Allotments were made in good faith but could have been done in a better manner, Attorney-General tells Supreme Court
A day after the Supreme Court’s observation that large investments made by companies could not be a defence against cancellation of coal block allocations, the government appeared to be accepting, albeit partially, that there could have been irregularities in the allotment process.
Attorney-General G E Vahanvati on Thursday said the allocations had been done in good faith due to the acute need for power after economic liberalisation. But, in hindsight, something went wrong and the processes could have been followed in a better manner.
He was fielding a barrage of questions from a three-judge Bench headed by R M Lodha over the alleged arbitrariness in coal block allocations over a decade. He told the Bench he would get instructions from the government by next week about cancellation of 42 blocks allocated after 2005; he would on Wednesday inform the court about the decision.
On the court’s remark that the allocations could have been done in a better manner, Vahanvati agreed those “could have been done in a more refined and better way. I accept my lordships’ view”.
The government had taken the stand that the letters of intent (LoIs) issued over the years did not confer any right to the companies over the coal beneath the ground. Vahanvati said the LoIs did not confer any right to the companies, and there was no “largesse” as alleged in the petition moved by Common Cause, a non-profit organisation. The companies had not obtained legal rights and they could not assert those through a court of law.
A day after the Supreme Court’s observation that large investments made by companies could not be a defence against cancellation of coal block allocations, the government appeared to be accepting, albeit partially, that there could have been irregularities in the allotment process.
Attorney-General G E Vahanvati on Thursday said the allocations had been done in good faith due to the acute need for power after economic liberalisation. But, in hindsight, something went wrong and the processes could have been followed in a better manner.
He was fielding a barrage of questions from a three-judge Bench headed by R M Lodha over the alleged arbitrariness in coal block allocations over a decade. He told the Bench he would get instructions from the government by next week about cancellation of 42 blocks allocated after 2005; he would on Wednesday inform the court about the decision.
On the court’s remark that the allocations could have been done in a better manner, Vahanvati agreed those “could have been done in a more refined and better way. I accept my lordships’ view”.
The government had taken the stand that the letters of intent (LoIs) issued over the years did not confer any right to the companies over the coal beneath the ground. Vahanvati said the LoIs did not confer any right to the companies, and there was no “largesse” as alleged in the petition moved by Common Cause, a non-profit organisation. The companies had not obtained legal rights and they could not assert those through a court of law.
Next Story
