Coal scam: CVC Director seeks time to respond on reference

Central Vigilance Commission Director Keshav Rao today sought time from a special court to peruse records of the reference which was sent to the CBI and on the basis of which an FIR was lodged in a coal scam case allegedly involving Prakash Industries Ltd (PIL) and others.
Rao, who had signed the reference which was earlier sent by the CVC to CBI, did not appear in person in the court but his advocate informed Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar that the officer would appear on September 22, the next date of hearing.
The court had on July 30 issued notice to Rao in the case seeking his response on the issue before proceeding in the matter in which CBI has filed a closure report.

"One R V Sinha, counsel for Keshav Rao, Director, CVC has appeared. However, Keshav Rao is not present. Counsel Sinha seeks some time for perusal of record and submits that on the next date of hearing Keshav Rao will also appear in person," the court noted in its order.
"Accordingly, matter be now put up on September 22 for consideration (of closure report)," it said.
The court had earlier said the case was registered on the basis of CVC's reference but after completion of probe CBI has filed a closure report saying no incriminating evidence had come on record which may warrant prosecution of any accused.

In the case, an FIR was lodged against PIL and others in connection with the alleged irregularities in allocation of Chhattisgarh's Fatehpur coal block.

According to CBI, the Fatehpur coal block was allocated jointly to PIL and another firm by 35th Screening Committee.
The FIR was lodged against PIL, its three officials, some officials of the Ministry of Coal and others alleging that the firm had misrepresented its net worth while applying for the coal block.
The FIR was registered under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating) of the IPC and under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

CBI had alleged in its FIR that while the company had misrepresented facts relating to its net worth, the screening committee had deliberately not followed the guidelines and showed undue favour to it.