High Court asks Centre to explain its stand on strategic sale of VSP

Decision unilateral, alleges petitioner; alternatives suggested, says State

April 15, 2021 11:22 pm | Updated 11:22 pm IST - VIJAYAWADA

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justices J. Bagchi and M. Ganga Rao, issued a notice to the Union government on Thursday directing it to file a counter affidavit on the proposed strategic sale of its stake in 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 government could not take a unilateral decision to divest its stake from a public entity without ensuring compliance with the promise of jobs made to the land oustees, and send them for negotiations with a private party.

Appearing for Mr. Lakshminarayana, senior counsel B. Adinarayana Rao said the court was bound to look into the Central government’s decision since it was affecting the fundamental rights of not only the land oustees but also a large number of others who were employed in the PSU directly and indirectly.

The court observed 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 government, Advocate-General S. Sriram said the court was entitled, within the limited space of judicial review, to scrutinise whether the Central government took the decision to divest its stake in VSP after considering the available alternatives.

He pointed out that the State had addressed two letters to the Union government suggesting alternatives (reducing the input cost by providing captive mines, monetising the land bank etc.) for making the plant commercially viable.

The Central government could, therefore, be asked to explain its stand on the matter.

After recording the submissions, the court issued a notice to it (Central government) to answer the above, while keeping the question of maintainability of the writ petition open.

The case was adjourned by four weeks.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.