EGoM cleared diversion of coal for UMPP at Sasan: CBI to SC

CBI today informed the Supreme Court that permission was granted by the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) which enabled the diversion of coal meant for Ultra Mega Power project (UMPP) at Sasan in Madhya Pradesh undertaken by Reliance Power.
"The diversion in Sasan was done after obtaining permission from EGoM," senior advocate Amarender Sharan, appearing for the CBI, told a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri.
The CBI said the EGoM had cleared the diversion of the coal meant for the UMPP at the request of the Madhya Pradesh Government which was challenged by Tata Power in Delhi High Court on the ground that had it been known to it, the company would also have made a bidding for the coal block.

The agency said the plea was dismissed as there was allegedly suppression of facts and now Tata Power's Special Leave Petititon is pending in the apex court.
The CBI was responding to the apex court's question on March 9 whether it has probed the firms which have allegedly diverted coal for commercial exploitation instead of using them for electricity generation in UMPPs.
It had also asked CBI to inform the bench about the probe, if any, conducted into alleged sub-leasing of coal blocks by public sector undertakings (PSUs) to private firms by entering into joint ventures (JVs).

The court's directions had come came after lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO 'Common Cause', had raised the issue of alleged diversion of coal by Reliance Power for commercial exploitation.

The coal block, meant for company's Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, was used for other purposes and even CAG has said that this diversion has caused Rs 29,000 crore loss to the state exchequer, he had said.
Even the bidding process of coal blocks for such projects is different as it is linked to lowest power price offered by the firms, he said.
CBI had told the court that it has registered two-three cases on diversion of coal blocks and sought time for giving complete information as the officer concerned was not available.