| Author | Message | ||
     Semasimham Junior Artist Username: Semasimham Post Number: 203 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 171.159.192.10 Rating: N/A |
vokka mukka lo seppandi Rajusk mi pakulata dheniki anti coruption aa ? leka anti Jagan/YSR ? why ? chala sarlu chusanu mi kasi ...just trying to find out rationale behind this strong hatred against corruption anukunte bochedu vunnai ee selective yedupu venuka vunna karanm yendhi ani Rajasa yodha Rajasekhara Johar Johar http://www.ted.com/talks/ananda_shankar_jayant_fights_cancer_with_a_dance.html smarasimha my old id | ||
| Rajusk Megastar Username: Rajusk Post Number: 23733 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 24.185.0.74 Rating: |
The counter-affidavit filed by senior bureaucrat K. Ratna Prabha in the Supreme Court in the controversial 26 GOs case has clearly exposed the then Council of Ministers led by Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. The affidavit also proved wrong the theory floated by leaders like PCC chief Botsa Satyanarayana that YSRâs Cabinet took all right decisions and was not accountable for the âunderhand dealings by Kadapa MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy with the companies that got certain benefits from the stateâ. Ms Ratna Prabha was among the bureaucrats and ministers who received notices from the SC in a case filed by a Nellore advocate, questioning the validity of the GOs and seeking extension of the probe into the role of ministers and bureaucrats who issued the orders. The affidavit made it clear that the Cabinet went ahead and exempted Ramky Estates and Farms from paying stamp duty and registration fee for the proposed 750-acre integrated township in Srinagar near the international airport, despite stiff resistance from the official, a benefit of about `15 crore to the company. Initially, the erstwhile HUDA mooted the proposal of exemption and the file was circulated to the stamps and registration department. Ms Ratna Prabha, who was then principal secretary of the department, made an observation that the integrated township, unlike industrial projects or SEZs, did not create any employment nor attracted FDI.She recommended that the company should not be given any exemption as the definition of project for public purpose may not fit for it. She also cautioned that the move would result in huge loss of revenue to the exchequer. The proposal was, however, put before the Cabinet by the municipal administration department and the former gave approval for exemption, ignoring the recommendation made by the bureaucrat. |
