Subramanian Swamy withdraws from SC his 2013 plea against Jet-Etihad Airways deal
New Delhi (PTI): BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on Friday withdrew from the Supreme Court his 2013 plea seeking quashing of an alliance between Jet Airways and the Abu Dhabi-based Etihad Airways.
"I wish to withdraw this, it is the Jet-Etihad matter. Now there is no Jet, no Etihad," Swamy told a bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar.
The bench then remarked in a lighter vein, "We do not know who is responsible for that."
Taking note of his submissions, the top court allowed Swamy to withdraw his plea.
"The petitioner seeks permission to withdraw in view of subsequent developments.
The petitioner stands dismissed as withdrawn," the bench said while granting him liberty to file a fresh application, if there is any new cause of action.
The apex court had issued notices to the Centre, Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of External Affairs, Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Directorate General of Civil Aviation and others in the case.
Swamy had submitted that the deal was against public interest as there has been squandering of natural resource i.e. the sky and air space.
He claimed that the deal was cleared against the advice of the Parliament Select Committee and other advisory bodies.
Swamy had also submitted that even the CAG has found that there has been reckless allocation of air space to foreign airlines.
Jet Airways had on April 24, 2013 announced plans to sell 24 per cent equity to Etihad Airways for about Rs 2,058 crore as part of a strategic alliance that would lead to a major expansion in their global network.
Swamy had in his PIL sought "a direction to set aside and revoke any action or decision or grant of any further approvals/permissions/permits, etc. by the respondent(govt) authorities, based upon, relying upon or in furtherance of the impugned bilateral dated April 24."
"The petitioner challenges such arbitrary, irrational and malafide act of grant of largesse in the form of bilateral/MoU dated April 24 and by way of the present petition seeks an investigation under the supervision of this Court into the matters of national and public interest," he had said in his petition.
He had also sought a CBI probe against government officials who had cleared the deal.
Swamy had questioned the Centre's decision to execute the agreement in favour of Abu Dhabi under the existing air service agreement between the governments of India and United Arab Emirates.
"The actions of authorities from execution of the bilateral to the unprecedented haste in order to assist the realisation of wrongful gains by the facilitator are writ large with acts of collusion and abuse of position," the petition had contended.
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.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
