New Delhi: Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla and former coal secretary P.C. Parakh moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the summons issued by the trial court in the coal scam case for their appearance on April 8. The petitions are likely to be mentioned on Thurs-day for an urgent hearing.
Assailing the order, Dr Singh and the others said the trial court had criticised the functioning of the PMO “when it finds that no express noting is made by a functionary reviewing a file, as is the case on some occasions by the adviser to the PM and the PM himself”.
Order didn’t prove any violation, says ex-PM Dr Manmohan Singh
Manmohan Singh, industrialist Kumar Magalam Birla and former coal secretary P.C. Parakh argued that the order of the trial court, taking cognisance of the recommendations for coal block allocations to Hindalco, failed to identify any statute, rule or even regulation that was violated; Failed to identify any ‘criminal intent’ or ‘abuse of power’ by way of an action contrary to law.
They sought quashing of the summons and an interim stay against their appearance in court on April 8.
They pointed out that a decision might be well motivated and bona fide, “but if it failed to take into account relevant considerations, or takes into account irrelevant considerations, or was based on a misdirection of law, or was discriminatory, it might be considered to be arbitrary.”
They sought quashing of the summons and an interim stay from appearance in court.
But they said, “Such a decision cannot be considered an act of corruption. In the present case, the impugned order does not even establish how the decision of the (former) prime minister would be arbitrary in the administrative law sense. To call such a decision an act of corruption is untenable in law.”
By an order dated December 16, 2014, the trial court rejected the closure report filed by the CBI and it filed another report in January, 2015 after carrying out further investigation. “There has been no change in CBI’s position on the closure report.”
However, in its order dated March 11, the trial court took cognizance of the alleged offences under Section 120B read with Section 409 Indian Penal Code; Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of the PC Act against six accused including Mr Singh, Mr Birla and Mr Parakh.
Praying for a direction to reject the order, they said the trial court had virtually sat in appeal, as it were, over each recommendation and point of view expressed at different levels by the petitioners and substituted his own view to come to the conclusion that the decision to allot a part of the coal reserves T-II and T-III mines to Hindalco was flawed.
