'States must act against officials who falsified verifications'

Q&A: Sriprakash Jaiswal, Union minister of coal

‘We want the truth to be revealed...states must take action against officials who falsified verifications’

When the coal scam started making headlines, SRIPRAKASH JAISWAL, the Union minister, did not come under direct attack since it was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who had twice officiated as the minister during the period blocks were allotted controversially. A day after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was asked to extend its probe to blocks allotted before 1993, he tells Sudheer Pal Singh & Jyoti Mukul that an investigation is needed to settle apprehensions. Edited excerpts:

Is it a political move to widen the CBI probe’s scope, to include blocks allotted since 1993?
The aim is to have more clarity and expose more such companies, irrespective of whether it covers the Opposition regime or (our) UPA regime. Blocks were allotted between 2004 and 2006, when the UPA was in power. Between 1993 and 1998, we had governments headed by Narasimha Rao (Congress) and by I K Gujral and Deve Gowda (both Third Front), too. Blocks were allotted in all these regimes. After this, beginning 1998, the NDA was in power, when 32 blocks were allotted. Any impartial government would widen the scope of an inquiry which is exposing wrongdoing by companies. We want the truth to be revealed.
I had an apprehension from the beginning that many companies could have filed wrong returns or statements, and got these verified by state government officials. The CBI is enquiring into this and as a result, many such cases (of wrongdoing) have now come to light. So, if such cases are appearing for allocations done between 2006 and 2009, then why not have an enquiry into all the allocations since 1993? This will bring more clarity.

Then, why do you think the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General, whose probe report began the controversy) did not cover blocks allotted before 2004?
We are not concerned with what CAG has done. They have done a separate inquiry. All we are asking is, why can we not have an inquiry into allotments done between 1993 and 2004? Allotments done to fraud companies who would have got blockspre-2004 also have to be exposed.

If you had the apprehension why did you not initiate an enquiry at your level?
I developed the apprehension after such cases were unearthed by CBI. I have been saying from the beginning that we cannot deny state-level officials might have done wrong verifications of the statements made by fraudster companies. We can also not deny that some companies might have given wrong information to mislead the government. If there are cases belonging to the pre-2004 time, of companies either sitting on blocks or trying to sell these, they should also be exposed.

Don’t you think the enquiry, with its freshly widened scope, will negatively impact the companies, especially those who have made investments in setting up end-use plants?
I am sure CBI would not find anything against those companies which have done nothing wrong and have set up the end-use project as they had enough capital to do so. The real issue is with those companies which have grabbed blocks based on false statements. Blocks allotted to such companies are lying idle and the end-use projects have not been set up, as they had no intention and wherewithal to set up the projects. Action is being taken against them. Companies which have done nothing wrong and have set up projects have nothing to fear.

So, you are saying there is no political strategy in widening the CBI probe?
Making baseless allegations, whether proved correct or not, is the Opposition’s hallmark. Anybody who can doubt the integrity of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh can go to any extent of the blame game. Nobody can question his integrity and honesty. And, if this is happening, such people are only playing political games.

Even if we do not doubt Singh’s integrity, is it not justified to hold him accountable for anything wrong that happened during the time he headed the coal ministry?
No, of course, this is not justified. Do you expect the PM to have gone and verified all the papers submitted by comoanies? If a system has been made and that system is not being followed properly and the CBI exposes such cases of wrongdoing, why should the minister heading the department be blamed or held accountable? Is it the minister’s job to see whether a company has enough capital to apply? This is not even the job of a cabinet minister, let alone the PM. I have been fighting with this point from day one.

So, are you saying the system might have had something wrong but there was no problem in the policy to allocate blocks?
There was nothing wrong either in the policy or the system to implement the policy. This is a problem with our country’s internal functioning and especially the state governments’ systems. Nobody should deny this reality. The states have a responsibility to support corrective measures. They should take strong action against the officials who have done wrong verifications. It is in their own interest, as these officials must be taking decisions across many areas and not just coal blocks. If such officials are sacked or penalised, the state governments’ ability to perform would improve and will clean up the system.

There have been allegations that the Abhijit group promoters were close to you and you had done reconciliation among the brothers?
I have done a number of conciliations in Kanpur (his constituency). If someone decides that someone is the head of a community and he should arbitrate, then why should I stop? In 2008, they were not suspects and I was not a minister. My name will come only if I signed on the conciliation agreement. I never gave consent and never signed and told them it is not within my capability.

Isn't it a fact that the government continued to allocate blocks through the screening committee route even as discussions on introducing bidding were on?
The idea of bidding has been there since 1993. Under the UPA, the law ministry was thrice sent the proposal for vetting. Twice they recommended that the current process go on until the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act was amended. The third time, they recommended that the government could resort to bidding through administrative instruction. We went by the recommendation given to us two times out of three. Besides, with the country’s growth being a paramount concern, the government decided not to wait. Simultaneously, we were trying to take all political parties on board. The effort bore fruit when it was decided in the meeting of mines ministers that revenue will be given to you (states).

How do you think the current crisis in the coal sector would impact production in the long term?
There would be no negative impact in the long term. The ongoing clean-up of the system would help realise the basic intention of giving coal blocks to private parties. This is because action is being taken only against those companies sitting on blocks. Companies which have started production have not been touched by the IMG (the panel reviewing allocations). Also, bank guarantees are being deducted only of those companies which had lagged in development.

The companies argue lack of environment clearance made them sit on blocks. The companies whose blocks have been cancelled have started moving courts. Is this not a concern?
We cannot stop someone from moving to the courts in our democratic system. Environment clearance could only be a minor reason for delay. If it was a major reason and they had got blocks in a completely forested area, they would never have got clearance. Such blocks were destined to be de-allocated. It will have a positive impact.