CBI registers two fresh cases in coal scam
The CBI Thursday registered two fresh cases for alleged irregularities in allocation of coal blocks between 2006 and 2009.
The cases were filed against Central Collieries Company, Nagpur, along with some unknown public servants and Delhi-based Prakash Industries.
The Central Bureau of Investigation said it was conducting raids at various places including the premises of the companies in Delhi, Nagpur, Mumbai and Chhattisgarh.
With the two new cases, the number of cases lodged by the CBI over the coal blocks allocation has gone up to 18.
The allegation against Central Collieries Company is that it sold coal in the open market against the concept of captive allocation of coal blocks for a specified end use.
On the basis of the allegations, the first case was registered for forgery and criminal breach of trust, the CBI said.
The Nagpur-based company got a coal block allocation at Takli Jena Bellora, Chandrapur district, in Maharashtra by furnishing false information, it said.
"The company was non-existent at the time of allocation. It was allocated coal block in 1998 for captive use of the coal in their proposed power plant," an official said.
Though the government policy was that coal blocks would be allocated for captive use only, the mining lease deed executed by the company with the Maharashtra government did not incorporate the condition of captive consumption of coal. The mine plan was forged which facilitated the non-captive use of coal.
"Mining started since the year 2000 without setting up of the proposed power plant and the coal extracted from the block was sold in the market. This led to an alleged misappropriation to the tune of Rs.10 crore," said the official.
In the second case, the CBI alleged that Prakash Industries had misrepresented facts in respect of allocation of Fatehpur Coal Block in Chhattisgarh.
It alleged that Prakash Industries had misrepresented the aspect of net worth to get coal blocks and the screening committee deliberately did not follow the guidelines and showed undue favour to the company.
(Posted on 27-03-2014)