Ahead of the vice-presidential polls, the Congress levelled charges against the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) vice-presidential candidate M. Venkaiah Naidu on Monday, accusing him of misusing his position to derive benefits for himself and his family. Mr. Naidu, on his part, sought to refute all the charges through a written statement.
Citing four cases of grave irregularities, senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh sought answers, saying, “Prime Minister... Narendra Modi has often used the rhetoric of ‘Zero Tolerance for Corruption and Wrongdoing’.. I think it is incumbent upon Venkaiah Naidu, who is a senior, experienced and articulate leader, to provide satisfactory answers..”
Mr. Naidu, until recently Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting and Urban Development, on his part, in a written statement said the allegations were “entirely false and politically motivated”: “It is evident that these issues have been referred to a few days before the election to the post of Vice President of India, clearly reflecting on the political motives and the mischievous intentions.”
Most serious charge
The most serious charge is that in July 2014, the Telangana government had placed an order amounting to ₹271 crore for the purchase of vehicles for the police from two companies — Harsha Toyota owned by Mr. Naidu’s son, and Himanshu Motors owned by the Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao’s son — “in contravention of all rules and without even floating a tender”.
Mr. Naidu does not deny the charge but says, “I have scrupulously kept myself away from the business and other pursuits of my children. . .. Harsha Toyota as a dealer never directly dealt with the State government in the procurement of vehicles referred to and no supply order was placed on Harsha Toyota. The parent company, i.e., Toyota, offered to supply vehicles as desired by the State government at DGS&D rates and the supply order was placed on the parent company, i.e., Toyota Kirloskar, and payment was also made to them.”
Mr. Ramesh’s second charge was that on June 20, 2017, the Telangana government issued a order “that has been kept secret”, exempting the Swarna Bharat Trust, of which Mr. Naidu’s daughter is the Managing Trustee, from paying various charges amounting to more than ₹2 crore to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority.
In his response, Mr. Naidu said the Telangana government had clarified that the Swarna Bharat Trust was not the first and the last to be given such exemption, providing details of several other such organisations, including those granted exemption by previous Congress governments in the State. The Telangana government had also clarified, he said, that there was nothing in law that prevented the State government from giving such an exemption.
Quashed allotment
Mr. Ramesh also pointed out that on 25 September 2004, the Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust, of which Mr. Naidu was Chairman, was allotted 20 acres of land in Bhopal, valued at a few hundred crores, but allotted by the BJP government for a one-time premium of ₹25 lakh and an annual rent of ₹1. The land use, he alleges, was changed from ‘residential’ and ‘forestry’ to ‘commercial’. Finally, he pointed out that the Supreme Court had quashed this allotment on April 6, 2011, in a PIL, and “passed stringent structures of ‘political favouritism’ and cancelled the allotment of the land”.
Mr. Naidu again does not deny the facts but explains: “In my capacity as the BJP national president, I was the ex-officio chairman of this trust and had no role in the allotment of land. Isn’t it a fact that several trusts were similarly allotted land by various governments, including the Congress governments?”
Finally, Mr. Ramesh accused Mr. Naidu of grabbing land reserved for the poor, destitute and landless in Andhra Pradesh's Nellore while he was an MLA: he added that the BJP leader was “forced” to return this plot of 4.95 acres of land after public protests and political pressure, while he was the BJP president in 2002.
This issue, Mr. Naidu claimed, was raised by local Congressmen as early as 2002. They even moved the courts, he said, stressing that the charges of land grabbing were dismissed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment