Priyanka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 12 crore
Wayanad(Kerala), Oct 23: Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi, who on Wednesday made her electoral debut by filing a nomination as a Congress candidate for Wayanad Lok Sabha bypolls, has declared assets worth over Rs 12 crore.
In her nomination paper, Priyanka also declared a total income of over Rs 46.39 lakh in the financial year 2023-2024 which includes rental income and interest from banks and other investments.
Giving details of her assets and liabilities in the affidavit filed along with her nomination papers, Priyanka said she has movable assets of over Rs 4.24 crore that include deposits of varying amounts in three bank accounts, investments in mutual funds, PPF, a Honda CRV car gifted by her husband Robert Vadra, and over 4400 grams (gross) of gold worth Rs 1.15 crore.
Her immovable assets are worth over Rs 7.74 crore, which includes two inherited half shares of agricultural land in Mehrauli area of New Delhi and a half share in a farmhouse building located therein, all of which together are now worth over Rs 2.10 crore.
Besides that, she has a self-acquired residential property in Shimla in Himachal Pradesh, which is presently worth over Rs 5.63 crore, according to her affidavit.
In her affidavit, Priyanka has also given details of her husband's movable and immovable assets.
Robert Vadra has movable assets worth over Rs 37.9 crore and immovable assets worth over Rs 27.64 crore, according to the affidavit.
Priyanka, who has a Post Graduate Diploma in Buddhist Studies through distance learning from University of Sunderland, UK and a BA Hons degree in Psychology from Delhi University, has liabilities of Rs 15.75 lakh.
She is also facing Income Tax reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13, as per which she has to pay over Rs 15 lakh as taxes, her affidavit said.
Additionally, there are two FIRs and a forest department's notice against her, the affidavit stated.
One of the FIRs, registered in 2023 in Madhya Pradesh, is under sections 420 (cheating) and 469 (forgery) of the IPC and is based on a private person's complaint alleging that she posted some misleading tweets, the affidavit said.
The other FIR, registered in 2020 in Uttar Pradesh, is under sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of the IPC for her alleged protest against the Hathras incident of 2020.
Both Rahul and Priyanka were booked for alleged violation of prohibitory orders issued under CrPC section 144 and violation of the orders related to the Epidemic Diseases Act, imposed in view of the COVID-19 outbreak, for walking towards Hathras to meet a Dalit rape victim's family.
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.
Allahabad HC pulls up UP govt for not filing response in a case related to Bahraich demolition
Lucknow, Oct 23: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government on why it has not filed a detailed response till date despite clear directions in a case of issuing notices of demolition in Bahraich district.
A Lucknow bench expressed annoyance as to whether the spirit of the order could not be understood by the state authorities.
The bench was of the view that it had specifically asked Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh to obtain complete instructions in the matter regarding category and norms applicable about the road in question but the only objection was being raised about maintainability of the PIL yet again.
The bench, however, asked Singh to file the objection on maintainability of the PIL in the registry of the court, deferring the hearing till November 4.
A bench of justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a PIL filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday after constituting a special bench, the court had extended the time enabling the affected dwellers to file their response to notices within 15 days instead of three days as granted by the PWD.
This had thwarted the preparations of the district authorities for removing the alleged illegal constructions made by the dwellers who had been slapped short notice. In course of hearing on Wednesday, the state counsel sought to file objection against maintainability of the PIL.
At this, the bench reacted strongly as to whether the spirit of the previous order passed on Sunday was not understood by the state authorities.
In the previous order, the bench had asked the chief standing counsel to complete his instructions regarding category and norms applicable on the road in question. The bench had stressed that besides maintainability, it would consider all aspects of the matter.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday, the bench had said that the concerned persons may file their response to the notices within 15 days and also directed the state authorities to consider these replies and pass speaking and reasoned order on the reply.
Filing the PIL, it had been argued that the state has issued the demolition notice in illegal manner and its action to initiate demolition drive is in violation of the Supreme Court's recent directives, banning bulldozer action except in certain cases.
On behalf of the state government, the chief standing counsel had raised the objection about maintainability of the PIL and he yet again pointed out this on Wednesday as well.
Ram Gopal Mishra (22) of Rehua Mansoor village died of a gunshot wound he suffered on October 13 during a communal face-off in a village in Bahraich district over music being played during a procession.
Notices were served to 23 establishments, including 20 belonging to Muslims, in the area by the public works department (PWD).
The PWD had carried out inspections in the Maharajganj area last Friday and took measurements of 20-25 houses, including that of Abdul Hamid, one of the accused in Mishra's killing.
The notices were served under the Road Control Act, 1964.
