CBI books RJD MP, son in Coal scam case

August 02, 2014 05:53 pm | Updated 05:53 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A file picture of Prem Chand Gupta, Rajya Sabha MP with RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav at Parliament House in New Delhi. Photo: Shanker Chakravarty.

A file picture of Prem Chand Gupta, Rajya Sabha MP with RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav at Parliament House in New Delhi. Photo: Shanker Chakravarty.

Prem Chand Gupta, Rajya Sabha MP from Rashtriya Janata Dal and former Corporate Affairs Minister in UPA-I, has been booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation along with his son in connection with the coal block scam. The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the allocation of a Maharashtra block to IST Steel & Power Limited.

“The prime allegation is that while applying for the coal block, the company had deliberately inflated its net-worth to Rs.100 crore. The misrepresentation was for meeting the criteria. Mr. Gupta and his son Gaurav have also been named as accused,” said a senior CBI official.

Considered to be a close aide of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mr. Gupta was earlier in 2012 accused by the BJP of having links with IST Steel and Power that had been allocated the Dahegaon Makarad coal block in June 2009. The coal block was de-allocated by the Coal Ministry in September 2012.

Back then, BJP leader Kirit Somaiya had also submitted documents to the CBI purportedly showing that Mr. Gupta was one of the directors in Hong Kong-based Gupta International Investment Company that held 49.95 per cent stake in IST Steel and Power.

However, Mr. Gupta had then denied that he had any role in the allocation stating that he was a Minister only till May 2009, a month before the accused company was allocated the coal block.

The CBI has so far registered 24 cases in connection with the alleged irregularities in the coal block allocations between 1993-2004 and 2006-09. On the recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission, the agency would register nine more cases in which there was earlier a difference of opinion on sufficiency of prosecutable evidence between the investigating officers and their supervisors.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.