DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

No favours extended to Vadra: Hooda

Sirsa: Former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda said here on Friday that his government did not extend any undue favours to Congress president Sonia Gandhis soninlaw Robert Vadras company Skylark Hospitality Pvt Ltd during his term
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Former CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda addresses mediapersons at the residence of former minister Ranjit Singh (on Hooda’s right) in Sirsa on Friday. Tribune photo: Sanjeev Sharma
Advertisement

Sushil Manav

Tribune News Service

Sirsa, March 28

Advertisement

Former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda said here on Friday that his government did not extend any undue favours to Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra’s company Skylark Hospitality Pvt Ltd during his term.

Reacting to the CAG report tabed in the Haryana Assembly, Hooda said the report had not pointed out any irregularities and whatever observations in the report were being talked about were due to Manohar Lal Khattar Government’s refusal to reply to notices by the Principal Accountant-General (PAG), Haryana, due to politically motivated reasons.
Pointing to Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department, P Raghvendra Rao’s statement published in a section of the media that a 30-page reply to observations had been awaiting government’s approval, Hooda said had the Khattar Government responded to the PAG notices with true facts, the observations, which, he said were ex parte, would not have been made.
On the observation that Vadra’s company was allowed to earn huge, almost eight times net profit on investment, while the rules said that profits above 15 per cent should have accrued to the state exchequer, Hooda said the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, clearly stated that the rule applied to net profits exceeding 15 per cent after the completion of project while the project had not even started in Vadra’s case .
He said the observations about the violation of area norms were incorrect as the area under the internal circulation roads was always counted towards the total area.
The area falling under the sector roads was not considered towards licence and no area of the applicant (Vadra’s company) was falling under the sector roads which needed exclusion.
Hooda said the allegations of violation of the 50 per cent limit of the commercial belt were totally misplaced as the area falling under the sector roads of the earlier licensees was not to be counted in the 50 per cent limit.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper