You are on page 1of 1
FLAWS OF SCREENING PANELS HIGHLIGHTED BY SC ‘THE SUPREME COURT Judgement noted several lawsin the alloation of col blodsto private companies pusuant to recommendations made by sueeningcommitiees in 36 meetings since 1993, Some of the mportantaspects stated Inthe judgement are: 21st meet SLE 2) Guidelines neither contain criteria to determine the merit of applicants nor provide measure: to prevent unfair detrbtin of onlin the hand offew private companies b) Screening Commitee faled wo fave transparent system and kept an varying the ‘guidelines, Noapalcatonvas vite tough adverisements and therefore denied evel playing fle (Offa pay quested for a particular block. it ‘war recommended withovt loking intothe inert of equest. Some blocke wth higher coal reserve were recommended a thare wit ewer requirement. 4) Some blocks that were Wentifledfor Coal nda lid wereottered tb pvatecampariesard even lected, 22nd to30th meeting PEO 3) Azressmentof comparative mersefthe Spplanss missing 1b) The consideration has heen ad-hocand vwithoutknowing hovemuchsupluswil remsin, the company 0 hhosen wazacied ta sleet ‘ratheraltteforcurph. 9 Companesthat dd not come for preseration ‘ire also coreideved andits not lscemable in ‘what manner thelr applications were consBered and preteredaver others 32nd to36th meeting 2) Camgaries nathaving state governren’s recommendation got recommended ay the comnittee. b)fightcompantesrecommended by Minity of Powerdd aol getcommites’srecommencation eres 11 companies that were nol recommended by ministry gatit fom the ‘comnite. «Committee's recommendation to locate 15 bhclsreserved forpowe sector lacks partcuas relating tocorsieration ofeach appication,

You might also like