Sabha with stiff oppositionfrom trade unions. He also disagreed with the opinion that the screeningcommittee could not ensure transparent decision making. He said that thiswas "not an adequate ground for switching over (to) a new mechanism". The matter was once again put before the PMO, after which, 28 June 2004was decided as the cut-off date for considering applications as per thecurrent policy rather than the proposed policy.In March 2005, the Coal Secretary again put up a note to the PM statingthat if the revised system was not put in place quickly enough, pressurewould again mount on the government for continuing with the existingprocedure. Subsequently, the PMO in August 2005 asked the coal ministryto amend the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 before the new systembecame operational. "Since this was likely to take considerable time it wasdecided that the coal ministry would continue to allot coal blocks forcaptive mining through extant screening committee procedure till the newcompetitive bidding procedure became operational," the note states. Againin November 2005, the MoS said that the PMO had taken a view to amendthe Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, which was a "time consumingexercise and as such allowed the department to proceed with the existingsystem" ... "there was no immediacy..."In April 2006, it was decided to amend the MMDR Act so that the systemof competitive bidding could be made applicable to all minerals. Later on,delaying the matter further, the MoS opined that the issue of amendmentshould be "revisited" as it had the potential to become controversial.Finally, the bill to amend the MMDR Act was introduced in Parliament inOctober 2008 and passed in August 2010.While the amendment to ensure coal allocation by auction remained inabeyance because of the
Dr. Singh’s
interventions as head of the Cabinetand in-charge of the coal ministry, 24 blocks were allocated in 2005, 53 in2006, 52 in 2007, 24 in 2008 and 16 in 2009. Interestingly, post-amendments, only one coal block was allocated in 2010, and not even onein 2011.Obviously there was a rush for coal blocks allocated under the old, non-competitive, system. As on June 2004, only 39 coal blocks stood allocated."But since July 2004, 155 coal blocks were allocated to government andprivate parties following the existing process. The CAG in its draft reporthas pegged the losses running in lakhs of crores. A copy of the relevantchapter of the report is annexed as
Annexure A
. It is understood the final

Activity (15)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Partha Sengupta added this note
great work but team Anna must start preparing for elections, thats the only tangible way to get these scamsters out.
Jagdish J Fadnavis added this note
Hats off to anna team in bringing out thescam, irregularity committed by these cabinet ministers..We should persue the case till its logical conclusion and the guilty be punished severly,, like LIFE imprisonmnet. etc..The tempo should be built up and not allowed to calm doen ..otherwise all scam since ages are brought out with no punishment to person involved.. Courts should moinitor cases
Akash_Jain_Bangalore added this note
First of all I would like to appreciate the efforts of Team Anna. This is very good research work and people of India should understand the situation of our country. I would say each and every department is corrupted in some or the other way. Lets join together and come forward to stop this corruption. We all should go on strike and start protesting this.
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma added this note
Citizens of India must read and understand the situation. The situation is becoming worst. I support the team who are investigating and applying the FIR against the criminal who sold our Bharat to Foreign nations in the name of FDI.
Mahendra Agrawal added this note
2- coal ministry was headed by dr man mohan singh when corrupt officials were granted restricted and probiheded aqquired land under coal bearing aquasition act to a private company. which was absolutly voilation and supersit of hon'ble president and laws. 3- despite former pollution state minister jai ram jayanti natrajan has approved green land to a private company.
Mahendra Agrawal added this note
1-dr man mohan singh is also a corrupt person. he is rajya sabha member from assam where he was never live nor residece. surrprising thing is that assam has not implimented voter photo indentity card. centre govt still nothing has done to stop infliteration. dr man mohan singh has no any documents to prove that residece of assam. contd
Badal Behera added this note
इस बार अगर जनता नहीं समझती तो कभी भी नहीं समझेगा इन गद्दारोको ।हे भारत वासी अब तो जागो और इनको भगाओ नहीं तो खुद मरो और इन को लूट ने दो

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->