Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Team Anna Report

Team Anna Report

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17,104|Likes:
Published by IBNLiveNews

More info:

Published by: IBNLiveNews on May 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

11/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
IndexS. No. Name Page No.1.
 
Mr. Manmohan Singh 2-4
2.
 
Mr. P Chidambaram 5-29
3.
 
Mr. Pranab Mukherjee 30-33
4.
 
Mr. Sharad Pawar 34-37
5.
 
Mr. S M Krishna 38-40
6.
 
Mr. Kamal Nath 41-43
7.
 
Mr. Praful Patel 44-48
8.
 
Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh 49-52
9.
 
Mr. Virbhadra Singh 53-54
10.
 
Mr. Kapil Sibal 55-58
11.
 
Mr. Salman Khurshid 59-63
12.
 
Mr. G K Vasan 64-65
13.
 
Mr. Farooq Abdullah 66
14.
 
Mr. M K Alagiri 67
15.
 
Mr. S K Shinde 68-79
 
2
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)
 
3
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 (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ananth Nagaraj added this note
when the prime minister of this country is corrupt then we can imagine the fate and future of this country. the growth of china and india started almost in the same time look where china has reached and where we are they are standing against america as echonomic power house and we are bowing to america as slaves. i am afraid of my sons generation that due these greedy people china will conqur us
Anil Singh liked this
VOXINDICA liked this
kdpgrahi liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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