Banks asked to search and seize B R Shetty’s accounts in UAE

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has said it rejects US President  Donald Trump 's recently unveiled Middle East plan.

The 57-member body, which held a summit on Monday  to discuss the plan in Saudi Arabia's Jeddah, said in a statement that it "calls on all member states not to engage with this plan or to cooperate with the US administration in implementing it in any form".

Requested by the Palestinian leadership, the meeting of the body came two days after the Arab League rejected Trump's so-called "deal of the century", saying: "It does not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of Palestinian people."

Addressing a pro-Israel audience at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side, Trump on Tuesday described his long-delayed plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a "win-win solution" for both sides.

The US president said his proposed deal would ensure the establishment of a two-state solution, promising Palestinians a state of their own with a new capital in Abu Dis, a suburb just outside Jerusalem. Trump also said Jerusalem would be the "undivided capital" of Israel. The Palestinians want both occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank to be part of a future state.

Palestinian leaders, who were absent during the announcement and had rejected the proposal even before its release, denounced the plan as "a new Balfour Declaration" that heavily favoured Israel and would deny them a viable independent state.

The OIC said in a statement on Twitter on Sunday that its "open-ended executive committee meeting" at the level of foreign ministers would "discuss the organisation's position after the US administration announced its peace plan".

With member states from four continents, the OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organisation in the world after the United Nations, with a collective population reaching more than 1.8 billion.

The majority of its member states are Muslim-majority countries, while others have significant Muslim populations, including several African and South American countries. While the 22 members of the Arab League are also part of the OIC, the organisation has several significant non-Arab member states, including Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. It also has five observer members, including Russia and Thailand.

Iran 'barred'

Meanwhile, Iran on Monday accused its regional rival Saudi Arabia of blocking its officials from attending the OIC meeting.

"The government of Saudi Arabia has prevented the participation of the Iranian delegation in the meeting to examine the 'deal of the century' plan at the headquarters of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation," Fars news agency quoted Abbas Mousavi, spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, as saying.

Mousavi said Iran - one of the countries to strongly condemn Trump's plan - had filed a complaint with the OIC and accused its regional rival of misusing its position as the host for the organisation's headquarters.

There was no immediate comment from Saudi officials.

Following the unveiling of Trump's plan, the Saudi foreign ministry expressed appreciation for Trump's efforts and support for direct peace negotiations under Washington's auspices, while state media reported that King Salman had called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to reassure him of Riyadh's unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause.

The announcement of Trump's plan drew mixed responses from Arab states.

Observers said the reaction was indicative of the division among Arab countries and their inability to prioritise the Palestinian people's plight over domestic economic agendas and political calculations in relation to the Trump administration.

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.

Riyadh, Jul 1: Saudis braced Wednesday for a tripling in value added tax, another unpopular austerity measure after the twin shocks of coronavirus and an oil price slump triggered the kingdom's worst economic decline in decades.

Retailers in the country reported a sharp uptick in sales this week of everything from gold and electronics to cars and building materials, as shoppers sought to stock up before VAT is raised to 15 percent.

The hike could stir public resentment as it weighs on household incomes, pushing up inflation and depressing consumer spending as the kingdom emerges from a three-month coronavirus lockdown.

"Cuts, cuts, cuts everywhere," a Saudi teacher in Riyadh told AFP, bemoaning vanishing subsidies as salaries remain stagnant.

"Air conditioner, television, electronic items," he said, rattling off a list of items he bought last week ahead of the VAT hike.

"I can't afford these things from Wednesday."

With its vast oil wealth funding the Arab world's biggest economy, the kingdom had for decades been able to fund massive spending with no taxes at all.

It only introduced VAT in 2018, as part of a push to reduce its dependence on crude revenues.

Then, seeking to shore up state finances battered by sliding oil prices and the coronavirus crisis, it announced in May that it would triple VAT and halt a cost-of-living monthly allowance to citizens.

The austerity push underscores how Saudi Arabia's once-lavish spending is becoming a thing of the past, with the erosion of the welfare system leaving a mostly young population to cope with reduced incomes and a lifestyle downgrade.

That could pile strain on a decades-old social contract whereby citizens were given generous subsidies and handouts in exchange for loyalty to the absolute monarchy.

The rising cost of living may prompt many to ask why state funds are being lavished on multi-billion-dollar projects and overseas assets, including the proposed purchase of English football club Newcastle United.

Shopping malls in the kingdom have drawn large crowds in recent days as retailers offered "pre-VAT sales" and discounts before the hike kicks in.

A gold shop in Riyadh told AFP it saw a 70 percent jump in sales in recent weeks, while a car dealership saw them tick up by 15 percent.

Once the new rate is in place, businesses are predicting depressed sales of everything from cars to cosmetics and home appliances.

Capital Economics forecast inflation will jump up to six percent year-on-year in July, from 1.1 percent in May, as a result.

"The government ended the country's lockdown (in June) and there are signs that economic activity has started to recover," Capital Economics said in a report.

"Nonetheless, we expect the recovery to be slow-going as fiscal austerity measures bite."

The kingdom also risks losing its edge against other Gulf states, including its principal ally the United Arab Emirates, which introduced VAT at the same time but has so far refrained from raising it beyond five percent.

"Saudi Arabia is taking massive risks with contractionary fiscal policies," said Tarek Fadlallah, chief executive officer of the Middle East unit of Nomura Asset Management.

But the kingdom has few choices as oil revenue declines.

Its finances have taken another blow as authorities massively scaled back this year's hajj pilgrimage, from 2.5 million pilgrims last year to around a thousand already inside the country, and suspended the lesser umrah because of coronavirus.

Together the rites rake in some $12 billion annually.

The International Monetary Fund warned the kingdom's GDP will shrink by 6.8 percent this year -- its worst performance since the 1980s oil glut.

The austerity drive would boost state coffers by 100 billion riyals ($26.6 billion), according to state media.

But the measures are unlikely to plug the kingdom's huge budget deficit.

The Saudi Jadwa Investment group forecasts the shortfall will rise to a record $112 billion this year.