<p>In the first-ever coal block auction in the history of India, the central government had denied West Bengal the right to bid for an 83-million-tonne coal block, <em>The Reporters' Collective</em> has <a href="https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/west-bengal-auction-rigged" rel="nofollow">revealed</a>.</p><p>The publication further stated that when the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the country's top auditor, flagged the issue to the central government, the latter acknowledged that the Bengal government was eligible to bid for the coal block in question, but continued to defend the auction process. <em>The Reporters' Collective</em> claims that this has been proven by the official documents that it has come across.</p>.From labourer to ‘Lottery King’: The rise of Santiago Martin, leading purchaser of electoral bonds.<p>Together, the two companies in question donated electoral bonds worth a total of Rs 485 crore to political parties whose identities are still unknown. The electoral bonds scheme, which permitted unlimited contributions to political parties through such bonds, was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court last month.</p><p>A couple of days before the auction of the 83-million-tonne Sarisatolli coal block, a shell firm was <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/27/how-india-allowed-rp-sanjiv-goenka-firms-to-beat-coal-auctions" rel="nofollow">acquired by two companies</a> belonging to the RP Sanjiv Goenka Group, which was made to face off against Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) and Haldia Energy—both belonging to the RPSG group. This meant that three among the five bidders for the mine belonged to the RPSG Group.</p><p>Haldia Energy bought electoral bonds worth over Rs 370 crore, which made it the fourth-largest donor, the publication <a href="https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/among-top-20-electoral-bond-donors-two-rpsg-firms" rel="nofollow">noted</a>.</p><p>The CESC and another RPSG firm, Dhariwal Infrastructure, acquired the shell company that took part in the bidding.</p><p>The CAG had kept the names of these companies under the wraps in the report regarding rigged biddings it had sent to the Parliament in 2016. The publication claimed that it was only when it accessed the CAG's internal documents, that such details finally came to light.</p>.Electoral Bonds: Infra, power, pharma companies among top corporate donors.<p><em>TRC</em> quoted the government saying regarding the CAG report, “In case of Sarisatolli coal mine 5 bidders were technically qualified and after opening of the IPO (Initial Price Offer), these 5 bidders qualified for participation in e-auction. The total number of bids submitted in the e-auction of Sarisatolli coal mine was 167.”</p><p>"Thus, there was enough competition in the process, despite rejection of WBPDCL," the central government further added.</p><p>Unconvinced with the government's response, the CAG had said, “MoC (Ministry of Coal) has reiterated their reply to the Audit observation made in the Audit Report and has not given any clarification to the Audit rebuttal to the reply of MoC, as given in the Audit Report.”</p>
<p>In the first-ever coal block auction in the history of India, the central government had denied West Bengal the right to bid for an 83-million-tonne coal block, <em>The Reporters' Collective</em> has <a href="https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/west-bengal-auction-rigged" rel="nofollow">revealed</a>.</p><p>The publication further stated that when the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the country's top auditor, flagged the issue to the central government, the latter acknowledged that the Bengal government was eligible to bid for the coal block in question, but continued to defend the auction process. <em>The Reporters' Collective</em> claims that this has been proven by the official documents that it has come across.</p>.From labourer to ‘Lottery King’: The rise of Santiago Martin, leading purchaser of electoral bonds.<p>Together, the two companies in question donated electoral bonds worth a total of Rs 485 crore to political parties whose identities are still unknown. The electoral bonds scheme, which permitted unlimited contributions to political parties through such bonds, was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court last month.</p><p>A couple of days before the auction of the 83-million-tonne Sarisatolli coal block, a shell firm was <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/27/how-india-allowed-rp-sanjiv-goenka-firms-to-beat-coal-auctions" rel="nofollow">acquired by two companies</a> belonging to the RP Sanjiv Goenka Group, which was made to face off against Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) and Haldia Energy—both belonging to the RPSG group. This meant that three among the five bidders for the mine belonged to the RPSG Group.</p><p>Haldia Energy bought electoral bonds worth over Rs 370 crore, which made it the fourth-largest donor, the publication <a href="https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/among-top-20-electoral-bond-donors-two-rpsg-firms" rel="nofollow">noted</a>.</p><p>The CESC and another RPSG firm, Dhariwal Infrastructure, acquired the shell company that took part in the bidding.</p><p>The CAG had kept the names of these companies under the wraps in the report regarding rigged biddings it had sent to the Parliament in 2016. The publication claimed that it was only when it accessed the CAG's internal documents, that such details finally came to light.</p>.Electoral Bonds: Infra, power, pharma companies among top corporate donors.<p><em>TRC</em> quoted the government saying regarding the CAG report, “In case of Sarisatolli coal mine 5 bidders were technically qualified and after opening of the IPO (Initial Price Offer), these 5 bidders qualified for participation in e-auction. The total number of bids submitted in the e-auction of Sarisatolli coal mine was 167.”</p><p>"Thus, there was enough competition in the process, despite rejection of WBPDCL," the central government further added.</p><p>Unconvinced with the government's response, the CAG had said, “MoC (Ministry of Coal) has reiterated their reply to the Audit observation made in the Audit Report and has not given any clarification to the Audit rebuttal to the reply of MoC, as given in the Audit Report.”</p>