THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): Shri Sharad Anantrao Joshi. I hope, you will conclude within five minutes.


Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, so many hon. Members have spoken and everybody had a sad story to tell. Those seeking employment are unhappy. Those who have got the employment are unhappy. Pilots go on strike, doctors go on strike, and it is very difficult to find out who really deserves assistance and help. The Report of the Labour and Employment Ministry contains 245 pages; there are about 40 crores of employees in this country. At the rate of one page for six crores of people, the Chapter on the Unorganised Labour should have been containing, at least, 200-220 pages. Unfortunately, it contains only four pages. It is not that the space given is inadequate, but I would also like to point out, Sir, that the contents are really very, very hollow. The old power was that the best employment or the best way of life is agriculture, and trade comes second. And the worst possible style of life is employment. After independence, it is the employment which has become the most priced thing; the entire advantage goes to the organised sector, and this can be proved only by the free market that exists. I do not want to base myself on any argument, but there was a time when the gentlemen did not give their daughters in wedding, in marriage to people who were employees and who did not possess any land. Today, the situation is exactly the reverse. Those who are employees and those who get fixed salaries carry the maximum premium in the marriage market.

Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I have gone through the Chapter on Unorganised Sector, and I am going to talk, principally, on unorganised labour because that is where the real help is necessary. And what does the Chapter offer us? There are, firstly, the agricultural labourers, and there were unorganised labourers from other than the agricultural sector. Sir, in the case of agriculture, the Report tells us that they started with the model of the Kerala Labour Act which offered the people, which offered the agricultural labour weekly offs, monthly offs and annual offs, maternity leaves and even medical assistance and provident fund. I do not understand why our friends on the Left do not take advantage of their position in the UPA to force the Government to bring in that kind of an Act. Since I represent the farmers' movement, many people might be under the wrong impression that I would oppose any kind of additional benefits to the labour. I would like to use this occasion for saying that I would welcome such a step with one rider. The only rider is that if the cost of employment in the agriculture sector is increased, then the additional cost should be computed into the agricultural cost of production and should be taken into account while fixing the minimum support prices. If that condition is satisfied, I would welcome all kinds of improvement in the situation of the landless labourers.

Sir, about the unorganised labour in other sectors, in 1974, a scheme was implemented, and the scheme was sought to be implemented, but, actually, it did not succeed because there was no element of compulsion in that. So if you go along, you will find that what the Ministry has achieved for the real employee who deserves help is really a big zero. (Contd. by 3B)


SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI (CONTD.): The good thing that I can say to the Minister is--I know that he is a very kind-hearted person and enthusiastic about labour welfare--that child labour and bonded labour is going to be a very important issue, not, as Mr. Manoj Bhattacharya said, against globalisation, but it is this globalisation which is going to help you to solve the problem because the various certifying agencies insist on ensuring that the agriculture produce is not produced with the help of bonded labour or child labour. If it is so produced, the foreign countries would not accept those imports. So, it is the WTO which is going to force you to cure this malady of child labour and bonded labour. I would like to end by saying that the Report on the unorganised sector is very scanty and the performance is scantier still. Thank you very much. I have finished in four minutes. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P. J. KURIAN): Thank you, Mr. Joshi, for sticking to the time. That is good. The discussion is over. All Members have completed their speeches. The hon. Minister's reply will be on the next day.

Now, we will pass on to the Short Duration Discussion on the situation arising out of the procedure followed by the Government for restructuring of Delhi and Mumbai Airports and the taking up of the modernisation work of these two airports by the Airports Authority of India.







SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Sir, I stand to raise a discussion on the situation arising out of the procedure followed by the Government for restructuring of Delhi and Mumbai airports and the taking up of the modernisation work of these two airports by the Airports Authority of India.

Now, I want to make one thing very clear that there is some feeling about this particular issue of privatisation of Delhi and Mumbai airports as if this is a justiciable case because some case is being fought in Mumbai and Delhi High Courts. My issue has nothing to do with the bidding or whatever is happening on that. I have written a letter to the Prime Minister on 9th February wherein I had made it very clear that so far as this process is concerned, the privatisation of Mumbai and Delhi airports is concerned, and I quote:

"The AAI, Airports Authority of India, formed under an Act of Parliament, is under Parliamentary control and not solely under Executive control because Executive is accountable to the Parliament."

I have also stated in the same letter that certain decisions by the EGOM, I find, are not to be treated as acts of omission or commission and for this particular case of privatisation, I think, the Executive is accountable.

The whole idea of my discussion on the subject, and when I put an amendment to the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address, was only to say that these issues could not be treated only as justiciable. It is not necessary for me to have resorted to the judicial process as far as Parliament is concerned, because Executive is accountable to the Parliament. So, when I raise this discussion, this point should be specifically treated as the base. I am not going into the judicial process. I am not interested whether A, B or C, whosoever, is getting the bid for modernisation of the airports. My point is regarding the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament.

Sir, when this Airports Authority of India Act was passed in this House in 1994-95 -- the Bill was of 1994 -- what was stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons? I want to quote it. When this Parliament had passed an Act in 1994-95, there were two Airport Authorities, that is, the National Airports Authority and the International Airports Authority of India. The International Airports Authority of India comprised of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. This International Airports Authority of India and the National Airports Authority were merged through this Act and this came to be called as the Airports Authority of India. When the International Airports Authority of India comprising Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai was merged with the National Airports Authority, the Statement of Objects of the Bill, as placed in the Parliament, said this and I quote: (Contd. by 3C/VK)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (CONTD): "International airports are put to more intensive use and generate substantial revenues which accrue to International Airports Authority of India. Revenues of the National Authority of India are much less buoyant because a number of its airports do not have the commercial air service, whatsoever, while many others have only infrequent operations. The National Airports Authority has, therefore, not been able to generate adequate resources to meet the requirements of development and modernisation. To overcome this handicap and provide for closer integration in the management of airports and air traffic control, it has been found necessary to merge the International Airports Authority of India with the National Airports Authority of India." In 1995, the Parliament was told that it was necessary to merge Calcutta, Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai airports with the National Airports Authority of India so that more revenue comes and development of the Airports Authority of India and other airports can be done through this merging. This was done in 1995. The merging was done for what? Merging for revenue! Merging for what? Merging for closer integration! In those days, air traffic control used to be under the DGCA. It was under a separate authority. It was to be done for closer integration. In 1998, a decision was taken that some airports have to be leased, Delhi and Mumbai airports have to be taken out. It has not come to Parliament. There was a decision, some sort of announcement. In 1995, this decision was taken and by 1997, the merging and the whole thing were done. Now, it is not so fast. Disintegration, thanks to the hon. Minister, has become very fast. Formation of a company and everything is very fast, so far as disintegration is concerned. Integration took its time. In 1998, the merger, actually, was given a shape. In 1998, it was decided how to take out Delhi and Mumbai airports. Where was Parliament? How are you going to assure this House? How are you going to convince this House? I cannot understand it. I am speaking politically. In 1995, there was a Government led by the Congress Party. I can understand this was their decision. Even if the decision was changed by the NDA Government -- this process went on from 1998 to 2003, how to give on lease or joint venture or whatever it is -- ultimately, they took a decision in 2003 for giving that. How can the Government, which was there, say that whatever decision was taken in 1994 or 1995, that was wrong and the decision which the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government has taken that has to be treated as a ֮֯ ָ ָ , if that is the purpose, then the Government should tell it frankly. During the discussion on the President's Address, I said the same thing.

֚ : ֯ ֵ֟ .....

߯ ֕ : help ... (־֮֬) ֯ help ֻ, ֯ help , , ֯ Ӥ , ֕ Ӥ , help ֟

It is the Congress Party which has to speak specifically, because you had brought it. Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad was the Minister. You tell me; you justify it that how in 1995, a closer integration and revenue from these airports was necessary and today it is not. This is my first submission. This has to come to Parliament. The Parliament has to be convinced; otherwise, what is this? Why do you then blame Md. Bin Tuglak? The Capital was shifted, and same thing came back. In 1994-95, the International Airports Authority of India had to be merged and in 2003, it had to be demerged. At that time, integration of services and air traffic control, was necessary. Today, air traffic control will be separate and other things will be under another joint venture company. This is the basic point on which, I think, the Parliament has to be appraised.

The second point is about world-class airports. All of a sudden, these things are being talked about that world class airports have to be made. Here also the Parliament comes into the picture. When International Airports Authority of India was formed through the 1972 Act -- it means only these four airports, Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkatta -- ... (Contd. by 3D)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (contd.): ..the International Airports Authority's mission was, -- this is before Parliament -- and I quote: "To design, construct and efficiently manage international airports for providing service and facilities comparable to the highest international standards thereby ensuring maximum satisfaction to various users in a cost-effective manner." 72 ָ ꌙ , in 2004, when India is going through a war-type of economic power and it was being said that the Airports Authority of India could not make a world-class airport and that they would have to bring someone from outside, does it not mean that there was something seriously wrong somewhere? And, some channel fellows and the media were making a mockery of the whole thing. What is this? Sir, I have the Annual Report of the Airports Authority of India. What is the corporate mission? This Report is laid on the Table of both the Houses every year. If there is a change in the objective of the corporate mission of the Airports Authority of India, should it not have been placed in Parliament? In Parliament, we have got the Annual Report of the Airports Authority of India which says, "Its mission is, progress to excellence and customer satisfaction with world-class airports." If you have felt that the Airports Authority is not capable of putting up a world-class airport, you change it; you have to inform Parliament, "No; the Airports Authority of India cannot provide world-class airports." Now, what is the basis for this world-class airport? What is being taken as world class? If their services are not world class, what are the parameters for a world-class? And, why can't the Airports Authority of India achieve those parameters? The whole blame-game which was going on, saying that the Airports Authority of India has not been able to cater to the services, etc.; but, why was it not possible? I can show you hundreds of letters, from 1998 onwards; the capital works and whatever projects were to be taken up by the Airports Authority of India, these were not allowed to be taken up either in Delhi or in Mumbai. The explanation was that the leasing process, the privatisation process, was going to come. I can place these letters on the Table of the House. They have been written right from 2001 and 2002. The letters were coming from the Ministry to the Airports Authority of India not to take up construction jobs citing ߕ ֻ , ևև ֻ Right from 1997-98, you did not allow them to take up the jobs, and then, the whole machinery, the owner, is maligning the Airports Authority of India; the whole country is maligning the Airports Authority of India. Who is the owner and how did you manage the Airports Authority of India during the last six years, after this was merged? The Airports Authority of India was formed in 1994-95. For how many years, it was not having a full-time Chairman! Whose responsibility is this? In the last three years, I have counted the number of days, number of months, when there was not a full-time Chairman. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, was managing it. When you say that the world-class airports cannot be given by the Airports Authority of India, when you say that it has to be privatised, what do you want? Is it management or development? If you want better management, then, the responsibility should be borne out by the Ministry as well. I should say, your Joint Secretary, your Ministry, should also be privatised for better management. They could not manage it properly. Is the Joint Secretary not responsible for that? I am not saying of the bureaucrats. The question is, there was a conspiracy to see that the Airports Authority of India was not allowed to do these things unless it was privatised. This was the basic objective. If that was the objective, when this question of going in for this privatisation business was raised, two points were told by the Government as to why it has to be privatised or why there should be a joint venture. The first thing was money, that is, investment. We do not have the money. The Airports Authority of India does not have the money. The other part is management. When the Bill for leasing came out, at that time also, the Government was saying that the management was not up to the standard to give world-class services. Now I don't believe that. When I look at the way the Government has been acting now -- I have seen the hon. Minister's fast, expeditious way, how he is privatising, in spite of all the opposition, the opposition from the supporting parties, this and that... (Continued by 3E)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): ...if fifty per cent of the enthusiasm that he had shown in saying how fast-track projects can be taken up by the Airports Authority of India, had been demonstrated, it would have been possible. The only thing is that the commitment has changed. Had he shown that enthusiasm, this would have been possible.

Let me come to the management. Who is the management? Sir, the owner of the Airports Authority of India is the Government of India. It is supposed to be an autonomous authority. But if for works worth Rs.10 crores, works worth Rs.50 crores, the Ministry intervenes, then, how can the Ministry say that the AAI is not efficient? I do not know the system. But I can definitely say, if that is the criteria of how the management is going to be privatised for providing world-class services, then, tomorrow, there will be no Ministry left. I do not know how many Ministries will be left if you have the same reason for which the management of the Airports Authority of India is being privatised -- for providing world-class services. Ministers may be efficient. But the system does not work as per the management practices. Many of the offices, including this Parliament, may also have to be privatised because, maybe, these are not world-class by certain standards. So, what is world-class? I still believe that our Prime Minister is a world-class economist. But I do not know what is the parameter for a world-class economist. But to say that I cannot wait for a world-class airport -- whereas I can make a world-class metro; I can make world-class planes; I can make so many world-class things -- is what is bothering the employees of the Airports Authority of India. The Minister's perception that it is only their jobs that they are bothered about, is wrong. I have told, time and again, that is wrong. They want to be given a chance. The AAI has been trying. They did not get that chance in the last Government. They thought that they would get that chance in the new dispensation. This was not given and that is what is bothering the employees and all those professionals who have been involved in this.

Sir, so far as the money is concerned, how much money is being paid? What is the investment? The Airports Authority of India does not have money. As far as I know, the development plans that have been given for Delhi and Mumbai Airports are of Rs. 3000 crores and Rs. 5,000 crores -- for Delhi and Mumbai separately. But, how much money is being given by the private party? My calculation is that it is not more than Rs.500 to Rs.600 crores. What is he getting out of it? Five hundred crores are from the private party; Rs.200 crores are from the AAI and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,300 crores is coming as debt from Government of India's funding agencies. The SBI, the ICICI, etc. are all coming forward with funds. I had been telling the Prime Minister in so many letters that if the fund was the problem, it could be 70:30; 30 per cent is the equity, 70 per cent is the debt. The money would come from financial institutions. Who has put the money in Enron's case or Dhabol's case? Indian banks and financial institutions are raising the funds. Government institutions would give Rs. 2300 to Rs.2500 crores.. And if a private company, with a reserve of Rs. 62.5 crores or Rs. 68.5 crores, can borrow to the extent of Rs. 2300 crores, I do not know the reason why the Airports Authority of India, with a reserve of Rs. 3000 crore, can't get the money for modernisation, if not of Delhi and Mumbai airports, and if not of non-metro airports, of other airports. What is the problem? The Airports Authority had its Alternate Review Committee Report. The Airports Authority has made a report based on the Employees' Forums programme. They themselves say that they can borrow Rs. 9500 crores from the market; they can do the modernisation of both, Delhi and Mumbai, and 35 other non-metro airports. Why should they not be allowed to do it? Sir, I do not find any reason why these two airports need to be privatised for getting world-class service. This is so far as the investment and management part is concerned. I am sorry to say, Sir, that the reason that the Ministry has given as to why this cannot be done by the Airport Authority -- I am referring to Question No. 1478 in this House, dated 07.03.2006 -- is this. There was a question wherein it was asked whether an Alternate Plan Review Committee was constituted by the Chairman, Airports Authority of India, to examine the modernisation proposal of Mumbai and Delhi Airports, prepared by the AAI Employees' Forum. (Contd. by 3F/TDB)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (CONTD.): What is the outline of the recommendation of the Report? This Report by seven senior executives of the Airports Authority of India was given on 1st December, 2005. They said, and I quote: "This can be acceptable. They can do this job along with 35 non-Metro airports by borrowing money, with certain changes, with certain other recommendations." We asked, why is it not acceptable to you? The Minister says that if the Airports Authority of India has to undertake modernisation on its own, it requires, I quote what the Minister says, "it requires considerable structural changes in the manpower system of the Airports Authority of India". Yes, if it requires structural changes in the manpower of the Airports Authority of India, why can't it be examined? For making a world-class airport, they have to make certain changes in the manpower system. Simultaneously, procedural changes are also required in the present system, in methods being followed in the Airports Authority of India for expeditious decisions and executions. So, you tell whether there should be two systems in the Airports Authority of India. For Mumbai and Delhi, expeditious decisions are to be taken, and that is not the system; the system does not permit that. But, what will happen to the remaining airports of the Airports Authority of India? If there is a need for expeditious decision-making, for what you call, some structural changes in manpower, it is okay. Accept it, and make the changes. If Metro has done some changes, the way you are talking of very fast track privatisation route, in the same way, fast track restructuring route can be adapted for getting the projects expeditiously done by the airports. I don't know what is the reason for this. There is no reason at all, unless there is some other reason.

Sir, my next point is, so far as the Airports Authority of India is concerned, after Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Bangalore -- in Hyderabad also the airport has to be closed down so that the private airport runs -- it is as good as the Rural Electrification Corporation in the power sector. They are earning a profit of Rs.350 crores. Last year, 2003-04, what are the profit figures? For Mumbai airport, Rs.342 crores; Delhi, Rs.272 crores; Chennai, Rs.63 crores; Kolkata, Rs.40 crores; Bangalore, Rs.36 crores; and Hyderabad, Rs.14 crores. Only 11 airports are running on profit. On this, other 124 airports are being run. If you take away these six airports, whatever theory is being put, the revenue will be the same; the Airports Authority of India will not lose, it is only centred around one, and that is the major point where I told the Prime Minister, 'I scent a scam'. I repeat it here. The major revenue which will come extra is not for philanthropic purpose that some private party is coming, taking these airports on lease and give the same money to the Government of India so that the airports run and he does not incur losses. He will have the profit. Where is the profit? In the tender condition itself, there is a mention of non-aeronautical and aeronautical. So far as the world-class business is concerned; it has got nothing to do with the aeronautical services. The whole major point of operation is non-aeronautical. In the conditions also, you will find that the minimum condition they have put is 40 per cent of the revenue or 37 per cent will be non-aeronautical. What is the non-aeronautical revenue of the Airports Authority of India right now, excluding cargo charges? I want to know that. It will be much less. Now, why is it much less? It is because you have not allowed them to use the land of the airports. This 5000 acres of land, 2000 acres in Delhi and 500 acres in Mumbai, are the major sources of earning revenue, not by any world-class management, it is simply you did not allow the AAI to use that land. Now, you are going to allow them to use the other land. This land money will come and everything is centred around that. With Rs.200 crores or Rs.400 crores, someone is taking over these airports, having this whole land, I don't know what is the cost of the land. ָ ָ ֋ꅠ ֵ֤ ֤ ָ֮ פ - ִֻ ֮ ֮ ִ և , No one knows about it. Only on this land business, these two airports are being handed-over. If these airports go -- Sir, they may not get any revenue from the Hyderabad Airport, because if the Greenfield Airport comes, the new airport, the first condition is, you have to close down this -- how much revenue will you get? (Contd. by 3g)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (contd.): So, whatever be the profit, you are not going to get anything. From Bangalore also you are not going to get anything. It is simply as it is. Under no stretch of imagination you can understand that the Airport Authority of India can develop without this major revenue centre. For that, you do not require a Cabinet economics! Sir, by saying that, I think, Parliament has to be informed on this. Without the Parliamentary sanction, such a change cannot occur. I have only two points to say before I go. First is, I want this to be reviewed. Second point is, it is a serious point and I do not have personal experience and the Minister has got. I have got high regards for him, a world class Minister.

I am not hiding anything. I am sorry to say that I pointed this out but the Prime Minister did not reply. The Empowered Group of Ministers, ֓ When there was some talk, I said if Mr. Praful Patel is not there, let the Prime Minister come and reply. "No, there is a business allocation and the Minister concerned only should reply" is the reply. Why cannot the Chairman of Empowered Group of Ministers come and reply? No. It is okay, in the business allocation he is the Minister, he has to reply. If that is so, if that is the business allocation, I have not been a Minister, others are there and, I think, they would be able to reply. Then, under what authority of business allocation, the Finance Minister goes abroad, on his way to Davos declares, after fifteen days is asked, "Are there requests or proposals? Will the FDIs be there to Kolkata and Chennai?", the Finance Minister talks, "Whatever is going to be done about Kolkata and Chennai is under the Airport Authority of India." Is it under that allocation of business? Who has given that authority? If that is the case, then the Finance Minister should come here and reply. Why this arises is, a bidder has not been given a bid. Someone else has got that bid. Okay, it happens. A bid is there, one fellow would get and another would not get. Is it necessary for the Finance Minister to go and tell from Chennai, "the bidders who have not got the bid should not bother, Kolkata and Chennai are coming, they may get"? You should not take interest whether 'X' gets the bid or 'Y' gets the bid here; it will be as per the rules, it is okay. Why should the Finance Minister say all these things? If the Chairman of Empowered Group of Ministers on TV can assert or defend these decisions so far as the airports are concerned, why cannot he come to Parliament and reply on the same? If he is a part of the Cabinet, if the Cabinet decision is justifiable, I can understand that. But under what part of Cabinet rules he can take decisions of the other Ministry and go on declaring that?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Collective responsibility!

SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE: Okay, the collective responsibility can come in the Parliament too. But, strangely, it is only for TV channels, and when you go to Davos! But the collective responsibility will not come here! How can he reply this! How can he reply when I say that the Empowered Group of Ministers does not have the power!

Sir, the terms of reference of the Empowered Group of Ministers is only for approval, it is only for rejection, whichever Minister he may be. Mr. Arun Jaitley may be a big lawyer. But can he make his inputs in a Government document, a document where a specification has to be made when the eligibility criteria is changed? I am not going into the judicial process. I am only on the accountability of the Executive to Parliament. Is it for a Minister or a Group of Ministers to change the eligibility criteria? As far as I know, a Minister or a Group of Ministers cannot give any additional input. He can approve; a committee for tendering can be fixed. He can approve, he can reject, he can ask them to revalue, he can ask them to change the specification, and approve the specification. But can a Minister make the specifications, eligibility criteria to be changed? It is a Pandora's box. Why did we want the Prime Minister to reply? Because, you are opening the Pandora's box. Tomorrow you do not blame if the Railway Minister changes the thickness of the sleeper. It may be Rs.500 crores procurement. He may say, it is an emergency! ׮ֵ Ӥ ֋, ß֮ ֣ ֋, ָ ևև օ ûָ߯ ֺ , Ӥ ף , Can the decision be taken by the Minister or a Group of Ministers? I have not been given a reply by the Prime Minister, so far. I have failed in getting a reply. I am charging that the Empowered Group of Ministers has gone beyond its terms of reference by changing the eligibility criteria.

Sir, the hon. Ministers are trustees. They are not the owners of a company. They are not running a business. They cannot directly intervene. They are the trustees. Somehow, I feel, this is a scam; if not, what else can be a scam? The consultant appointed by the Airport Authority of India had met some Ministers without the presence of the Airport Authority of India or the other Ministers. I think, it is quite objectionable. (Contd. by 3h/kls)


SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (CONTD): I have written to the Prime Minister. I have not got any reply. I cannot get a reply on all these issues from the Prime Minister. We have given a note so far as our party is concerned. Even the Left Parties have sent a note as to why you oppose it. If we do not get a reply there, I have to be fed by these young boys who do not know what is the difference between an airport and a railway station. I do not want the Government ask means that the channels will go and show these toilets of airports. Before that situation comes, I submit that toilet is not the only indication of India's professional expertise. It is an insult to the professional efficiency of that organisation. ß֮ ӕ׮ֵ ֻ ֮ ꅠ ß֮ ֻ ֱ ꅠ ֻ פ-פ ָ ִֻ That is not the way of doing it. I again say that the employees, workers, engineers and all other members of the airports told the Prime Minister in my presence, Sir, ו֋

From 1997, please give us a chance. Give them autonomy, sign an MoU with the Airports Authority that within 15 months or 18 months you have to do it, further the conditions. Give them a chance. If they cannot, then I can say. But without giving them a chance, you cannot indict or malign your own product by your own means while privatising. I am sorry, Sir, the Tripartite Committee which has been formed, it is supposed to go through the restructuring report. You have made a Tripartite Committee where the restructuring report or restructuring proposals of the Airports Authority will be discussed. Now it is being told that if Delhi and Mumbai are not included, ֮ ևָև ? Our main problem is with Delhi and Mumbai. Unless that report comes, no decision should be taken, or the fast track that is being adopted. If they want to have that fast track, the opposition will also be fast track. All of a sudden in a sudden day-night, it will find the name of the company is changed that will not be allowed. I request the Government again to go through it. I find again at the end a scam so far as land is concerned. I am saying this will be a big issue. So far as authority of Empowered Group of Ministers going beyond is concerned, a precedent is being made that a Minister or a Group of Ministers whosoever it is, are changing the bidding eligibility criteria. Tomorrow, anyone can do it, right from the Minister up to a Chief Engineer. A Tender Committee or whatever recommendations come, a Chief Engineer will say, "I do not mind, change the specifications." This cannot be done. This is absolutely irregular. I want that the Parliament must be apprised of this. This discussion is not going to end here unless a suitable reply comes from the Government. Thank you. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.J. KURIAN): Next speaker is Mr. Jai Parkash. Aggarwal. But before that, I would like to know whether the House agrees to allow Kumari Selja to make a statement just now because she has to go to Lok Sabha. If the House so agrees, I will allow her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, Sir. Agreed.


THE MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) IN THE MINISTRY OF URBAN EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION (KUMARI SELJA): Sir, I beg to lay a statement regarding the "Status of implementation of recommendations contained in the Sixth and Eleventh Report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Urban Development.' (Ends)



ֵ ֿ Ͼֻ (™ߵ ֮֕֬ , פ) : ֳ֬ , ߯ ֕ , וִ ָ ֋ ָ, ֕ ֜ ׮ֵ ָ פ 㴲և ָ Ùוֵ ָ ֨ ָ ׮ֵ ׸Ù ֟ ֜ , ֤ ֻ ֟ ָ ßֻ , ֛-֛ ׮ֵ ֣ ֣ և ָև ֮ ֋ ׮ֵ ָ ֲֻ ֕ 20-30 ֻ ߔ ? ֮ ״ֻօ ֕ 20 ֻ , ߣ ևԯ ָ , ו֮ ִ ׻ֵ ֵ , ׯ֔ 10 ֻ ָ֤֮ ָ ֋ -- ִֻֻ ָ, ָ, ֯ ָ, ߮ ӑև ָ, ؕ ָ פ ׻֋ ֕ ֺ ֟ ָ Ùוֵ ָ , ֛ԇ֮ ꅠ ('3J/SCH' ָ ָ)


ֵ ֿ Ͼֻ (֟): әֻ֮ Ù ָ ֛ ֮ ֋ ֲ ָ ִָ ֙ ֵ פ ׯ֙ , 㴲և ָ ٿֵֻ ׯ֙ ֮ Ù ׻֋ ִ֟ ֕ ָ ԇ֮ ֻ ׻ֵ ֵ , ׌ ֟ և ӡ ־ֲ , ֛ ֕ ֮ ָ ԇ֮ ֺ ? ָ-ָ և ָ ָ ָָ֤ ֋, ֵ ֋, , ׌ כױ ָ , և ָ ß֮ , ִ֟ ֟, ֵ֤ ָ ֮ ֮ פօ ֕ ָ ׮ֵ ָ ָ , ߔ ֕ ָ ևև֮ ֋ә ָ ֮ ֣ ߴ , ß֮ ִ ߓ ֋, ֕ ֋ ֮ ֮ ֕ פ , ֮֮ ׻֋ ָ

ָ ߕ ߕ ֣ ָ ֜ ׻֋ ָ ָ ֮ Ù ֟ ִ ֕ ֮ ֋߅ ׌ ֟, , ־ֲ פ , ֕ ֜ ׻֋, ׸Ù ֮ ׻֋, ױ ֮֜ ׻֋ ֺ ֮ ԇ֮ ֣-֣ ֛ , ßָ ָ ׾ , ָ ֮ ׾֬֋ , ָ ָ֮

߮ ו ִֵ ԇ֮ ־ֻ ֵ , ֲ ꌿ֮ , ֲ ׸ כ ֱֻ כÙ֮ օ כÙ֮ , ߲֮ 200 250 ֤ ꅠ ә , ָ , Ùև ״ֻ , Ùև ֣ פօ ԇ֮ ׻֋, ו ָ ߸ և ו ָ ֛֮ ׿ֿ և ß ԇ֮ , Ӥ , ֱֻ , ָָ ֛ ֲָß ֮ ֻ , ׮ֻ פ ֋, ִ֟ ו ָ ָ פ ֋ ו ָ ֟ և, ֟ ָ ֮ , ָ פ ֋ ָ ߴ ӡ ָ כ ֟֋ ָ ־ ֋օ 60% ׻֋ , և ֮ , ֤ ֓ ֋, ָ ָ ֋, ָ ßֻ օ ׸ כ ִ כև ֵ , Ù, ә ꋴ ִ , ߅ ֮ ֮ ߵ֟ ߅

ִ ֯ ֤ פ֮ ֲ ߯ߋ ֵ֓, ָ ϤԮ և ״׮Ù ә߮ פ ֮ ֮ օ

ָ, ӡ ֮֮ և׿ֵֻ ֮ ? և ֮ ֮, և׿ֵֻ ֮ ֻ ו ֵ֤ , ֵ֤ ׌ -׌ ̤֕ ־ ԓָ ִ , ָ ֋, ֻ ֋, ֌ ״ֻ֟ , ֟ ֋? ֮֮ ԇ֮ ֤ ױ ֜, ֣-֣ ָ ֮ ֜? MCM/3k ָ ֿ:


ֵ ֿ Ͼֻ (֟) : ו֮֟ ִ , ױ ֯ꌙ , ֣ ױ ֜, ֮ ֮ ? ֮֮ ִ ָ , ָ ֯ ִ֟ ױ ֜, ָ և ֋, ԇ֮ , ִ ״ֻ? ָ, ָ , ֯ ִָ, Ù ֕ ָ ׾֬ , ָ և ֟ ׻֙ ״ֻ֟ , ֣ ׻֙ , ֕ ? ֟ ֻ Ù ָ ָ ß ?ˠ ִ֟ ֻ ׻ֵ ֵ , ֻ , פ ֺ , ׮ֵ ֕ , ֕ , ָ ָ ָ - ָ ָ ל ָ ֮ , әֻ֮ ָ ֮ ֟ ֮ ߔ ֕ ֿ ֮ ־ֻ ֋ , ӡ ־ֲ ֺ ꅠ (ִ֯)

ָ ֤ (ײָ) : ֳ֬ , ߯ ֕ ֟ , ֮ օ ־ֻ ֮ ֮ ӳ߸ ׻֋ כ ִ ֌ ֵ ָ ׸ , ֮֟ ײ  ו֮ , ָ ֣׸ ִָ ָ 44 ָ ִ߮ ׯ֔ 50 ֮ 126 ָ ֮֋ ֲ׻ֵ֟ ָ ־ֻ , ֮ ָ ֮֋ ָ ֣׸ ߮ ָ ׸־ פ ָ ֣׸ ו ֕ פ ֵ ו ָ ־ֻ ֵ ֵ, ו֮ ־ֻ ן ֌ ֟ ӓ ָ ֓ ִ߮ ָ™ 㴲և ָ ֚ ָ֓ ִ߮ ו֮ ׸־ 380 ָ ֣׸ ߮ ָ ־ֻ ִ , ִ ׌֙ ꅠ פ ָ ִ߮ ֳ֠ 㴲և ָ ֣׸ ִ߮ , ִ߮ ߮ ׻ ָ ִ߮ , וִ 82 ָ ֤֕ ִ ִ Ùֱ : ָ Ͼֻ ׾ ִ פ ָ ָ ָ ֬׮ , ԇ , ԇ ԇ ߔ ևև , և ֮֟ ָ ױ ֺ ߔ , ӡ (3L ָ ֿ:)


ָ ֤ (֟) : ֻ ִ߮ ׻֋ - ֟ ? , ׻֋ ִ , פ ֟ ֜, ֟ ֛֟ ֮, ֟ ֺ ߅ ִ߮ , ָ ֛ԇ֮ ֵ ֿ Ͼֻ ׮ֵ ָ , ָ ָ ֮֮ ֟ ֟ ֬׮ , ֛ԇ֮ , ֻ ָ ? 70 ֤ , ֳ 32 , ָ߲ ߓ ׮ֵ ֲ ֤ Ӭ , ֲ ֤ ָ , ֲ ֤ ֮ ֻ ָ , ֲ ֤ ß֮ ׾ ׮ֵ , ִ ר ׾־ ֮֟ ָ ֛ ? ֲ֕ , ֛ , ִ ֮֜ ִ ָ ֮ ֵ ? ֯ ֕ ֛ ָ ׳ֵ֮ ָ ָ ֵֻ , ֯ ֲ֤ , , ָ ִָ ִ , 20-22 ִֻֻ ֵ, ֲ֕ ֵ , ָ ֲ֕ , ִ ֮ , ֮ ֲ֕ ֮ ֲ֕ ֵ, ֲ֕ ֮ ֵ ? ֮֯ פ 㴲և ָ, ֲֻ֟ ל, ֲ ָ , ֓ ָ פ, ֓ ֵ? פ֮ ָ ? - ׸Ù ֯ פ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ? ִ֕ ֮ ׻֋ ִ֕ ֮֮ ָ ו֮ ׻ֵ ֻ , ִ, ָ ֮ ִ, ָ ִ ֯ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ֯ 㴲և ָ ֮ ׻֋ , ֯ ֬׮ ֮ ׻֋ פ ֮ ׻֋ , ָ ֯-֤ ָ֤֮ , ו֮ פ ֵ֮, ׻ֵ ֻ , ֮ ׻֋ ִ֕ ֟־ ֵֿ , ֮ ׻֋ ֟ ײֻ ֻ ֟ , ִ֮ , , , ֯ ߚ ֣֯֯ ֛ ֕ ָ ֬׮, ֛ԇ, ߕ ֛ԇ֮ ? ֛ԇ ֠ * ? ׾ֻ ׾֋֮ ״׮Ù , - ߓ֛ ֻ ֮ , ֮֮ ? ֮ ֯ ֻ ֆ, ֻ ֟ֆ ל ָ ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֮ ̴֕ : כ ևخ ֵօ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ ֤ : , ևخ ֵ , פ ֵ פ ֵ, ֯ ׻֋ ֵ ֯ ևخ ֯֠ ֟ ֻ , ֮ , ׻֋ פօ ֵ , ֲֻ֟ ֮ ָ ֵꅠ ָ ֟ ֮֯ ֛ԇ֮ ־ֻ ֵ


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

ױ ֤֕ ָ ֛֠ * ֵ֓ ֵ, ׮Ù ֙ , ߠ * ֵ ָ ָ ָ ָ ֻ ӛ פօ ִ ֵ ֤֕ Ӥ֮ , ֤֕ Ӥ֮ ״׮Ù ״׮Ù ֻ ָ ָ ֤֕ ִ , ֕ , ׮ֵ֮ , ֳָ ֵ ֤֕ ֻ ָ , ױ פ Ӥ , Ӥ , Ӥ , פ ? - פ פ ֵ, - ָ ׸ , ִ ֲ , ָ ? - ָ ׸ ָ , ָ ׸ ־ ֮ , ָ ? - ߕ ֯ ? ֯ ? ֯ ו֮ ׮ֵ , ֮ ֛ ֟ ? ָ ׸ ֟ ִ֮ ָ֕ ֻ ָ ׸ 126 ָ ֵ֮ , ָ ֬׮ ׻֋ ו֋ ָ ߕ ָ ֟, ߯ ֕ ו ָ ֮ ָ ־ֻ ֛ , ָ ֮ , ֮ ָ ևԾ , (3 ָ ָ)


ָ ֤ (֟) : ָ ִ֮ ֺ כև־Ù ו ָ ָ ֮֟ ָ֕ ϱ , ֯ ָ ָ ױ ו֮ ֣ ָ ָ , ֮ ֯ ֟ - ֯ ֻ פ - ֕ ֯ ֤ ֟

ϱ ֙ : ֯ ֛

ָ ֤ : ֛ - ָ ֤ ֟ , ֮ - ֯ ֤ ֮ ֯ ֣ , ߔ ֻ ֋ ׸ , ֋ , ֱ ֮ ָ ֛ , ֲ ָ ֋


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

ϱ ֙ : ָ , ֯ ֮ ֋

ָ ֤ : ֮ ׮ֵ ֲ ߕ ֟ פ ? ֮ ֺ Ͼֻ ֛ ֯ Ԯ ֮֋ - ֤ 32 ٻִֵ ׮ֵ ֋ ֮ ֟ ֲ֕ ׮ֵ ֻ ֻ ָ ֵ ֵօ ָ ָ ֯ ֓ ? ֮ ָ ׸ , ׯ֔ 52 ã, ו֮ ֯ ׻ֵ, ֋ כ׾֛ פ, ã ו ָ ָ - ? ִ֮ ߮ ָ , ֱ߮߻ ָ, ו ִ Nedumbassery , ֟ , ָ ֋, ֯ ֋, ֙ ָ ֮ ו ָ ߲֮ 700 ֵ ָ ֓ ֛ , Ӥ פ 70 ֵ ..(־֮֬)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIAN): It is now running on profit. ...(Interruptions)... Nedumbassery ָ ױ ֻ

SHRI SHARAD YADAV: I am sorry, Sir, you have not heard me. ױ ֺ ָ ׸ 70 ֋ ָ ָ Ӥ ֵ, ֯ , ꓓ߮ ֻ, ֯ ָ ָ , ָ ׸ ֓ ? ִ ߓ ꮵ әָ ? ֵ ׿ֿ ꮵ әָ ִ ֟ , ֮ ֵ֮, ֮ ָ ֮ ױ ֻ ױ 11 , ֮֟ ו֮ ִ ֵ֟ , 11 ָ ױ ֯ ֟ , ߮ ֻ ߮ ױ օ ߮ ֕ ָ ֮ , ָ ߴ֟ ָ, ָ ׸ ߴ֟ ָ ֮ ָ ֤֕ ׻ֵօ ֳ ֤֕ , ֲ ֱ ֵ 70 ֵ ָ ֵ ԇ ׻֋ ֮ ֵ ָ ׸ ? ֮ "֯ ָ" - ָ ֮ ֯ և ֻ ֟ ׻֋? ִ - - ָ פև ֛ ֯ ֻ , -߮ ֤ օ ֻ ֵ, Ӆ ֮, ֻ ָ ױ ױ ֲ֤ ָ ױ ָ ߲ ߮-ָ ֋ ֵ֤ - ֵ 15 ֋ ױ 75 ֋ י ꮵ ֻ 40 ױ , ֲ ֮ ֮ ֋օ ָ ߮ ױ ֻ ָ ׸ , և ֣ ֻ ֋ ֟ , ֮ ֱ߮߻ ָ ֮֮ ׻֋ ֮֯ ߮ ֟ ֯ ֟ - ֮ ִ֮ և օ ָ ߕ ָ ߓ ֮ ֛օ (3 ָ ֿ:)