NEW DELHI, Dec 16: CBI was today directed by a trial court to examine former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the case of Talabira II coal block allocation to Hindalco when he was also Coal Minister in 2005.
Sending the matter back to CBI for further investigation after it had filed a closure report in the case, Special Judge Bharat Parashar said it would be “appropriate” that the then Coal Minister be “first examined” regarding various aspects of the matter.
“….I am of the considered opinion that before the matter is examined further as to what offence, if any, stands committed or by whom the same has been committed, it will be appropriate that the then Minister of Coal (Manmohan Singh) be first examined qua various aspects of the matter and also in light of the observations made by this court in the present order,” the judge said.
Besides Manmohan Singh, the court also said that some top officers, who were working in Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) at that time and were concerned with the process of allocation of coal block to HINDALCO, were “either not examined or were not properly examined” by the agency.
“B V R Subramanyam, who was PS to the Prime Minister, has not been examined and T K A Nair, who was working as Principal Secretary in the PMO, though, has been examined by way of a questionnaire but towards the end he refused to answer some of the questions expressing his inability that he was not in a frame of mind of answering further questions,” it said.
“Thus, it will be appropriate if the IO (investigating officer) examines B V R Subramanyam and re-examines T K A Nair,” the judge said in his 50-page order and fixed the case for filing of progress report of further probe on January 27.
The case pertains to allocation of Talabira II coal block in Orissa to M/s HINDALCO. The CBI had earlier lodged an FIR against Kumar Mangalam Birla, former Coal Secretary P C Parakh, M/s HINDALCO Industries Ltd and other unknown persons and officials for the offence under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI, however, had later filed a closure report in the case on August 27 this year opining that no criminal offence was committed by any of the persons involved in the entire process of allocation of Talabira-II coal block to HINDALCO.
The court, in its detailed order, observed that documents recovered during the probe coupled with the fact that Birla had met Manmohan Singh, Parakh and others and had also written two letters to then Prime Minister showed that a “concerted effort” was being made to “manipulate” the entire system.
“Thus if in the light of the aforesaid documents recovered, the subsequent meetings which Kumar Mangalam Birla had initially with the Prime Minister and thereafter with P C Parakh or with Dasari Narayan Rao (the then Minister of State for Coal and Mines) are seen coupled with the two letters dated May 7, 2005 and June 17, 2005 written by him to the Prime Minister requesting for allocation of Talabira-II coal block, then it is found that a concerted effort was being made to manipulate the entire Government machinery so as to protect the interest of M/s HINDALCO,” the court said.
It, however, clarified that there cannot be any objection if the head of a leading industrial house met the Prime Minister or other top officials “but when such meetings are seen in the over all facts and circumstances as mentioned above coupled with the follow up action which resulted at the administrative level in the government then it certainly raises eye brows.”
It also said that in the final report submitted by CBI, it was stated that even the reasons mentioned by Birla to Parakh for accommodating HINDALCO in allotment of Talabira-II coal block which were reproduced by Parakh in one of his notes in August 2005, were “found to be not correct”.
While directing CBI to question Manmohan Singh and others, the court observed that members of the screening committee and Ministry of Coal, including the ministers heading it, were acting as trustees of important nationalised natural resources of the country.
“In a democratic society, it is incumbent on such persons having dominion over the nationalised natural resources of the country to ensure that the said resources are handled and distributed in an objective and transparent manner with equal opportunities to one and all. With the aforesaid directions, I am accordingly sending the matter back to CBI for further investigation,” the judge said.
Referring to the documents placed before it by the CBI,
the court observed that certain “loose ends” were required to be tied up first so that a “clear and comprehensive picture” may come up on the record.
“There are certain circumstances which need to be elaborated/explained especially as regard the manner and the circumstances under which the matter was taken up in PMO or under what circumstances recommendations of the 25th screening committee (in which HINDALCO was not considered favourable for allocation of Talabira-II block) were set aside even though it already stood approved,” it said.
The judge also said that it was needed to be clarified as to under what circumstances the settled procedure of making allocation of various coal blocks through screening committee route was “not adhered to” in this matter.
In its order, the court also referred to an August 17, 2005 letter written by Orissa’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik requesting the then Prime Minister to provide required coal linkage to important project of HINDALCO.
The court, however, clarified that it was not questioning the discretion vested either with the screening committee or the Prime Minister as Minister of Coal but it was primarily the manner in which “this discretion has been exercised which is subject to judicial review.”
“The moot question to be examined is as to whether the procedure laid down as per law or the guidelines earlier framed were duly followed in the entire process of allocation of coal block to HINDALCO or not. It also needs to be seen as to under what circumstances a deviance from the settled rules/ regulations or the guidelines laid down was effected,” it noted.
“Whether the entire matter was dealt with at all levels in an objective manner or the subjectivity prevailed so much that the objectivity or the rule of law lost its relevance in the entire process completely,” the judge observed.
Detailing the probe done by the CBI, the court said that during the search conducted at the office of M/s Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt Ltd in New Delhi, not only a huge sum of Rs 25,01,41,100 was recovered but certain letters written by Subendu Amitabh, its Group Executive President, to HINDALCO’s MD were also recovered.
It said that during the probe, CBI recorded statements of a number of officers of the Ministry of Coal and the PMO while Birla and various officers of the Aditya Birla Group were also examined.
In its order, the court said after Birla wrote a letter to Manmohan Singh on May 7, 2005, a report from the Ministry of Coal was sought and when no response was received, repeated reminders were sent to the ministry to expedite their reply.
It said that Birla’s second letter of June 17, 2005 to the Prime Minister was also followed up in “right earnest” by the officers of PMO.
“I may also again mention that there may not be anything abnormal or wrong if any such letter is forwarded by the PMO to the concerned ministry for necessary action or a report is called for but if in the overall facts and circumstances as discussed above the number of reminders which were sent by the PMO as well as repeated telephonic requests seeking an early response from the MoC are seen then entire process raises grave shadows of suspicion,” the judge said.
The court said despite the fact that the matter relating to allocation of Talabira-II coal block was already dealt with earlier, the issue was sought to be “re-opened” pursuant to the two letters written by Birla to Manmohan Singh.
It said when MoC’s then section officer Premraj Kuar had observed that it would not be possible to accede to request of allocation of Talabira-II coal block to HINDALCO, the said note “was conveniently overlooked/not approved at the higher levels.”
It said fresh proposals were made by Parakh primarily to accommodate HINDALCO in allocation of Talabira-II coal block but Dasari Narayan Rao had cautioned that any deviation from screening committee recommendations will not be appropriate.
The court also appeared to agree with the submission of Supreme Court-appointed special public prosecutor (SPP) R S Cheema who had argued before it that he does not agree with the conclusion drawn in the final report that no criminal offence has been committed in the entire process.
“In fact, the submission of SPP R S Cheema appears to be a logical conclusion flowing out not only from the various documents which were seized during the course of investigation but also from the manner in which the entire process was undertaken by the MOC and the PMO,” it said. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel