The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Centre's power to allocate coal blocks to firms, saying it has a lot of "legal explanation" to do as the relevant Act in fact empowers only states to undertake this task.
The top court said despite the fact that the Centre had already allocated more than 200 captive coal blocks to public and private sector companies, it is planning to allocate more. While the Centre allocates the blocks, mining leases are being granted by the concerned states, subject to the condition that Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act and and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR)1957 must be complied with.
Comprehensive amendments to the MMDR Act is under Parliament's consideration which, among other things, will do away with the need to obtain prior approval of the Centre, except in the case of coal and atomic minerals for mining rights, even as the licensing and leasing powers are vested with the states.
The apex court said that the Centre cannot undermine the MMDR Act, which has given no power to it to allocate coal block to companies.
A bench of Justices RM Lodha and J Chelameswar asked the government to go through other legislations, particularly the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, to find out whether it is empowered to allocate the resources.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma and various members of civil society including former CEC N Gopalaswami, ex-Navy chief L Ramdas and former Cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, seeking a SIT probe into the coal block allocation scam.
Though what the the apex court has said is just an observation, it is still a big setback to the Centre, which is already rattled by the adverse remarks made by the Comptroller and Auditor (CAG) in a recent performance audit of coal blocks. The CAG observed that private companies got undue benefits of R1.85 lakh crore because of a delay in the auction of coal blocks.
“There is absolutely no power given to the Centre under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. There is no provision overriding