Dubai, Dec 18, 2019: Indian Pravasi Forum UAE issued a pressed statement on Wednesday condemning the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 adding that the act threatens nation’s multiculturalism. The press statement also added that the Act was contrary to the constitutional values of the country.
“strongly condemns the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, passed by Indian Parliament, which threatens the country's multiculturalism and it is contrary to the constitutional value of the country” the press statement stated.
Forum’s President Javed stated that Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution and leads to the Dual Nation doctrine as a prelude to partition. With the enactment of this law across the country, the religion of the original inhabitants will be compromised and there will be hostility, discrimination, violence and injustice among the citizens.
“Indian citizenship has always been firmly rooted in the country's constitution, which emphasizes equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language.
“This unconstitutional act also violates and shreds the provisions in the Indian constitution that guarantee citizens' right to equality, equality before the law and non-discriminatory treatment towards the citizens of the country” the press statement added.
Along with the CAA the organisation also opposes NRC which it added would violate Citizenship Act & it is against the ethos of India’s Constitution.
“Indian Pravasi Forum respectfully request that the Supreme Court of India to declare this law being an ultra-wires which infringes on the basic structure of the Constitution, that undermines the humanity, equality and secularism of the country, and it is against imparting all equitably” the statement further added .
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Heated debate in Karnataka Legislative Council over continued ACC mining in Kalaburagi
Bengaluru (PTI): A heated exchange took place in the Karnataka Legislative Council on Tuesday over alleged non-payment of mining dues and the "unauthorised" continuation of quarry operations by the Adani Group’s ACC Limited, with ruling Congress and the opposition BJP members questioning the government’s handling of royalty recovery and permissions.
Raising the issue during Question Hour, Congress MLC K Shivakumar, speaking on behalf of his party MLC Arathi Krishna, alleged that substantial royalty dues remained unpaid even as operations continued.
Krishna wanted to know whether the Karnataka government was aware that the lease period granted to Adani Group’s ACC Ltd for mining in the Kannur Limestone Block at Wadi in Kalaburagi has expired.
“If it is true, what action has the government taken against the said company for allegedly carrying out unauthorised mining at the site without paying the total dues of Rs 850.21 crore towards royalty, rent or penalty payable to the state government?” she asked in the written question.
She claimed that despite the Law department having given a written opinion to the Mines department that the said company should not be permitted to undertake mining activities until it clears all pending dues payable to the government, no legal action has been initiated against ACC, and instead a letter has been written to the central government regarding renewal of the lease in favour of the company.
Krishna questioned the apparent disparity in enforcement between small quarry operators and large corporate entities.
“After the Adani Group took over quarrying, they had to pay Rs 837 crore as royalty. Till today, they have not paid the royalty. What prompted you to exempt them from this royalty?” asked Shivakumar, on behalf of Krishna.
“If there is any small quarry operator, if he does not pay royalty, you do not allow him... You just bring him and seize it.”
BJP MLC C T Ravi echoed similar concerns, questioning the legal and procedural basis for allowing participation in bidding and continuation of operations despite pending dues.
“Do your rules allow those with pending dues to participate? If such a provision exists, under which rule does it exist?” he asked, also seeking clarity on recommendations of the High-Level Committee, Law Department and concurrence of the Finance Department.
Responding to the allegations, Minister N Cheluvarayaswamy, replying on behalf of the Mines and Geology Minister S S Mallikarjun, maintained that no fresh licence had been granted and that the matter involved both an existing mining lease and a separate new application still under process.
He said the company had applied through the bidding route and was given time to complete formalities, which had since been done.
The minister explained that the issue of dues was pending before the court, which has allowed operations to continue subject to certain conditions.
“The old licence is continuing under court direction. It has not been stopped. We are following court direction,” he said, adding that part payment had been made and the balance would be decided through legal proceedings.
Ravi, however, pressed further, arguing that court orders did not prevent recovery of dues.
“The court has not said do not recover dues. What does your legal opinion say? Why have you not recovered?” he asked.
Shivakumar also raised concerns over declining non-tax revenue from mining, citing the state’s own budget observations.
“If Rs 800 crore to Rs 900 crore is allowed to let go like this, where will non-tax revenue come from?” he asked and sought to know why the government had not fully tapped the sector’s revenue potential.
The Minister reiterated that the due itself was under dispute, making immediate recovery difficult.
“How can we recover when the amount itself is not decided? Until recovery is possible, no further permission will be given,” he said, adding that consultations with the Law Department and Advocate General would be held to explore further action.
He also cited tender conditions, stating, “As per the tender notification dated October 5, 2020, a company must have paid all past dues to be considered a successful bidder.”
Unconvinced, Ravi demanded that the recovery of dues should follow.
