<div>The Centre on 10 July faced the ire of the Supreme Court for not aiding the CBI with documents in its probe in Coalgate and was directed to file a comprehensive affidavit "justifying" allocation of 164 coal blocks.<br /><br />The apex court, which perused the latest status report filed by the CBI in a sealed cover, said that the agency was "struggling" in its probe in the absence of documents not being supplied to it relating to the allocation of 204 coal blocks out of which 40 have been de-allocated.<br /><br />A bench headed by Justice R.M. Lodha said there was "lack of transparency" in the coal blocks allocation and "there was no system in place to verify the application of the companies and working of the screening committee appears to be sketchy".<br /><br />"Regarding everything there is nothing on record. CBI is struggling as there are no documents in its possession," Justice Lodha said, adding, "I am sorry to say that the Union of India does not have basic documents." <br /><br />"Had it been with you (Centre), it would have helped the CBI in its investigation," the judge said. The probe report indicated "a lot of deficiencies and infirmities" in the coal blocks allocation," he added.<br /><br />The bench asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati to respond to its two queries "why sanction of government is necessary in respect of court-monitored or court-directed investigation." <br /><br />"This query is put to Attorney General in view of a categorical stand taken by the CBI before the Delhi High Court in a matter in which CBI counsel submitted that as the investigation was directed by the court, grant of sanction for prosecution is not necessary under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act," the bench said.<br /><br />The bench also wanted to know from the Attorney General "why clarification should not be made that sanction for investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary from the government when the government's stand is that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from government to CVC pursuant to direction issued by this court in Vineet Narain case." <br /><br />The hearing in the matter was not free from controversy as Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, who replaced senior advocate U U Lalit, withdrew from appearing for CBI after the Attorney General opined that no law officer should be involved with the agency in this case.<br /><br />Vahanvati said he was not in the favour of law officers being engaged by the CBI in view of the controversy of sharing of probe report which forced the then ASG Haren Raval to resign. He said CBI should independently choose its lawyer to represent it in the matter.<br /><br />(PTI) <br /> </div>
