New Delhi: Allocation of the Fatehpur East coal block in Chhattisgarh was done in public interest and without any quid pro quo, a Delhi court noted as it discharged two former government officials in a coal scam case.
Special CBI judge Dheeraj Mor said in the 31 October order there wasn’t an “iota of material” available to suggest that actions of the two “public servants” – former coal secretary H.C. Gupta and joint secretary K.S. Kropha – was “without public interest”.
The order also exonerated RKM Powergen, the company allotted the coal block, its managing director Andal Arumugam and director T.M. Singaravel.
The judge found that the recommendation to allot the coal block to Powergen was justified as it was done for optimum utilisation of coal reserves. The decision, the court noted, was taken on instructions of the seventh Energy Coordinate Committee and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
Powergen was the “most meritorious and deserving company” for the Fatehpur East Coal block among all applicants, and the company ranked at the top after fulfilling nine out of the total 10 eligibility criteria, the judge said.
“In these circumstances, the recommendation of 35th Screening Committee for allocation of Fatehpur East Coal Block to the most meritorious and deserving company i.e. accused no.1 company is an act in public interest,” the court held.
Fourth consecutive relief
This is the fourth case linked to the alleged coal scam in which Gupta and Kropha have secured relief.
In April 2025, the two former officials were discharged on similar grounds in another case. Both faced trial in two other cases before they were acquitted – the first in December 2024, and the second in June this year.
Their lawyer Rahul Tyagi on Monday told ThePrint that the latest discharge proved how criminal motive was attributed to his clients when none existed.
“This is the fourth consecutive case in which the public servants have been absolved of any wrongdoing by courts. All 19 cases lodged against them are identical. CBI must introspect as great injustice has been done to the officers who were and still continue to be considered as one of the most upright officers in the country. In any event, we are grateful to the court for restoring their honour,” Tyagi said.
The allegations
The case arose from applications invited by the Union Coal Ministry in November 2006 for the allocation of 38 blocks. Following this advertisement, Powergen applied for the Fatehpur East coal block for a proposed 1,200 MW thermal power plant.
In its FIR registered in August 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the firm misrepresented its net worth to secure the allocation and that government officials had violated guidelines to grant undue favour to it.
According to CBI, the minimum net worth required to fit the eligibility criteria was Rs 500 crore, whereas Powergen’s net worth was just Rs 21.51 crore.
CBI had first filed a closure report in this case, but it went ahead to file a charge-sheet later on the directions of a trial court.
CBI had also accused Gupta and Kropha of processing the firm’s incomplete application, which was in violation of guidelines for allocation of captive coal blocks (mines owned by companies). This decision enabled an ineligible company to participate in the coal block allocation proceedings, resulting in the recommendation of Fatehpur East Coal Block to the company, CBI had alleged.
Additionally, CBI accused Powergen of providing forged letters to show it had consent of villagers to sell their land for the power project for which the company wanted the coal mining lease. It also claimed the company had misrepresented as far as its net worth was concerned and the capacity of the power plant it intended to install.
‘No mens rea established’
Because the CBI could not establish the mens rea or dishonest intention against the two former officers, the court said the irregularities alleged against them could not be given the tone of criminality.
“Thus, even if it is assumed that there is evidence against either of the accused public servants in processing incomplete application of accused no.1 company, no criminality can be attributed to them due to admitted absence of mens rea,” the court said.
On analysis of documents and statements of witnesses, the court concluded the CBI had not made any allegations of “meeting of minds between accused public servants and the private accused persons for commission of the alleged offence”.
This was why corruption charges were not made out, the court said, adding that there were no allegations of quid pro quo or acquiring any undue advantage by the former officials for recommending allotment of the coal block to Powergen.
Moreover, no evidence was presented to the court to show that Gupta and Kropha were aware of any alleged misrepresentation by the company or use of a forged document, if any, the judge said.
Inconsistent witness statements
According to judge Mor, the procedure required the applications to be dealt with by the officials of a particular section of the coal ministry for which the under-secretary of that department was the immediate supervisory officer.
In statements recorded by CBI two times, the court found, the under-secretary and section-officer initially said that Powergen’s application was complete, but the subsequently changed their stand to say that the applications were not checked before they were dispatched to other ministries and state governments for inputs.
Though the two witnesses claimed they had updated their seniors about Powergen’s incomplete application, they could not specify their names, the court observed.
“Their statements are not sufficient to indict the accused public servants for the present alleged discrepancy,” it said.
Collective decision
The screening committee, the court said, was a collective group of all the concerned departments and ministries in which decisions were taken either by consensus or unanimously.
The coal secretary, who chaired the committee, did not have any veto power to change its collective decision. “Therefore, only two of them cannot be arbitrarily made scapegoat for the informed and conscious decision taken by the committee collectively,” the court said, as it absolved the former government officials.
Besides, documents presented showed that the committee had once deferred its decision on Powergen’s application when it was brought to Gupta’s notice that the data provided by it had not been verified.
This action showed that “accused public servants were not inclined to take any decision in haste without getting them properly verified from the concerned quarters”.
‘Unproven cheating charges’
The court did not find sufficient evidence to back CBI’s claim that the company had used forged letters regarding its proposal to buy land for setting up the power plant.
On the company’s net worth, which CBI had said was misrepresented, judge Mor quoted the agency’s previous statement that said the company was within its right to include the net worth of its sister firms as its own in the application.
The judge concluded there was no “material available on record to presume that either of the accused persons committed the offence of cheating”.