High Court asks Centre to explain its stand on strategic sale of VSP
[ad_1]
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justices J. Bagchi and M. Ganga Rao, issued a discover to the Union authorities on Thursday directing it to file a counter affidavit on the proposed strategic sale of its stake within the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP) in response to a PIL filed by CBI former Joint Director V.V. Lakshminarayana.
The petitioner’s argument was that the Central authorities couldn’t take a unilateral choice to divest its stake from a public entity with out guaranteeing compliance with the promise of jobs made to the land oustees, and ship them for negotiations with a non-public celebration.
Appearing for Mr. Lakshminarayana, senior counsel B. Adinarayana Rao stated the courtroom was sure to look into the Central authorities’s choice because it was affecting the elemental rights of not solely the land oustees but in addition a big quantity of others who had been employed within the PSU immediately and not directly.
The courtroom noticed that an “unwise or unpopular decision ought to be taken up for debate elsewhere and not in a courtroom unless a statutory violation is pointed out and it warrants the court’s interference.”
Representing the Andhra Pradesh authorities, Advocate-General S. Sriram stated the courtroom was entitled, inside the restricted area of judicial overview, to scrutinise whether or not the Central authorities took the choice to divest its stake in VSP after contemplating the accessible options.
He identified that the State had addressed two letters to the Union authorities suggesting options (decreasing the enter value by offering captive mines, monetising the land financial institution and many others.) for making the plant commercially viable.
The Central authorities may, due to this fact, be requested to explain its stand on the matter.
After recording the submissions, the courtroom issued a discover to it (Central authorities) to reply the above, whereas conserving the query of maintainability of the writ petition open.
The case was adjourned by 4 weeks.
[ad_2]
