HRY GOVT CANCELS REAL ESTATE LICENCE OF VADRA’S FIRM

CHANDIGARH: The Haryana government has cancelled a real estate development licence granted to Robert Vadra’s firm in 2008.

In 2012, Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited transferred the licence to develop a commercial colony in Gurugram to realty major DLF Retail Developer Limited for ₹58 crore.

The licence granted to Sky Light was cancelled as there was a dispute pertaining to the title of the land and the developer has not been able to undertake works even after 13 years, said K Makrand Pandurang, director, TCP, Haryana. The order was issued on March 9. HT assessed a copy on Monday.

Vadra’s lawyer Suman Khaitan didn’t respond to a request for comment. On April 6, DLF filed an appeal, challenging the cancellation order. inspect, conduct videography, and collect evidence regarding the alleged existence of idols of Hindu deities inside the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. The committee also complained that the Varanasi civil court order of Monday seemed to impose a complete ban on the entry of Muslims in the mosque premises and from offering namaz there.

The bench, however, did not entertain the request made repeatedly by senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, who represented the mosque managing committee, to suspend the proceedings before the Varanasi civil court until the top court decides the committee’s challenge to the validity of the survey.

“We have protected the spot where the Shivling was found. And we have clarified that this will not restrict the rights of Muslims. We think this is a balance...let us leave it at that... We are balancing everything. This is an interim arrangement,” the court told Ahmadi, who complained that the status quo has been disturbed by the order of the civil court.

Fixing the next hearing on May 19, the bench further noted that Hari Shankar Jain, the lawyer leading the suit on behalf of the five Hindu women petitioners in the case, could not make it to the proceedings on Tuesday due to a medical condition, and issued notices to the plaintiffs and the Uttar Pradesh government.

It added that the bench has clarified the ambit of the Varanasi court order of Monday to dispel all ambiguities since the Hindu petitioners had asked for several restrictions on access to Muslims inside the mosque complex.

Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared in the case for the UP government, clarifying the state was only acting as per the orders of the civil court, which directed the administration to protect the site where a Shivling was reported to be recovered. At the same time, the SG raised the issue of “law and order”, adding that the area where the Shivling has been reportedly found needs to be duly protected.

“We are not taking sides but there is something we must highlight as a state. There is a concern that the area where the Shivling has been reportedly found and somebody touches with feet, there could be a law-and-order issue,” contended Mehta.

His submissions were strongly opposed by Ahmadi. “I strongly object to the manner in

PROTECT SHIVLING AREA

which the suit is being proceeded with. What was the tearing hurry to seal the premises? You are changing the status quo by restricting access to any part of the property, including the wazu khana (ablution tank) where Muslims cleanse themselves before offering namaz. And this order of sealing was passed without hearing us, not upon a report from the advocate commissioner but when a plaintiff moved the trial court. Does this not show bias?” he argued.

The bench, however, told Ahmadi that only an interim arrangement is being put in place for the time being and that it expects all sides to cooperate. “We are aware of the sensitivities involved... This is a situation where everybody must co-operate,” it remarked.

At this point, Ahmadi urged the bench to stay the proceedings before the civil court but Mehta countered the plea, arguing that not only because the petitioner is not before the court but also since that such an order would only sensationalise everything.

Hours after the SC order, joint secretary of Anzuman Intezamia Masjid Committee SM Yasin said, “Around 200 people (Muslims) offered prayers in Gyanvapi mosque on Tuesday.”

On Monday, the Varanasi civil court ordered a section of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex sealed after the Hindu petitioners’ lawyer Hari Shankar Jain claimed a Shivling was spotted at the bottom of a tank during the survey. The civil judge directed the Varanasi district magistrate, its police commissioner and the Central Reserve Police Force to ensure security of the sealed area.

Muslim petitioners, however, said that the object recovered was a fountain, and that the civil court passed its order without hearing their version.

The crucial turn of event came a day before the mosque managing committee’s petition was to come up for its first hearing before the Supreme Court. In its appeal before the top court, the committee argued that the suit filed by the five Hindu women, demanding an unhindered right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal — a shrine for Hindu goddess Parvati located behind the western wall of the mosque complex, is barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

Challenging the April 21 order of the Allahabad high court allowing the survey, the petition added that the suit has the propensity of disturbing the communal harmony, warranting an intervention of the Supreme Court in the wake of the 2019 judgment on the Act.

The Act lays down that the character of a place of worship, as existing on August 15, 1947, shall not be altered. Only the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid dispute was kept out of the purview of this law. The 2019 Ayodhya verdict spelt out that the 1991 law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and in doing so, it speaks to the future by mandating that the character of a place of public worship shall be preserved and not be altered.

In its appeal, the mosque managing committee further told the top court that the suit filed by five women in 2021 is a “via media” to skirt the stay ordered by the high court in September 2021 relating to another 1991 suit, where the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was to conduct a survey.

When the hearing commenced on Tuesday, the bench told Ahmadi that it could direct the civil court to first decide the managing committee’s application for dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability. “We can issue a direction to the civil court to first decide your application under Order 7 Rule 11. You have raised this and we will say this should be decided first. The basic challenge to the proceedings before the trial court is under the Places of Worship Act. That’s the basis of your grievance. We can ask them to decide your application first,” it told Ahmadi.

But the senior lawyer pressed for a stay of the proceedings till the civil court could decide the committee’s application. “I want stay on all these orders. The civil judge’s order is first interdicted by the Act. Second, it is interdicted by the judgment of this court (in Ayodhya case), and lastly, it is interdicted by the Allahabad high court order which has also stayed a survey of the premises,” he argued.

At this point, the court looked for the lawyer for the Hindu petitioners. Advocate Ardhendumauli K Prasad, who was also appearing for the state government, however, informed the bench that Jain could not remain present in the court due to bad health.

SG Mehta said: “An associate of mine has received a message from Mr Jain’s son, Vishnu Shankar Jain, that his father had a cardiac problem and he had to be rushed to a hospital.”

The court deferred the hearing on this point and decided to make an interim arrangement till the matter could be heard next in the presence of the lawyer representing the Hindu women. that there is practically no base-effect — an artificial boost to annual growth numbers because of an abnormally low value in the previous period — at play in what is a very high, almost unprecedented wholesale inflation reading.

Such is the magnitude of momentum in wholesale prices at the moment that it is better understood by looking at absolute WPI levels. From a value of 100 in April 2011, it took WPI 115 months to reach the 125-mark in November 2020. WPI has made its journey from 125 to 150 (it stands at 151.9 in April 2022) in just 17 months.

What has led to this rapid rise in wholesale prices? The overall momentum is broad-based. Inflation has been growing in double digits for all of the three main subcategories of WPI: primary articles (22.6% weight), fuel and power (13.15% weight) and manufactured products (64.23% weight) since November 2021. However, the fuel and power sub-category has been showing a growth of more than 30% in every month since October 2021. The food sub-category (24.38% weight) of WPI, which includes both primary articles and manufactured food items, grew at 8.9% in April. Wholesale prices for wheat grew in double digits for the sixth consecutive month in April (10.7%), even though the pace seems to be slowing down.

The fact that food prices are lagging non-food prices also means that farmers are likely experiencing a worsening of terms of trade, or ratio of prices received and paid, at the moment. Experts believe that this does not bode well for rural demand. Policy decisions such as banning wheat exports could add to this possibility with little gains in controlling inflation.

“The strong action of the wheat export ban is a complementary fiscal step to monetary tightening, and we would not be surprised if even the MSP increase for summer crops is relatively modest as inflation objective dominates,” Samiran Chakraborty, chief economist, India, Citi Research, said in a research note dated May 16.

India is not the only nation seeing high inflation. Supply disruptions due to the pandemic; a sharp revival in global demand pressing on fragile supplies; and to top it all, a war in Europe have generated very strong inflationary tailwinds.

It is important to keep in mind that the WPI basket, unlike its CPI counterpart, is more representative of commodity markets facing producers rather than consumers. This means that the CPI and WPI numbers capture movements for a very different commodity basket.

WPI INFLATION