In the controversy that surfaced over the CBI’s action in opening an investigation into the action of former coal secretary P.C. Parakh and leading industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, the principle cannot be lost sight
of that the judiciary cannot intervene in matters of government policy.On allocation of coal blocks, the policy clearly was the judgement or satisfaction of a designated screening committee, as distinct from selection through a bidding process. To that extent, the coal allocation in Odisha — which finally produced a joint venture of two PSUs along with Birla’s Hindalco — retains its bona fides. It is not clear on what basis the CBI built this case.
CBI director Ranjit Sinha has said in an interview to this newspaper that the agency’s case rests on “scientific” and “documentary evidence”. Even if that is the case, the agency has not paid adequate attention to official policy and has overlooked the screening committee’s final deliberations. Is the “caged parrot” going bananas with the SC monitoring its labours in the Coalgate affair?
Parakh and Birla have been charged with “criminal conspiracy” and the former coal secretary with abusing his official position. Is that premise sustainable?
Birla’s Hindalco had applied for the coal blocks in 1996, and was the first company to do so. However, the screening committee chaired by Parakh overlooked its application and recommended awarding the blocks to two PSUs, Mahanadi Coalfields and Neyveli Lignite.
That does not, however, mean that Talabari I and II were earmarked for government companies. When Hindalco protested, the chairman, considering the overall circumstances and Hindalco’s technical expertise, amended the earlier recommendation to include Hindalco in a joint venture along with the PSUs for the two coal blocks in question.
Does this look like a criminal conspiracy or a fresh application of mind? The court will no doubt consider this aspect, especially when it considers Parakh’s observation that during his term as coal secretary no block was recommended for any one company in its entirety.
The CBI director has himself not looked for a financial corruption angle. He told us that a “quid pro quo” aspect was not being examined in this case.
Especially in the light of this, the case against Parakh and Birla appears to be built on sand. The CBI rushing to the media looks all the more misconceived when it is considered that it has not only hurt reputations but further muddied the investment climate in the country by targeting a major industrialist with a good track record.
0 comments:
Post a Comment