Ispat calls off coal mining project

NAGPUR, OCT 7: In a significant development, senior counsel R K Jain has informed the Bombay High Court bench here that the Ispat Group, ...

NAGPUR, OCT 7: In a significant development, senior counsel R K Jain has informed the Bombay High Court bench here that the Ispat Group, formerly Nippon Denro Ispat Limited NDIL, has given up its proposed coal mining project near the Bhadravati Ordnance Factory BOF in view of restrictions, put by APJ Abdul Kalam Committee, on mining activities and use of blasting devices within three km radius of the factory.

Representing NDIL at the hearing of a PIL challenging allocation of mining blocks near the factory to Central India Coal Company CICCO, an Ispat subsidiary, Jain submitted that the petition had lost its relevance owing to the decision to abandon the mining project.

However, Justices B N Srikrishna and S K Shah, comprising the division bench, observed that public interest was larger than mere abandonment of a project. The PIL, filed by former MP Banwarilal Purohit, had demanded, among other things, a CBI probe into the entire process leading to the grant of mining rights to CICCO and alleged large scale corruption in the matter.

At a marathon proceeding throughout the day, senior counsel K H Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner, insisted that a CBI inquiry into the deal was imperative for establishing the truth. That, there was something which was not apparent but was the moving spirit behind the deal.

A situation where the executive including State and Central Governments as well as Ministry of Defence MoD, demonstrated an unaccustomed alacrity in clearing the mining project post haste, he added.

Deshpande submitted that the Screening Committee of Ministry of Coal decided on September 27, 1993, to allocate the mining blocks at Lohara, Baranj and Bander, near the factory, to CICCO. The coal produced was to be used for a 1000 MW thermal power plant proposed another Ispat subsidiary, Central India Power Company CIPCO.

He charged that the Screening Committee violated guidelines, laid down by the Centre, by allotting the mining blocks at a location where the Coal India Limited CIL had already put in developmental work. The decision of allotting these blocks came despite the fact that the Western Coalfields Limited WCL, a CIL subsidiary, had initiated process for acquiring the land, he added.

Story continues below this ad

The BOF authorities too were not informed about the entire deal, Deshpande submitted while citing minutes of a high-level committee comprising of defence experts and of board officials. The committee had expressed concern over the risk to vital explosives produced at the OF unit, owing to the mining activities in proximity.

Countering the submissions, Jain, a former president of Supreme Court Bar Association, argued that the mining project was part of the eight fast-track projects cleared by the then Government at the Centre as part of policy to promote investment. He charged that the petition was politically motivated and hardly addresses any mala fide against the respondents.

The bench ought to consider the consequences before reaching any decision on the matter. Even a progressive state like Maharashtra was projected to face a shortage of 2000 MW of power by the year 2001. Hence, the haste in clearing the project which was a positive aspect.

Even if one was to consider charges of corruption sought to be levelled by the petitioner, Jain wondered whether it was possible for a private company, howsoever influential, to manage various central and state departments involved in the deal. And if that was to be the case, had it not managed the MoD?, he asked.

Story continues below this ad

He further observed that demanding CBI probe had become a fashion these days and the right course for the petitioner would have been to lodge a first information report FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC. There has to be some prima facie culpability against NDIL but the petition fails to address the issue, Jain maintained.

On the issue of submission of records and documents the Coal ministry, as sought by the petitioner, the bench directed the petitioner to furnish a list of specific records and documents that were being sought. The Counsel for Central Government R S Sundaram informed court that he had 27 files, containing all documents and records, in the court but was unable to decide on those to be furnished since the petitioner had not specified the same.

The bench posted the matter for next hearing on October 12 when it is also scheduled to hear another PIL by Purohit against the power purchase agreement PPA between Maharashtra State Electricity Board and CIPCO.

Advocates Gautam Mitra and M Ahmadi assisted Jain while Ravi Deshpande assisted K H Deshpande. Government Pleader D N Kukday appeared for the State while S C Mehadia and A S Mehadia represented the WCL. Sundaram appeared for Coal ministry while R M Lanjewar represented MoD and BOF board.