Sena hits out at BJP on Air India privatisation decision

Agencies
June 30, 2017

Mumbai, Jun 30: NDA ally Shiv Sena today came down heavily on the Centre over its decision to privatise national carrier Air India, saying had such a decision been taken by the previous Congress-led UPA government, the BJP would not have spared it.airindia

It also asked the finance minister to spell out the reasons which made the 'Maharaja' (the Air India's characteristic logo) a "beggar."

The Sena's taunt comes two days after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the Cabinet has given "in-principle" approval for the disinvestment of Air India.

The Civil Aviation Ministry is charting out the disinvestment of the debt-laden carrier.

"Had this decision been taken by the previous government, the BJP would have exposed the Congress in public. The BJP would have asked how can a government that cannot run an airline, run the nation," the Sena said in an editorial in party mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

"But the BJP today has indulged in the sale of the national carrier," it noted.

The Sena also sought to know from Jaitley the reasons for Air India's downfall and losses in the last few years, and those responsible for it.

The airline earlier had a local market share of about 35 per cent which has gone down to a mere 16 per cent. This happened as many routes were sold off to private companies by the Civil Aviation Ministry, the Sena claimed.

"This is corruption. If done during the Congress regime, the Modi dispensation had a chance to undo the damage. Why did they not do it?" it asked.

"Today the airline is being sold off as it has a debt of Rs 50,000 crore. Tomorrow the government will say they are unable to provide for the security cost of Kashmir valley and will thus auction it. They cannot be trusted," the Sena claimed.

Surviving on taxpayers' money, Air India has been in the red for long and various proposals, including government think tank Niti Aayog's suggestion for complete privatisation, have been made.

The airline has a debt of more than Rs 52,000 crore and is surviving on a Rs 30,000-crore bailout package extended by the previous UPA government in 2012.

Comments

Yaseen Baig
 - 
Friday, 30 Jun 2017

This government is selling one by one, now what is left!

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 7,2020

May 7: Two people, including a child, were killed and nearly 70 hospitalised after a gas leak at a chemical plant in Andhra Pradesh's Visakhapatnam in the wee hours of Thursday, officials said.

People in Gopalapatnam area, where the chemical plant, LG Polymers, is located, complained of irritation in eyes, breathlessness, nausea and rashes on their bodies.

District Collector V Vinay Chand said two people were killed due to the gas leak, while some are in a critical condition.

Close to 70 people have been admitted to the King George Hospital after for treatment, he said.

TV channels showed people lying unconscious on roads.

Teams of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) have rushed to the spot.

Reports said the gas leak has been contained.

Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy enquired about the incident and directed the Visakhapatnam district collector to ensure proper medical care for the affected people.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 16,2020

New Delhi, June 16: Tensions along the Line of Control border between India and China have spiked with an Indian army officer and two soldiers killed in the Galwan area of Ladakh, the Indian army said in a statement on Tuesday.

This is the first time in decades that a clash involving casualties has taken place on the 3,488 kilometre border between India and China.

"During the de-escalation process underway in the Galwan Valley, a violent face-off took place yesterday night with casualties. The loss of lives on the Indian side includes an officer and two soldiers. Senior military officials of the two sides are currently meeting at the venue to defuse the situation," said an official statement.

The two sides had made headway in talks last week with army chief General MM Naravane saying disengagement was in progress. The development had come after weeks of tension, including an incident in which patrolling soldiers from the two sides came to blows on the banks of Pangong Lake, resulting in injuries.

The two armies have since thinned out some forces in a positive signal but soldiers, tanks and other armoured carriers remained heavily deployed in the high-altitude region, an official had said.

India and China fought a brief border war in 1962 and have not been able to settle their border despite two decades of talks. Both claim thousands of kilometres of territory and patrols along the undemarcated Line of Actual Control - the de-facto border - often run into each other, leading to tensions. 

Comments

Angry Indian
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2020

where is our angry desh bakth RSS and sanghi...hiding in rat hole or @%#hole...now you can show your 56 inch chest to chinese...when pakistan destroyed our two fighter jet that time i relised we are making an monkey army not indian army...still time exist, still we have courage army...but we lack leader...we have maron PM...and some dog follower..they only know to bark in media and whatsapp...in reality they are just real na pustak...

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.