Mining stink: Supreme Court detects private interest in public interest

It turned out that Aryan Coal had used the Supreme Court and the provisions of the PIL to keep a potential competitor out.

It was in hearings of the Supreme Court that Aryans’ “bungling’’ started coming to light in spite of CBI giving them a clean chit. Although they dismissed the PIL, the Court promised to look into the alleged pilferage angle.

Aryan runs a washery in Dipka-Gevra mines in Chhattisgarh and the CVO report alleged that the company also controls the entire network of transport companies that carry the coal from the pit to the surface of the mine giving them enormous scope to tamper with quantity and quality of coal.

So keen was Aryan to retain their hold over the operations, that they decided to instigate a PIL. An angry Supreme Court in their 40-page order in April 2006 reprimanded the applicant and placed a Rs 1 lakh fine for ‘‘abusing the process of law’’ and ‘‘wasting enormous judicial time’’

One Deepak Agarwal had filed a PIL in 2003 saying that the land leased to Maruti (a company wanting to set up a washery) was actually forest land. He claimed to be a “public spirited person’’ and a ‘‘journalist’’ by profession.

The Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was asked to look into the matter. Apart from proving that it was not on forest land, the three reports of CEC proved that the application of Deepak Agarwal is “not in public interest and that he has been set up to serve the business interest of Aryan Coal Private limited’’.

Based on the reports, the judgment was scathing: “On perusal of record, we have no doubt that the application filed by Deepak Agarwal is far from bonafide, he has been set up by the others. We strongly deprecate the filing of an entirely misconceived and malafide application in the garb of PIL by Deepak Agarwal. He is nothing but a name-lender.’’

The empowered committee was able to establish these links between Aryan and the PIL applicant:

• During the hearings of CEC, Deepak Agarwal was represented by K K Srivastava who had represented Aryan before, and was a witness in land deeds executed by shareholders of Aryan.

• Lakhs of rupees have been spent by the applicant and/or on his behalf whereas the applicant’s income tax returns which shows that he has no means to incur huge amounts which have been spent to pursue litigation.

• In his affidavit Agarwal claimed that he is fighting the case with “like minded people well-wishers and friends. Alleged donors turned out to be employees of SEC and contractors working for Aryan.

• The Bilaspur Environment Society that provided satellite maps to Agarwal to prove that it was not forest land did not have a bank account and all receipts and expenditure was in cash.

Owners of Aryan feels that the Court did not indict them. “The SC fined the applicant and not us,’’ said Rudra Sen Sindhu, chairman of Aryan.

The scene has now shifted to Bilaspur High Court where both the companies are using the PILs to assert/defend their stance. A nearly dozen PILs are being heard with a battery of lawyers on both sides — Arun Jaitley, Nalini Chidambaram for Maruti and Vivek Tankha, Jagmohan Sabharwal and K L Verma for Aryan.

Though the forest PIL was dismissed by the Supreme Court, it is not the end of the story. The real issue at hand is the question whether a national resource is being pilfered to further the gains of one particular company.

In the forest case, the amicus curiae Harish Salve submitted a letter to the court which has been considered as an application. It talks of the “unholy nexus’’ between South Eastern Coalfields (SECL) and Aryan which results in loss of hundreds of crores to the Nation.

The letter went on to say that the bulk of the loss is on account of under-weighment of coal, unrecorded transportation, undergrading of coal seams, fake washery charges and fake transportation charges.

Concerned by the above allegations, the Court has agreed to hear the matter. The CEC reports have also hinted that powerful and influential persons have some shares in these washeries.

More light will be shed on the matter once the court begins hearing the case.