The Supreme Court bench headed by justice R M Lodha and comprising justice Madan B Lokur and justice Kurian Joseph sought several clarifications from the Centre :
a) clarifications relating to the policy and guidelines adopted in coal block allocations which was extended to private sector in the post-liberalisation era.
This is with reference to the PILs seeking cancellation of the coal block allocations in which the CBI has undertaken probe against each and every company allocated coal block since 1993 and "in particular during the period 2006 to 2008."
b) The bench asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati "to prepare the compilation of reports of all the screening committee meetings from July 14, 1993 to March 31, 2011 and the guidelines which were followed in the coal block allocations."
c) The court has asked for minutes of each meeting of screening committee involved in the allocation process. The bench observed, "We are not considering the individual applications of the allottee. We are examining as to whether any unfair practise was adopted on the decision-making process. Whether it was in accordance with law or it was done in an arbitrary manner," .
d) The court asked, "whether any policy was in place" for the purpose of coal block allocation",and said "minutes of each meeting of screening committee will make things clear about each allocation" to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran.
e) The bench questioned to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and asked, "The pointed question to you is whether coal block allocations were made to private firms for captive consumption or not? "When was the scope of private participation in coal block allocations expanded... When was this cabinet decision amended?" .
f) The court further asked the Attorney General to apprise it of the role of state governments in the coal block allocations.
To this Solicitor Vahanvati replied during the hearing that the law was amended as there was shortage of power in 1992-94 and Coal India Ltd (CIL) was not able to produce enough coal. He said "CIL was not in a position to explore and mine the coal required for electricity production", .
a) clarifications relating to the policy and guidelines adopted in coal block allocations which was extended to private sector in the post-liberalisation era.
This is with reference to the PILs seeking cancellation of the coal block allocations in which the CBI has undertaken probe against each and every company allocated coal block since 1993 and "in particular during the period 2006 to 2008."
b) The bench asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati "to prepare the compilation of reports of all the screening committee meetings from July 14, 1993 to March 31, 2011 and the guidelines which were followed in the coal block allocations."
c) The court has asked for minutes of each meeting of screening committee involved in the allocation process. The bench observed, "We are not considering the individual applications of the allottee. We are examining as to whether any unfair practise was adopted on the decision-making process. Whether it was in accordance with law or it was done in an arbitrary manner," .
d) The court asked, "whether any policy was in place" for the purpose of coal block allocation",and said "minutes of each meeting of screening committee will make things clear about each allocation" to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran.
e) The bench questioned to the centre's Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and asked, "The pointed question to you is whether coal block allocations were made to private firms for captive consumption or not? "When was the scope of private participation in coal block allocations expanded... When was this cabinet decision amended?" .
f) The court further asked the Attorney General to apprise it of the role of state governments in the coal block allocations.
To this Solicitor Vahanvati replied during the hearing that the law was amended as there was shortage of power in 1992-94 and Coal India Ltd (CIL) was not able to produce enough coal. He said "CIL was not in a position to explore and mine the coal required for electricity production", .
Advocate M L Sharma, who filed one of the PILs, said the Prime Minister, on March 24, 2005, had approved the policy of competitive bidding for the allocation of coal blocks and also said that Department of Legal Affairs, in 2004, had also given its opinion to the Coal Ministry that the competitive bidding process be adopted in coal block allocations. To this the court observed, "This was not a policy decision, it was merely an opinion (of Legal department) that never culminated into a policy,".
The court mood seemed to be of not satisfied with the delay in getting many basic and vital clarification as regard to the Government policy in the allocation of coal blocks during the said period and specifically asked for those during the hearing of the PILs.