Sell-off: Parliament nod not needed

NEW DELHI: The government may not be required to seek specific consent of Parliament for going ahead with the strategic sale of the two oil PSUs, HPCL and BPCL.
Solicitor general Kirit Rawal is learnt to have assured disinvestment ministry that it can go ahead with the sale without having to get the matter cleared from the Parliament.
The disinvestment ministry had approached the solicitor general after the Opposition raised questions about the legality of the proposals.
Leader of the Opposition Manmohan Singh sought clarifications in the Rajya Sabha, contending that since the acquisition of both HPCL and BPCL was made under Acts of Parliament, any decision over the disposal of their shares and other assets will have to be met with Parliament''s approval.
The solicitor general is believed to have emphasised that while the PSUs were acquired by different mechanisms, they are all governed bythe Companies Act, which mandated the government to expand or dispose its equity in any of them through an executive order.
The legal opinion available to the government is backed by the Maruti precedent. Since the car manufacturing unit was acquired under the Maruti Acquisition and Transfer Act, 1980, the logic given by Congress would have required the government to seek parliamentary consent in 1982 and 1984, when Suzuki was allowed to increase its stake.
In the case of HPCL too, the government equity has come down to 51% over the years, without bringing Parliament into the picture.
During the NDA regime, PSUs like IBP were sold without the government having to secure Parliament''s nod. The opinion given by the solicitor general also endorses the view the law ministry had taken over proposed divestment of Air-India.
Then law minister Arun Jaitley had opined that government could do without approaching Parliament for amendments or repeal of the respective Acts.
The Congress, however, thinks that the matter is lodged in a grey area and that it would be advisable for the government to get the legal aspects clarified. Speaking to ET, Pranab Mukherjee contended that the offloading of shares earlier was within the 49% limit and overall control was always with the government.
When pointed to Maruti case, Mr Mukherjee indicated that a mistake could not be justified by another mistake. He maintained that the Congress'' concerns were in pointing to the divestment ministry whether all aspects had been covered or not.
He said he had asked Mr Shourie to have the issue examined by the Attorney General. The Opposition will decide on its next course of action tomorrow, he added.