Order
1. Pursuant to our order dated 6-8-2013 (2014) 3 SCC 169, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed 14 reports compiled in one volume in respect of the status of inquiries/investigation up to 25-8-2013.
2. Inter alia, it is stated in the status report regarding PE 219 2012 E 0002 that many documents/files are yet to be provided by the Ministry of Coal (MoC). The requisitions/requests were made by the inquiry officer/investigating officer and supervisory officer through a series of letters. Consolidated list of the required documents was again provided to MoC on 14-8-2013 to which response was received on 21-8-2013.
3. In the status report in PE 219 2012 E 0004, it is stated that despite reminders MoC is yet to provide certain old files specially relating to the applicants whose cases were not considered. The status report relating to PE 219 2012 E 0005 shows that the files pertaining to 18 coal blocks have been requested from MoC vide letter dated 1-8-2013 to provide the same on priority basis.
4. In the status report in RC 219 2012 E 0008, RC 219 2012 E 0009 and RC 219 2012 E 0010, inter alia, it is stated that in Para 9 of the minutes of the 35th Screening Committee meeting it was mentioned that financial strength of the applicant companies was scrutinised independently with the help of financial experts of CIL. The two financial experts' reports from CIL were identified and examined. However, the reports of the CIL experts are not available in the records/files of MoC. MoC vide its Letter dated 1-5-2013 informed that despite efforts the same could not be found on records pertaining to the Screening Committee meeting concerned. In the status report relating to these RCs, it is also stated that Shri Vijay Darda, MP is found to have sent recommendation letters to the Prime Minister for allocation of a particular coal block to one company and according to the records of PMO, these letters were forwarded to MoC for appropriate action, but the same are not traceable in MoC.
5. In the status report pertaining to RC 219 2012 E 0011, it is pointed out that verification of the work/financial strength of the applicant companies was got done through financial experts from CIL. During investigation the report of the financial experts from CIL was not found on the records of MoC. MoC has confirmed in writing that the financial experts' report is not available.
6. In the status report in RC 219 2012 E 0015, it is stated that the financial strength of the applicant companies was scrutinised independently with the help of financial experts from CIL. MoC was asked to provide the reports of the financial experts but after repeated requests/reminders, MoC has replied that the said reports are not readily available in the files pertaining to the 35th Screening Committee meeting.
7. In view of the above, we direct the three officers, namely, Mr Ravi Kant, DIG/EO-1; Mr Amit Kumar, DIG, EO-III and Mr V. Murugesan, DIG/EO-II, who are present in the Court to furnish a comprehensive list containing the details of files, documents and the information which remain outstanding in connection with the above three PEs and 11 RCs to the Attorney General's office within five days from today.
8. We also record and accept the statement of the learned Attorney General that the files, documents and the information which are available with the Government of India concerning the above requisition shall be made available within two weeks from the date of receipt of the requisition. As regards the files and documents which are missing or are not available or traceable, a report shall be filed with CBI for appropriate inquiry/investigation.
9. In the status report of RC 219 2012 E 0012, it is stated that consent of the Government of Jharkhand under Section 6 of the DSPE Act to investigate the role of public servants of Jharkhand has been obtained and the matter is submitted for obtaining notification of the Central Government under Section 5 of the DSPE Act, but this is awaited. It is observed that the Central Government shall issue necessary notification under Section 5 of the DSPE Act in this regard within two weeks from today.
10. In the status report pertaining to PE BDI 2012 E 2005, it is stated that the Government of Kerala has been asked to provide all the original files relating to Baitarni West Coal Block allocated jointly to the Kerala State Electricity Board, Gujarat Power Corpn. Ltd. and Orissa Hydro Power Corpn. and reminder to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has been sent for issuance of notification under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946 from the remaining 18 States other than Jharkhand and Kerala which have already accorded their consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is further stated that on receipt of requisite notification, documents pertaining to coal blocks allocated to the public sector undertakings of those States would be scrutinised. Let DoPT inform the Court about the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the DSPE Act from the 18 States other than Jharkhand and Kerala. This information shall be given to the Court on 5-9-2013.
11. We record the statements made by Mr Ravi Kant, DIG/EO-1; Mr Amit Kumar, DIG, EO-III and Mr V. Murugesan, DIG/EO-II, that they are proceeding with the inquiries/investigation speedily and the inquiries/investigation in the matter are likely to be completed by the end of December 2013.
12. CBI shall submit further report in respect of the status regarding inquiries/investigation up to 18-10-2013 by 22-10-2013.
13. As regards the two queries to the learned Attorney General on 10-7-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 709, the arguments remained inconclusive. Let the matter come up for consideration of these queries on 5-9-2013 at 2 p.m
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17993 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012
14. On 8-5-2013, this Court issued (2014) 2 SCC 703 certain directions. Direction 3 reads as under:
“9.3 The Director, CBI shall henceforth ensure that secrecy of the inquiries and investigations into allocation of coal blocks is maintained and no access of any nature whatsoever in this regard is provided to any person or authority, including any Minister of the Central Cabinet, Law Officers, Advocate(s) of CBI, Director of Prosecution and officials/officers of the Central Government. We may add that this accords with what the learned Attorney General and Mr U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for CBI, have submitted before us having regard to the peculiarities of the case.”
15. In this application made by CBI it is stated that Final Report I in 4 out of 5 regular cases being RC 219 2012 E 0008, RC 219 2012 E 0009, RC 219 2012 E 0010, RC 219 2012 E 0011 and RC 219 2012 E 0014 had been submitted and for presenting a report under Section 173 CrPC in court an examination regarding admissibility and sufficiency of evidence collected during the course of investigation is required to be carried out and for finalising the proper final report, facts of the cases are required to be discussed and vetted through the advocates and prosecutors. It is prayed that CBI may be permitted to disclose and discuss the facts of the cases mentioned above with the two in-house prosecutors and one special counsel. The names of two in-house prosecutors and one special counsel have been disclosed on a separate sheet in a sealed cover.
16. We are satisfied that since the Director of Prosecution is not being consulted for framing of Final Report II under Section 173 CrPC, the special counsel, Senior Public Prosecutor and/or Additional Legal Officer whose names have been disclosed in a separate sheet may be consulted. It is clarified that up to the stage of Final Report I, Direction 3 of the order dated 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 shall continue to operate. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17994 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012
17. In response to this application made by Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-person, Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 (Common Cause and others) submits that there is no conflict of interest whatsoever and he is entitled to appear for the petitioners Common Cause and others. In view of the statement made by Mr Prashant Bhushan that there is no conflict of interest, we do not think that any further order is required to be passed by us in this application. It is disposed of accordingly.
Court Masters