ED names 35 in Chhattisgarh coal levy case; IAS officers, MLAs accused

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate has built a money-laundering case around what it alleges was an illegal levy on coal transported through Chhattisgarh, naming serving bureaucrats and sitting legislators among the accused. The agency, which began investigating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in October 2022, says it has arrested 11 persons and filed five chargesheets naming about 35 individuals and entities, per its prosecution complaints filed before the special PMLA court at Raipur.

Those the ED has arrested or named include the IAS officer Ranu Sahu, arrested on 22 July 2023 while a serving officer and subsequently suspended; the IAS officer Sameer Vishnoi; Saumya Chaurasia, a former deputy secretary in the Chief Minister's Office; and the Congress MLAs Devendra Yadav (Bhilai Nagar) and Chandradev Rai (Bilaigarh). Each is an accused person. None has been convicted, and the presumption of innocence applies to all of them.

The ED estimates the proceeds of crime in the matter at about Rs 540 crore. That figure is the agency's own assessment set out in its filings, not a loss determined by any court. The Chhattisgarh Economic Offences Wing is running a parallel state prosecution on the same facts.

The Congress, which was in office in the state during the period under investigation, has framed the case as central-agency action against its former state government. That response is on the record, and several of the accused have contested the proceedings through the High Court and the Supreme Court.

How It Worked

The ED alleges that an organised cartel of senior bureaucrats, coal traders, politicians and middlemen extorted an illegal levy of Rs 25 for every tonne of coal transported in Chhattisgarh, and Rs 100 per tonne on iron pellets. That characterisation is the agency's allegation, set out in its chargesheets, and it has not been tested at trial.

According to the ED, the levy was enforceable only because the district administration controlled the transit permits that coal consignments required, so that a consignment could be delayed until the levy was paid. The agency alleges the mechanism turned on the cadre positions of serving officers: it says persons holding District Collector posts in the coal-rich districts and secretariat posts in the Chief Minister's Office were placed to control coal transit permissions. Court records note that Ms Sahu had worked as District Collector in the coal-rich districts of Korba and Raigarh. The ED alleges the collected sums were deployed in election expenses and payments to politicians.

The agency's filings have grown over time. The ED filed its first prosecution complaint in December 2022, a second in January 2023, and a supplementary chargesheet running to more than 280 pages with over 5,500 supporting documents in August 2023, among the five it has filed. Businessmen including Suryakant Tiwari, Sunil Agrawal and Laxmikant Tiwari were named and arrested at earlier stages, per the ED's complaints.

Every wrongdoing claim above is the allegation of the investigating agency. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Who Lost Money

On the ED's case, the immediate payers were coal transporters and traders required to pay the levy before their consignments could move. The agency alleges the cost did not stop there but was passed through the supply chain to industrial coal users, and that the Chhattisgarh exchequer was deprived of revenue that the parallel arrangement displaced.

The Rs 540 crore the ED cites is its estimate of proceeds of crime across the period, not a figure any court has adopted as a proven loss. There is no identified class of retail investors or depositors in this matter; the alleged harm ran to those in the coal trade and, through them, to the wider cost of coal in the state.

No court has quantified a loss or ordered restitution, because the trial has not been held. The headline figure should be read as the agency's allegation and nothing more at this stage.

Where It Stands Now

The case remains pre-trial, and its custody position has moved through the higher courts. The Chhattisgarh High Court refused bail to Ms Sahu on 8 February 2024, and her bail petition was heard in the Supreme Court through 2025. Several of the accused have spent extended periods in custody without any conviction being recorded.

In March 2025, days after the Supreme Court granted relief to key accused in the ED case, a special court remanded them to the custody of the state Economic Offences Wing in the parallel state prosecution. That immediate re-remand, so soon after apex-court relief, has itself drawn criticism as agency over-reach, and it illustrates how a single set of facts can be prosecuted on two tracks at once. The current position across the matter is that charges are yet to be tried on the merits.

Because the matter is pre-conviction, the presumption of innocence applies to every person named. A chargesheet and an arrest reflect allegations and an investigative view; they are not findings of guilt, and the trial will decide the issue.

What It Means

The case is a study in how a regulatory control point can, on an agency's allegation, be turned into a toll gate. The ED's theory is that permission to move coal, an ordinary administrative function, was the lever that made the alleged levy collectable. Whether that theory is proved is for the trial; the structure of the allegation is what makes the matter instructive.

For a reader following enforcement news, the discipline is to separate the agency's estimate from a court's finding. A Rs 540 crore proceeds-of-crime figure is an investigative assessment, not an adjudicated loss, and an arrest followed by months in custody is not a conviction. The parallel state and central proceedings, and the movement of the accused between them, are best read as procedure rather than as any verdict on guilt.

The enforcement archive, including related matters, is at /news?cat=enforcement. A separate Chhattisgarh matter is covered in our report on the ED chargesheet in the state liquor case, and a comparable politician-facing case in our piece on the Delhi court framing charges in the land-for-jobs case.

FAQ

Does a chargesheet mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The ED has named about 35 individuals and entities across five chargesheets, but no court has convicted anyone in this matter, and the charges remain to be tried.

What does the ED allege happened?

The ED alleges that a cartel extorted an illegal levy of Rs 25 per tonne on coal transported in Chhattisgarh, and Rs 100 per tonne on iron pellets, enforced through the district administration's control of transit permits, with the proceeds allegedly used for election expenses and payments to politicians. These are allegations that have not been tested at trial.

Where does the Rs 540 crore figure come from?

The Rs 540 crore is the ED's own estimate of the proceeds of crime in the case, set out in its filings. It is an investigative assessment, not a loss determined by any court, and no judicial finding has adopted it.

Is anyone still in custody?

Several accused, including the IAS officer Ranu Sahu, have spent extended periods in custody. The Chhattisgarh High Court refused her bail on 8 February 2024 and her plea was heard in the Supreme Court through 2025. In March 2025 a special court remanded some accused to state Economic Offences Wing custody in the parallel prosecution shortly after the Supreme Court granted them relief in the ED case.

Where can I read the official record?

The case is before the special PMLA court at Raipur, and related orders have been passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. One such High Court order is available on the public judgments database, linked below.

This report is based on a Chhattisgarh High Court order in the coal levy matter and the ED's prosecution complaints as reported, reviewed on 1 August 2026.