CMD
Cantel Medical Corporation
stock NYSE

**Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update.**
BCCL held its 55th AGM on **7 August 2026**. The attached AGM clipping attributes the line **“BCCL hai to Dhanbad hai”** to CMD Manoj Kumar Agarwal.
On the same day, a major land-subsidence event occurred at **Chhatabad in the Katras area of Dhanbad**.
The attached *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad-City, dated **8 August 2026**, make the shareholder issue more substantial than one isolated accident.
**This was not Chhatabad’s first subsidence this monsoon**
The clipping says almost exactly **one month earlier, on 7 July**, the ground had already subsided near the Chhatabad football-ground area.
That earlier incident is independently reported by **PTI/Hindustan**: homes developed major cracks, a pond reportedly emptied into the underground void and residents had to leave unsafe houses. The alleged role of illegal mining was reported at the time, but it was an attributed explanation rather than a final technical finding.
Then came the much larger **7 August** event at essentially the same locality.
The preliminary possibilities being examined include **empty voids in old underground workings, fire and/or illegal mining**.
But it also explicitly says that the **actual cause will be known only after rescue and technical investigation**.
So I do not think investors should jump from the photographs to a definitive statement that illegal mining, missing sand stowing or any particular BCCL failure caused this event.
What investors can reasonably ask is whether the mine plans, pillar-extraction history, stowing records and closure/stabilisation records for the ground below Chhatabad establish what actually happened.
**The recurrence is wider than Chhatabad**
The same *Prabhat Khabar* page lists **three other major subsidence events in roughly four months**:
**• 31 March — Sonardih/Tandabari:** three people died.
**• 24 April — Tandabari:** another major subsidence affected the settlement and forced families to move.
**• 4 August — Selected Govindpur:** the clipping reports more than half a dozen houses collapsing.
The 31 March deaths are independently corroborated by other reporting.
The 24 April repeat event is also independently reported by **PTI** and **Prabhat Khabar**.
And online reporting reveals still more incidents in the same broader coal belt: further **Tandabari** subsidence in June affecting buildings, another incident at **Angarpathra/Kantapahari** in June and a July collapse at **Keshalpur Munda Dhaura**.
This doesn’t prove one common cause.
It does establish that **recurring ground instability is not a hypothetical risk in BCCL’s operating geography.**
**BCCL itself told IPO investors that this risk can hit production and finances**
Risk Factor 46 of BCCL’s Prospectus says Jharia is susceptible to **coal fires and land subsidence**, describing these as serious environmental, health and safety risks.
It says serious subsidence can harm people/property and lead to site-restoration, disaster-recovery and rehabilitation costs.
Most importantly for shareholders, BCCL says failure to contain fires and relocate affected people can restrict access to reserves and **affect production**.
So this is not simply a local civic issue being attached to a stock ticker. It is a risk the company itself has identified as potentially relevant to operations, costs and cash flows.
**The rehabilitation numbers make the issue harder to dismiss**
BCCL’s FY26 Directors’ Report says the initial phase of the Revised Jharia Master Plan identified:
**• 81 high-risk sites**
**• 15,080 families requiring shifting**
**• 1,416 shifted**
**• 13,664 still to be shifted**
That means only about **9.4% had been shifted** at that reporting point.
Important qualification: BCCL says it had shifted all **649 identified BCCL families**. The large outstanding balance primarily relates to non-BCCL families under JRDA responsibility. So I am not saying the entire backlog is a BCCL failure.
But from an **investor perspective**, the operating environment still contains a very large population exposed to identified high-risk areas, while BCCL’s own prospectus warns that rehabilitation delays can create cost and production-access risks.
BCCL’s FY26 report also specifically says roughly **120 families from affected areas were relocated to Belgaria and about 110 to Sindwatand** following gas-emission/subsidence issues including Tandabari.
**The financial backdrop is much weaker now**
BCCL’s latest Q1 FY27 numbers were:
**• Revenue:** ₹3,587.27 crore, **-3.56% YoY**
**• EBITDA:** ₹71.50 crore, **-80.8%**
**• PBT:** **₹103.07 crore loss**
**• PAT:** **₹68.09 crore loss**, versus ₹176.87 crore profit last year
**• Production:** 6.56 MT, **-27.43%**
**• Offtake:** 7.72 MT, **-14.03%**
**• OB removal:** 32.30 MCuM, **-34.68%**
Reported company-level sales realisation was around **₹3,243/tonne**, against net cost of approximately **₹3,375/tonne**, producing a loss of around **₹131.91/tonne**.
None of these deteriorations has been shown to have been caused by land subsidence.
The point is narrower: when production is already down 27%, EBITDA has fallen about 81% and the company is loss-making, shareholders have less reason to treat potentially recurring rehabilitation, stabilisation, security or access risks as irrelevant.
**There is also a genuine illegal-mining/security question—but causation should not be invented**
Illegal coal mining in the Dhanbad belt is not merely a social-media allegation.
The Union Home Ministry recently described illegal mining/theft in Dhanbad and surrounding areas as a serious worsening problem and directed tougher coordinated action.
But that still does **not** tell us what caused the 7 August Chhatabad collapse.
For that, shareholders need the technical evidence: underground plans, old workings, pillar extraction, stowing, fire maps, illegal-mining evidence and geological/subsidence investigation.
**The questions I would want answered:**
**1) Which historic mine workings/seams lie below the 7 August Chhatabad subsidence?**
**2) Was coal depillared beneath the affected surface area? If yes, when?**
**3) Was sand stowing/backfilling required under the approved mining method? What do completion records show?**
**4) Were the historical workings sealed/stabilised under an applicable mine-closure plan?**
**5) What did BCCL/DGMS/CMPDI surveys show after the 7 July subsidence at almost the same location?**
**6) Was any scientific survey or preventive intervention carried out between 7 July and 7 August?**
**7) Is the affected settlement included among the Revised Jharia Master Plan high-risk sites?**
**8) Is there technically verified evidence of recent unauthorised mining below or near this site?**
**9) Has any BCCL mine access, production, OB removal, dispatch or offtake been affected?**
**10) What amount, if any, is expected to be borne by BCCL for stabilisation, relief, rehabilitation or restoration?**
**11) Has management carried out a Regulation 30 materiality assessment?**
I checked BCCL’s investor-relations/exchange-indexed sources and **no specific NSE/BSE disclosure relating to the 7 August Chhatabad subsidence was found in the checked sources as of 8 August 2026, 10:35 IST, subject to further verification.**
That is not by itself evidence of a disclosure failure.
BCCL’s IR page shows that the company does make Regulation 30 disclosures for operational stoppages, accidents and other material developments when appropriate.
For me, the investor question created by the AGM statement is therefore not whether coal has been central to Dhanbad’s economy—it obviously has.
It is whether management can demonstrate that, in a geography where **subsidence and coal-fire risk were explicitly disclosed to IPO investors**, repeated incidents are being met with effective site-specific mapping, stabilisation, rehabilitation and disclosure.
**Sources:** attached *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad-City, 8 August 2026 pages 9–10; attached AGM clipping; BCCL Prospectus; BCCL FY2025-26 Directors’ Report; BCCL Q1 FY27 results; PTI/Hindustan/Prabhat Khabar reporting cited above; BCCL Investor Relations disclosures.
**Not investment advice. This is a public-source update for discussion among shareholders and market participants. I am not recommending any buy, sell, hold, short, exit, average or entry decision. Where newspapers or local residents attribute a cause, I am treating that as a reported claim unless independently established by an official technical finding.**
**Corrections, the DGMS/CMPDI technical report, mine/stowing records for Chhatabad, or any subsequent BCCL/NSE/BSE clarification are welcome.**

**Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update**
Two numbers in today’s *Prabhat Khabar* report deserve shareholder attention: **₹165.97 crore+** and **59.60%**.
The newspaper reports that a CVC investigation into a **2022 outsourcing contract at BCCL’s Bhoura South Colliery, EJ Area, involving Devprabha Construction Pvt Ltd** found that deviation beyond the limit prescribed in the contract had been approved.
According to the report, a **CVC office memorandum dated 13 July 2026** records that BCCL’s Committee of Functional Directors approved **two amendments** to the contract, increasing its value by approximately **59.60%**.
The same report says the contract permitted deviation of only **10–15%**.
Put differently, the reported **59.60% increase was 44.60 percentage points above the 15% upper limit — almost 4x that upper limit**.
The matter also involves, according to the newspaper, **payments exceeding ₹165.97 crore** to Devprabha Construction in 2022.
**This has already moved beyond a bare allegation**
*Prabhat Khabar* says that after investigation the CVC recommended **first-stage vigilance action/advice** concerning former CMD Samiran Dutta, former Director (Finance) Rakesh Kumar Sahay and former Director (Technical) Shankar Nagachari.
Administrative action was reportedly advised against four other present/former directors. The Coal Ministry subsequently gave those four only a **warning to remain more careful in future**, stating that they were not directly involved in implementation of the project.
So the reported process appears to have **differentiated officials according to their roles**, rather than treating everyone identically.
**Why shareholders should care: Devprabha was not a small vendor**
BCCL’s own RHP shows that **Devprabha Construction Pvt Ltd accounted for ₹936.31 crore, or 15.94% of BCCL’s total purchases in FY25**.
In H1 FY26 it accounted for another **₹446.93 crore, or 16.71% of total purchases**.
For comparison, it represented only **7.68% of purchases in FY23**. By FY25 the rupee value of purchases from this vendor had risen roughly **180%** from FY23.
That changes the investor question substantially.
This is not only: *what happened in one old contract?*
It is also:
**If a CVC investigation has now resulted in action recommendations over contractual deviations involving a vendor that subsequently became one of BCCL’s biggest contractors, what has BCCL done to review its continuing contracts, payment controls, certification controls and exposure to that vendor?**
**The RHP itself makes this relevant**
BCCL’s RHP says that **“certain” company tenders were under inspection for deviation beyond limits in the contracts** and that appropriate cases had been registered for investigation/action. It also warns that such matters can affect its business, results, financial condition and cash flows.
The obvious IPO/post-listing question is:
**Was this Bhoura South–Devprabha contract one of those tenders?**
If yes, investors now have a reported post-investigation development to that risk factor.
If no, what tender was the RHP referring to and how was this matter classified?
**₹165.97 crore is meaningful against BCCL’s current profit pool**
Again, I am **not treating ₹165.97 crore as a proven loss**.
But as a scale comparison, BCCL’s FY26 numbers were:
• Revenue from operations: **₹13,644.78 crore**
• EBITDA proxy: **₹785.38 crore**
• PBT: **₹149.18 crore**
• PAT: **₹128.28 crore**
• Operating cash flow: **-₹640.64 crore**
The ₹165.97 crore figure reported by the newspaper is therefore approximately **1.22% of FY26 revenue, 21.1% of the EBITDA proxy, 111% of PBT and 129% of PAT**. It is also about **25.9% of the magnitude of FY26 negative operating cash flow**.
BCCL has since reported a **₹68.09 crore loss in Q1 FY27**, while production fell to **6.56 MT from 9.04 MT** and offtake to **7.72 MT from 8.98 MT** YoY.
That doesn’t mean the ₹165.97 crore matter caused the loss. It means investors currently have **very little profit cushion against any amount that might ultimately become recoverable, provisionable or otherwise financially exposed**.
**What I would want BCCL to clarify:**
**1) What was the original contract value and what 2) was the value after each of the two amendments?**
**3) What exactly does the ₹165.97 crore-plus figure represent — gross payment, payment beyond the original contract, or an amount identified for recovery?**
**4) What justification and approval route allowed contract value to rise 59.60% when the report says deviation was capped at 10–15%?**
**5) Has BCCL identified any amount as excess, disallowed, recoverable or requiring provision?**
**6) Was this Bhoura South contract one of the “tenders under inspection for deviation beyond the limit” disclosed in the RHP?**
**7) What review has been conducted on current contracts with Devprabha Construction, given that it represented 15.94% of FY25 purchases and 16.71% of H1 FY26 purchases?**
**8) Has BCCL assessed this post-investigation CVC development under Regulation 30 and its materiality policy?**
I did not find a specific NSE/BSE/BCCL disclosure on this **13 July 2026 CVC recommendation / ₹165.97 crore-plus Bhoura South matter** in the checked sources as of **8 August 2026, 09:02 IST**, subject to further verification. That absence by itself does not establish a disclosure breach. BCCL’s own materiality policy includes both quantitative and qualitative tests.
**Source:** *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad City, 8 August 2026, main report plus page-10 continuation; BCCL Red Herring Prospectus; BCCL FY26 audited results/cash-flow statement; BCCL Q1 FY27 results; BCCL Regulation 30 materiality policy.
**Not investment advice. This is a public-source investor update for shareholder discussion, not a finding of criminal guilt or a trading recommendation. I am not recommending buy, sell, hold, short, entry, exit or averaging. The newspaper’s claims are attributed to the newspaper unless independently supported by BCCL/official filings. Corrections, the 13 July 2026 CVC office memorandum, or any relevant NSE/BSE/BCCL clarification are welcome.**

**Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update.**
BCCL held its 55th AGM on **7 August 2026**. The attached AGM clipping attributes the line **“BCCL hai to Dhanbad hai”** to CMD Manoj Kumar Agarwal.
On the same day, a major land-subsidence event occurred at **Chhatabad in the Katras area of Dhanbad**.
The attached *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad-City, dated **8 August 2026**, make the shareholder issue more substantial than one isolated accident.
**This was not Chhatabad’s first subsidence this monsoon**
The clipping says almost exactly **one month earlier, on 7 July**, the ground had already subsided near the Chhatabad football-ground area.
That earlier incident is independently reported by **PTI/Hindustan**: homes developed major cracks, a pond reportedly emptied into the underground void and residents had to leave unsafe houses. The alleged role of illegal mining was reported at the time, but it was an attributed explanation rather than a final technical finding.
Then came the much larger **7 August** event at essentially the same locality.
The preliminary possibilities being examined include **empty voids in old underground workings, fire and/or illegal mining**.
But it also explicitly says that the **actual cause will be known only after rescue and technical investigation**.
So I do not think investors should jump from the photographs to a definitive statement that illegal mining, missing sand stowing or any particular BCCL failure caused this event.
What investors can reasonably ask is whether the mine plans, pillar-extraction history, stowing records and closure/stabilisation records for the ground below Chhatabad establish what actually happened.
**The recurrence is wider than Chhatabad**
The same *Prabhat Khabar* page lists **three other major subsidence events in roughly four months**:
**• 31 March — Sonardih/Tandabari:** three people died.
**• 24 April — Tandabari:** another major subsidence affected the settlement and forced families to move.
**• 4 August — Selected Govindpur:** the clipping reports more than half a dozen houses collapsing.
The 31 March deaths are independently corroborated by other reporting.
The 24 April repeat event is also independently reported by **PTI** and **Prabhat Khabar**.
And online reporting reveals still more incidents in the same broader coal belt: further **Tandabari** subsidence in June affecting buildings, another incident at **Angarpathra/Kantapahari** in June and a July collapse at **Keshalpur Munda Dhaura**.
This doesn’t prove one common cause.
It does establish that **recurring ground instability is not a hypothetical risk in BCCL’s operating geography.**
**BCCL itself told IPO investors that this risk can hit production and finances**
Risk Factor 46 of BCCL’s Prospectus says Jharia is susceptible to **coal fires and land subsidence**, describing these as serious environmental, health and safety risks.
It says serious subsidence can harm people/property and lead to site-restoration, disaster-recovery and rehabilitation costs.
Most importantly for shareholders, BCCL says failure to contain fires and relocate affected people can restrict access to reserves and **affect production**.
So this is not simply a local civic issue being attached to a stock ticker. It is a risk the company itself has identified as potentially relevant to operations, costs and cash flows.
**The rehabilitation numbers make the issue harder to dismiss**
BCCL’s FY26 Directors’ Report says the initial phase of the Revised Jharia Master Plan identified:
**• 81 high-risk sites**
**• 15,080 families requiring shifting**
**• 1,416 shifted**
**• 13,664 still to be shifted**
That means only about **9.4% had been shifted** at that reporting point.
Important qualification: BCCL says it had shifted all **649 identified BCCL families**. The large outstanding balance primarily relates to non-BCCL families under JRDA responsibility. So I am not saying the entire backlog is a BCCL failure.
But from an **investor perspective**, the operating environment still contains a very large population exposed to identified high-risk areas, while BCCL’s own prospectus warns that rehabilitation delays can create cost and production-access risks.
BCCL’s FY26 report also specifically says roughly **120 families from affected areas were relocated to Belgaria and about 110 to Sindwatand** following gas-emission/subsidence issues including Tandabari.
**The financial backdrop is much weaker now**
BCCL’s latest Q1 FY27 numbers were:
**• Revenue:** ₹3,587.27 crore, **-3.56% YoY**
**• EBITDA:** ₹71.50 crore, **-80.8%**
**• PBT:** **₹103.07 crore loss**
**• PAT:** **₹68.09 crore loss**, versus ₹176.87 crore profit last year
**• Production:** 6.56 MT, **-27.43%**
**• Offtake:** 7.72 MT, **-14.03%**
**• OB removal:** 32.30 MCuM, **-34.68%**
Reported company-level sales realisation was around **₹3,243/tonne**, against net cost of approximately **₹3,375/tonne**, producing a loss of around **₹131.91/tonne**.
None of these deteriorations has been shown to have been caused by land subsidence.
The point is narrower: when production is already down 27%, EBITDA has fallen about 81% and the company is loss-making, shareholders have less reason to treat potentially recurring rehabilitation, stabilisation, security or access risks as irrelevant.
**There is also a genuine illegal-mining/security question—but causation should not be invented**
Illegal coal mining in the Dhanbad belt is not merely a social-media allegation.
The Union Home Ministry recently described illegal mining/theft in Dhanbad and surrounding areas as a serious worsening problem and directed tougher coordinated action.
But that still does **not** tell us what caused the 7 August Chhatabad collapse.
For that, shareholders need the technical evidence: underground plans, old workings, pillar extraction, stowing, fire maps, illegal-mining evidence and geological/subsidence investigation.
**The questions I would want answered:**
**1) Which historic mine workings/seams lie below the 7 August Chhatabad subsidence?**
**2) Was coal depillared beneath the affected surface area? If yes, when?**
**3) Was sand stowing/backfilling required under the approved mining method? What do completion records show?**
**4) Were the historical workings sealed/stabilised under an applicable mine-closure plan?**
**5) What did BCCL/DGMS/CMPDI surveys show after the 7 July subsidence at almost the same location?**
**6) Was any scientific survey or preventive intervention carried out between 7 July and 7 August?**
**7) Is the affected settlement included among the Revised Jharia Master Plan high-risk sites?**
**8) Is there technically verified evidence of recent unauthorised mining below or near this site?**
**9) Has any BCCL mine access, production, OB removal, dispatch or offtake been affected?**
**10) What amount, if any, is expected to be borne by BCCL for stabilisation, relief, rehabilitation or restoration?**
**11) Has management carried out a Regulation 30 materiality assessment?**
I checked BCCL’s investor-relations/exchange-indexed sources and **no specific NSE/BSE disclosure relating to the 7 August Chhatabad subsidence was found in the checked sources as of 8 August 2026, 10:35 IST, subject to further verification.**
That is not by itself evidence of a disclosure failure.
BCCL’s IR page shows that the company does make Regulation 30 disclosures for operational stoppages, accidents and other material developments when appropriate.
For me, the investor question created by the AGM statement is therefore not whether coal has been central to Dhanbad’s economy—it obviously has.
It is whether management can demonstrate that, in a geography where **subsidence and coal-fire risk were explicitly disclosed to IPO investors**, repeated incidents are being met with effective site-specific mapping, stabilisation, rehabilitation and disclosure.
**Sources:** attached *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad-City, 8 August 2026 pages 9–10; attached AGM clipping; BCCL Prospectus; BCCL FY2025-26 Directors’ Report; BCCL Q1 FY27 results; PTI/Hindustan/Prabhat Khabar reporting cited above; BCCL Investor Relations disclosures.
**Not investment advice. This is a public-source update for discussion among shareholders and market participants. I am not recommending any buy, sell, hold, short, exit, average or entry decision. Where newspapers or local residents attribute a cause, I am treating that as a reported claim unless independently established by an official technical finding.**
**Corrections, the DGMS/CMPDI technical report, mine/stowing records for Chhatabad, or any subsequent BCCL/NSE/BSE clarification are welcome.**

**Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update**
Two numbers in today’s *Prabhat Khabar* report deserve shareholder attention: **₹165.97 crore+** and **59.60%**.
The newspaper reports that a CVC investigation into a **2022 outsourcing contract at BCCL’s Bhoura South Colliery, EJ Area, involving Devprabha Construction Pvt Ltd** found that deviation beyond the limit prescribed in the contract had been approved.
According to the report, a **CVC office memorandum dated 13 July 2026** records that BCCL’s Committee of Functional Directors approved **two amendments** to the contract, increasing its value by approximately **59.60%**.
The same report says the contract permitted deviation of only **10–15%**.
Put differently, the reported **59.60% increase was 44.60 percentage points above the 15% upper limit — almost 4x that upper limit**.
The matter also involves, according to the newspaper, **payments exceeding ₹165.97 crore** to Devprabha Construction in 2022.
**This has already moved beyond a bare allegation**
*Prabhat Khabar* says that after investigation the CVC recommended **first-stage vigilance action/advice** concerning former CMD Samiran Dutta, former Director (Finance) Rakesh Kumar Sahay and former Director (Technical) Shankar Nagachari.
Administrative action was reportedly advised against four other present/former directors. The Coal Ministry subsequently gave those four only a **warning to remain more careful in future**, stating that they were not directly involved in implementation of the project.
So the reported process appears to have **differentiated officials according to their roles**, rather than treating everyone identically.
**Why shareholders should care: Devprabha was not a small vendor**
BCCL’s own RHP shows that **Devprabha Construction Pvt Ltd accounted for ₹936.31 crore, or 15.94% of BCCL’s total purchases in FY25**.
In H1 FY26 it accounted for another **₹446.93 crore, or 16.71% of total purchases**.
For comparison, it represented only **7.68% of purchases in FY23**. By FY25 the rupee value of purchases from this vendor had risen roughly **180%** from FY23.
That changes the investor question substantially.
This is not only: *what happened in one old contract?*
It is also:
**If a CVC investigation has now resulted in action recommendations over contractual deviations involving a vendor that subsequently became one of BCCL’s biggest contractors, what has BCCL done to review its continuing contracts, payment controls, certification controls and exposure to that vendor?**
**The RHP itself makes this relevant**
BCCL’s RHP says that **“certain” company tenders were under inspection for deviation beyond limits in the contracts** and that appropriate cases had been registered for investigation/action. It also warns that such matters can affect its business, results, financial condition and cash flows.
The obvious IPO/post-listing question is:
**Was this Bhoura South–Devprabha contract one of those tenders?**
If yes, investors now have a reported post-investigation development to that risk factor.
If no, what tender was the RHP referring to and how was this matter classified?
**₹165.97 crore is meaningful against BCCL’s current profit pool**
Again, I am **not treating ₹165.97 crore as a proven loss**.
But as a scale comparison, BCCL’s FY26 numbers were:
• Revenue from operations: **₹13,644.78 crore**
• EBITDA proxy: **₹785.38 crore**
• PBT: **₹149.18 crore**
• PAT: **₹128.28 crore**
• Operating cash flow: **-₹640.64 crore**
The ₹165.97 crore figure reported by the newspaper is therefore approximately **1.22% of FY26 revenue, 21.1% of the EBITDA proxy, 111% of PBT and 129% of PAT**. It is also about **25.9% of the magnitude of FY26 negative operating cash flow**.
BCCL has since reported a **₹68.09 crore loss in Q1 FY27**, while production fell to **6.56 MT from 9.04 MT** and offtake to **7.72 MT from 8.98 MT** YoY.
That doesn’t mean the ₹165.97 crore matter caused the loss. It means investors currently have **very little profit cushion against any amount that might ultimately become recoverable, provisionable or otherwise financially exposed**.
**What I would want BCCL to clarify:**
**1) What was the original contract value and what 2) was the value after each of the two amendments?**
**3) What exactly does the ₹165.97 crore-plus figure represent — gross payment, payment beyond the original contract, or an amount identified for recovery?**
**4) What justification and approval route allowed contract value to rise 59.60% when the report says deviation was capped at 10–15%?**
**5) Has BCCL identified any amount as excess, disallowed, recoverable or requiring provision?**
**6) Was this Bhoura South contract one of the “tenders under inspection for deviation beyond the limit” disclosed in the RHP?**
**7) What review has been conducted on current contracts with Devprabha Construction, given that it represented 15.94% of FY25 purchases and 16.71% of H1 FY26 purchases?**
**8) Has BCCL assessed this post-investigation CVC development under Regulation 30 and its materiality policy?**
I did not find a specific NSE/BSE/BCCL disclosure on this **13 July 2026 CVC recommendation / ₹165.97 crore-plus Bhoura South matter** in the checked sources as of **8 August 2026, 09:02 IST**, subject to further verification. That absence by itself does not establish a disclosure breach. BCCL’s own materiality policy includes both quantitative and qualitative tests.
**Source:** *Prabhat Khabar*, Dhanbad City, 8 August 2026, main report plus page-10 continuation; BCCL Red Herring Prospectus; BCCL FY26 audited results/cash-flow statement; BCCL Q1 FY27 results; BCCL Regulation 30 materiality policy.
**Not investment advice. This is a public-source investor update for shareholder discussion, not a finding of criminal guilt or a trading recommendation. I am not recommending buy, sell, hold, short, entry, exit or averaging. The newspaper’s claims are attributed to the newspaper unless independently supported by BCCL/official filings. Corrections, the 13 July 2026 CVC office memorandum, or any relevant NSE/BSE/BCCL clarification are welcome.**