Batra Hospitality did not take permission for Centaur resale: govt

NEW DELHI: The government on Wednesday night said in the Lok Sabha that Batra Hospitality had not taken permission for resale of Centaur Airport hotel in Mumbai and would take action against it in case legal opinion so advised and asserted it had executive powers to privatise oil PSUs HPCL and BPCL.
Amid constant interruption and a walk out by Left parties and RJD, Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie attacked the Opposition for contesting privatisation of PSUs including the profit-making ones despite the fact that states ruled by the same parties were following the Centre''s disinvestment model.
Resale of Centaur, which was the cause for conflict between Shourie and NDA ally Shiv Sena and opposition on sale of equity in HPCL and BPCL, dominated the five-hour-long debate on disinvestment in PSUs, even as the government stuck to its policy saying that it was aimed at "optimal use of national resources�.
Shourie said, according to, the sale purchase agreement signed between the government and Batra Hospitality for the Mumbai property, the new owners were mandated to take permission but they had neither approached the Hotel Corporation of India nor the Airport Authroity of India.
"We have now referred the matter to Law Ministry for opinion, and in case any illegality is found, the government will take remedial action," he said but refuted the charges of Shiv Sena that workers were being subjected to forced VRS that led to death of three employees.
Shourie asserted that as such workers had the option of taking legal recourse and countered Shiv Sena MPs Mohan Rawale and Chandrakant Khaire saying as to what their party, which was very powerful in Mumbai and had a strong union, was doing if it felt there were wrongdoings.
Quoting from the Constitution, Shourie said the government had the executive power to divest equity in nationalised companies functioning under Companies Law but added that in view of the suggestions, the issue of HPCL and BPCL had been referred to the Attorney General for his views.
He also criticised the Congress for raising the bogey and asked as to how while in power it divested 49 per cent stake in HPCL and 34 per cent in BPCL without approaching Parliament and how they were raising the issue now.
Shourie cited the example of Maruti Udyog, which was privatised under Congress regime with sale of 50 per cent equity to Suzuki, IPCL, VSNL and some other PSUs.
"It is not a question of one share or 100 per cent equity. If earlier governments could sell equity in companies acquired through Acts of Parliament then what is wrong now," he wondered.
Shourie said that unless the Act of Parliament in case of acquisition categorically had restrictive clauses like that in the Coal Nationalisation Act, where entry of private sector was prohibited, and Banks Act, which stipulated 51 per cent or more government equity, executive had powers to change the structure of equity.
Asserting that opposition to divestment in profit-making PSUs was based on "misconception", Shourie said eleven states including Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka (all ruled by Congress) had approached his Ministry for borrowing the ''template'' of disinvestment and even sought advise even on advertising for sale.
He admitted that disinvestment decision in oil PSUs was deferred for three months as some senior cabinet colleagues wanted reaxmination of the issue and said that during the meeting the Prime Minister held on December 5 their views were taken into account.
"After this, the Prime Minister asked each of them thrice if it is a unanimous decision and then asked me to report it to Parliament," he said in a bid to underplay the differences on the divestment issues.
He, however, dismissed as internal matter of Samata party the threat given by its MP Prabhunath Singh that his party would withdraw support or split in case disinvestment policy was continued in the present shape.
Asserting that there was a virtual consensus on disinvestment in the country, Shourie said that even the president of INTUC (Congress-affiliated trade union) had written to the Prime Minister twice asking for strategic sale in HPCL and BPCL.
Even the union in Centaur including the one belonging to Shiv Sena had asked for VRS prior to disinvestment in the hotel and had suggested that VRS should be made a condition in the share purchase agreement with the new owner.
Citing the example of Centaur Hotel in Delhi, he said that over 600 employees had already taken VRS though the government has not been able to find a buyer for it.
He rejected the charge that forced VRS had led to death of employees and gave details of some of the cases mentioned by Shiv Sena MPs saying that they died due to previous ailments and had nothing to do with the sale of the hotel.