Bank unions Gear Up for two-day nationwide strike from Tomorrow, here's what happens

Bhopal, Mar 4: Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister  Kamal Nath on Tuesday asserted that there was no threat to his government.

Nath's comments came when he was asked about reports of alleged 'poaching' attempts being made by the opposition BJP in the state.

“The legislators are telling me that they are being offered so much money. I am telling the MLAs to take it, if they are getting this free money,” Nath told reporters here on the sidelines of a programme.

Congress veteran Digvijaya Singh on Monday alleged that his party MLAs were being offered “huge money by BJP leaders” as part of the saffron party's “poaching” attempt to destablise the Kamal Nath government.

When Nath was asked about any threat to the stability of his government in Madhya Pradesh, he said, “There is nothing to worry about.”

Reacting to Nath's statement, state BJP spokesman Rajneesh Agrawal told PTI that his party has nothing to do with the allegations.

“In fact, these speculations and allegations are part of the internal bickering of among Congress leaders to get nominated for the Rajya Sabha polls,” he said.

After Digvijaya Singh's remarks on Monday, senior BJP leader and former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan accused the Congress veteran of making false statements to create sensationalism.

“Speaking lies to create sensationalism is Digvijaya's habit. Probably some of his (Digivijaya's) works were not done and he wants to create pressure on the CM to get them done,” Chouhan alleged.

New Delhi, Mar 12: The coronavirus pandemic could deal a crippling blow to the Indian travel and tourism industry, specially with the government suspending all visas, with the economic impact being assessed to run into thousands of crores of rupees. According to industry chamber CII, this is the one of the worst crises ever to hit the Indian tourism industry impacting all its geographical segments - inbound, outbound and domestic, almost all tourism verticals - leisure , adventure, heritage, MICE, cruise, corporate and niche segments.

The whole tourism value chain across hotels, travel agents, tour operations, destinations, restaurants, family entertainment venues and air, land and sea transportation have been hit.

In an impact assessment of the coronavirus pandemic, CII Tourism Committee said inbound foreign tourism of over USD 28 billion in value terms accounts for an average 60-65 per cent between October to March.

"As the news of the virus started picking up from November, the percentage of cancellations started going up in this segment exponentially and is reaching a peak of almost 80 per cent now in March in many Indian locations. The value at risk from this segment will be in multiples of tens of thousands of crores," the CII assessment report said.

With India cancelling all visas, the chamber said the impact "will be worse".

It further said,"The forward bookings for the inbound season of October 2020-March 2021 which should have started picking are all muted. These are showing highly discouraging signs with cancellations of important global travel marts which are marketplaces for contracting for the next season."

It further said there are reports of large scale forward cancellations from NRI segment from developed markets, which account for over 60 per cent during April to September inbound visits.

"Unless the progression of the virus stops, almost the entire value for the remainder of 2020 season is at risk," the report added.

ANAROCK Property Consultants Chairman Anuj Puri said India's hospitality sector will definitely be impacted by the announcement of a global pandemic, and the mounting numbers of confirmed coronavirus cases in the country.

"The cancellation of visas for foreigners as well as the strong advice issued to Indians to refrain from unnecessary travel will have a marked effect. This is the most unsettling healthcare crisis in recent times and hotel bookings will go south," he added.

On Indians being advised to refrain from unnecessary travel, as per the CII report almost 28 million plus Indians are estimated to have travelled outside in 2019 and there were almost 1.8 billion domestic tourist footfalls.

The holiday season of Indians -- those travelling within the country and outside -- is heavy in April-July, October and December.

"The December holiday season of 2019 took an estimated hit of almost 40-50 per cent, the holiday season of April to July 2020 is likely to take a humongous hit which could be as high as 80-100 per cent, unless there is positive news of the progression of virus decreasing," the CII assessment report said.

There are advanced cancellations and highly reduced forward booking pipelines for the holiday season. Only corporates are flying and that too only on highly essential same day travel. Most of the MNCs are advising work from home, stifling travel, it added.

On suspension of visas, MakeMyTrip Group CEO Rajesh Magow told ,"The period between February till the end of March is typically a lean period because of exam season but we are seeing a demand slowdown for the upcoming summer holiday season especially for international travel. The situation remains dynamic making it hard to quantify the actual impact on our business and industry at large."

He further said,"The decision by the government will have an impact on inbound and outbound international travel. So far there are no restrictions or advisories issued for domestic travel."

VFS Global Regional Group COO - South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, Americas Vinay Malhotra said,"While it is too early to comment on the impact of coronavirus on visa application trends, so far, our visa application processes in India continue on schedule as per the mandates of our client governments."

He also said the company is exploring steps to assuage concerns of people about visiting busy public areas due to the nature of the virus by considering discounted rates on courier return services for visa customers who want to avoid returning to the visa centres to pick up their passports.

Besides, he said,"We are also contemplating lower fees for our Visa at your doorstep service, for those customers who are requesting an alternative to visiting the centres to submit visa applications."

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.