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,