‘Not even an iota of evidence’: Delhi court discharges ex-Secretary in coal block allocation case

“There is not even an iota of material available on record to suggest that the act of accused public servants (Kropha and Gupta) was without public interest,” said Special Judge Dheeraj Mor of Rouse Avenue Court in an order dated October 31.

Referring to charges against the officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the judge ruled that “irregularities in absence of any established…  dishonest intention cannot be given the tone of criminality”.

This is the fourth recent case related to the alleged coal block allocation scam where the two former officials, represented in court by advocates Rahul Tyagi and Mathew M Philip, have been granted relief by two Special Judges in Rouse Avenue. In two cases, they were acquitted in December 2024 and June 2025. In the third, they were discharged in April 2025.

Gupta and Kropha have 19 cases against them, 10 of which have not been decided yet, with the CBI accusing them of criminal misconduct. Of the nine which have been decided, two have ended in discharge, two in acquittal and five in convictions. Sentences in the five cases have been stayed by the Delhi High Court.

Of the pending cases, trial is ongoing in seven cases in Rouse Avenue Court and two have been stayed by the Supreme Court. The two officials spent about a week in custody and are on bail.

The current case pertains to applications invited by the Coal Ministry in November 2006 for the allocation of 38 blocks. Following this advertisement, R K M Powergen had applied for the Fatehpur East block for a proposed 1,200 MW thermal power plant.

In August 2014, the CBI lodged an FIR alleging that the firm misrepresented its net worth to get the allocation and that Government officials had violated guidelines to grant undue favour to it. According to the CBI, the minimum net worth required to fit the eligibility criteria to attain the allocation was Rs 500 crore, whereas the net worth of R K M Powergen was just Rs 21.51 crore.

The Judge said, “As per the criteria laid down by the Ministry of Power, a company having net worth of Rs 0.50 crore per MW was eligible for allocation of coal block. In the instant case, the capacity of the power plant of accused no.1 company was 1,200 MW and as per the criteria, it was eligible for allocation of coal block if its net worth was Rs 600 crore, which is way beyond and at least Rs 1,000 crore more in comparison to Rs 1,699.41 crore [firm’s net worth], as computed by the said Chartered Accountant.”

“… it is established that accused no.1 company did not make any false representation in its applications or feedback form… There is no evidence that the accused public servants were aware of any alleged misrepresentation made by accused no.1 company to the Screening Committee/ Ministry of Coal at the relevant time or it used any forged document as genuine,” he said.

The court also noted that the company had ranked on top out of all the applicants, in nine out of 10 parameters, and was the most “deserving” company for the allocation.

The CBI had also accused the public servants of processing incomplete information. Even on this aspect, the Judge ruled in the favour of the accused.

“… no instructions or orders were taken either orally or in writing from accused public servants to dispatch the applications to the quarters concerned. The same was done at the level of the Under Secretary only. In these circumstances, no fault for allegedly allowing processing of incomplete application of accused no.1 company can be attributed to either of the accused public servants,” he said.

“The Chairman or Member Secretary did not have any Veto Power to change the collective decision of the (screening) committee. Therefore, only two (Kropha and Gupta) of them cannot be arbitrarily made scapegoat for the informed and conscious decision taken by the committee collectively,” the court added.

Advocate Tyagi told The Indian Express: “(The officials) are being prosecuted for lapses of their subordinates or colleagues from other ministries and state governments, who have been made prosecution witnesses against them. This is an unjust prosecution which should be revisited by the CBI in light of the four consecutive judgments that have now come out in their favour.”