Question : Retention of Coal Blocks

(a) whether the Government had field an affidavit before the Supreme Court requesting it to consider retention of 40 producing and 6 ready to produce coal blocks and proposed imposition of an additional levy of Rs. 295/- tonne of coal extracted for their retention;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor;

(c) whether the Supreme Court cancelled these 46 coal blocks and also imposed an additional levy since start of production contrary to the Government’s plea;

(d) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto;

(e) whether the Government had appealed against this order/filed for a review of this imposition of additional levy since the start of production; and

(f) if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR POWER, COAL AND NEW & RENEWABLE ENERGY

(SHRI PIYUSH GOYAL)

(a) & (b): The affidavit filed by the Government on 08.09.2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012 had mentioned that there were 40 coal producing blocks along with their linked end use plants and 6 coal blocks which were ready to produce coal.
In its submission in the said affidavit, Government had stated that retention of the aforesaid 40 blocks and 6 blocks, if the Court thought appropriate, could be considered, provided additional levy @ Rs.295/- per tonne as suggested by CAG was imposed. Furthermore, in case of allocatees of power sector, it should be mandated that they would enter into Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with State utilities/ DISCOMS, so that benefit is passed on to the consumers.

(c) & (d): The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.09.2015 cancelled allocation of 204 coal blocks including these 40 producing and 6 ready to produce coal blocks and imposed an additional levy of Rs. 295/- per tonne of coal extracted since start of production. In pursuance of the said order, necessary action was taken by the Government to implement the Hon’ble Court’s order.

(e): No, Sir.

(f): Does not arise in view of reply given at (e) above.

*****