THE leasing of the Oil and Natural Gas Commissions (ONGC) Panna-Mukta oilfields in Bombay High to the Reliance-Enron consortium threatens to snowball into a major controversy, and yet the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seems reluctant to investigate the scam. According to a rough estimate, the government stands to lose a whopping Rs 5,000-7,000 crore on the contract, which was finalised during former petroleum minister Satish Sharmas tenure.
Despite indications of a quid pro quo between the private companies interested in bagging the contract and several decision-makers in the government, the federal investigating agency has not followed the leads. It has been sitting over the probe for more than one-and-a-half years. In a scathing report, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) criticised the arbitrary manner in which the contracts were awarded. He said that the government had flouted rules at will and favoured private companies.
The CAG report notes that the cost incurred by ONGC in developing the Panna-Mukta oilfieldRs 549.39 crorewas not recovered from the bidders. As for the Ravva oilfield, also in the Bombay offshore, ONGC could recover only Rs 173.25 crore as past costs although the company had spent Rs 351.05 crore on survey and drilling.
The CAG report also highlights the fact that the Planning Commission had cautioned the Petroleum Ministry in March 1994 itself that it should take note of the substantial cost incurred by ONGC on the fields. But the ministry sought to project Panna-Mukta as a loss-making unit, which according to the CAG report, is incorrect.
Interestingly, a preliminary inquiry was registered by the CBI in June 1996, six months after Superintendent of Police Y.P. Singh conducted probes into allegations of nepotism and sent a detailed report (file no. 1/636/95-Bom Part-II) to the agency. What is surprising is that the then CBI director, K. Vijaya Rama Rao, refused to put the file on record, and subsequently, all information pertaining to Panna-Mukta was blacked out. When contacted, the CBI spokesman expressed his inability to furnish even the date of registration of the preliminary inquiry.
The government opened its oilfields to the private sector following an assurance to the World Bank in July 1991. Tenders were invited by the Petroleum Ministry in August 1992 to develop 43 medium and small-sized oil and gas fields controlled by ONGC and Oil India Limited (OIL).
A negotiating committee comprising the secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas, the finance secretary and other officials evaluated the tenders in April/May 1993. Further negotiations were held between June and September 1993. The CAG report says the contracts were awarded between October and December 1994 for five medium-sized fields and 13 small fields. The Panna-Mukta oilfields and Mid and South Tapti gas fields went to a consortium of Reliance Industries and Enron. The Ravva oilfields in the Krishna-Godavari basin was awarded to Videocon Petroleum and Australian Command Petroleum. The contract for Ratna and R-series oilfields, in the Bombay offshore, was awarded to Essar Oil and Premier Oil Pacific of UK, but the deal was not signed.
INTERESTINGLY, according to CBI documents, during the crucial period between April 1993 to May 1994, when the biddings were being processed, many industrial houses had approached the then petroleum minister Satish Sharma. Particularly incriminating is a statement given by Capt. Sharmas additional private secretary Brijnath Safaya to the CBI in the infamous JMM bribery caseit alleges that several industrial groups sent cash-stuffed suitcases to the petroleum minister.
Safayas statement, recorded by inspector Harish Sharma of CBIs special investigating unit (VIII), reveals that five industrial groups routed around Rs 13 crore to Capt. Sharma through Safaya from April 93 to May 94. Safaya claimed that among frequent visitors to the Sharma household were Prithviraj Jindal, owner of Jindal Saw Pipes; Dhoot of Videocon group of industries; Shashi Ruia Essar of the Essar group of companies; Mukesh Ambani of Reliance; and Oswal from Bindal Agro. "From time to time after (Sharma) became petroleum minister in January 1993, the above industrial houses used to send money to Capt. Satish Sharma at his official residence." What could be an important lead for the CBI in the Panna-Mukta case is that of the five industrial houses, three groupsReliance, Videocon and Essarbagged the contract to extract crude oil.
According to Safaya, the Aurangabad-based Videocon company sent Rs 1 crore to Capt. Sharma through one Wadhwa in July 93 and again despatched Rs 1 crore in October the same year. The Essar group dished out Rs 3 crore in November 93 using one Aggarwal as a conduit and then sent another Rs 2 crore in February through Sandeep Bhargava. Similarly, Dhirubhai Ambani and Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries gifted Rs 1 crore through one S. Raman in June 93, then sent Rs 1 crore in October 93 and Rs 2 crore in December 93. "After receiving the suitcases I used to ensure that it contained currency notes only.... Some suitcases used to be carried by me in the official Ambassador car of Satish Sharma and delivered to him at his residence."
Even though Safaya later retracted his statement to Income Tax authorities, legal experts believe that it does not prevent the CBI from following up the case and dig for corroborative evidence. They cite the example of the Jain hawala case, where the the Supreme Court prevented the CBI from dropping investigations against the then prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao who was named by the prime accused S.K. Jain in a statement given to the CBI under Section 161(3) of the CrPC.
CBI officials are desperate to project an "all is well" picture. Said a senior official: "The procedure for giving the contract was carefully followed. Even the prime minister and cabinet secretary were involved when the contracts were given. Each and every point raised in the (Y.P. Singh) report is being looked into but we cant fix responsibility on one or two persons." The CBI is hedging the issue and with parliamentarians showing indifference even to the CAG report, the cover-up appears to be complete.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT