Apex court stops govt from selling residual stake in Hindustan Zinc

Krishnadas Rajagopal New Delhi | Updated on January 19, 2018

An aerial view of Hindustan Zinc's smelter factory at Visakhapatnam. — K.R. Deepak   -  BusinessLine


Questioning the government’s “hurry” to divest its remaining stake in Hindustan Zinc Ltd (HZL), the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to put on hold a plan to offload its 29 per cent share in the erstwhile public sector unit, now a subsidiary of Vedanta.

Majority stake in HZL, which deals with strategic minerals, was first divested to Vedanta in 2003. “What is the hurry to hand over valuable assets worth lakhs of crores? Without permission of the court, you can’t go for disinvestment,” a Bench led by Chief Justice TS Thakur told the government, represented by Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi.

Chief Justice Thakur insisted on status quo in the Hindustan Zinc disinvestment, while advising the government against bowing out of HZL. “Don’t do this and don’t go for the disinvestment. We will hear the matter. We will not allow you to sell,” Thakur said.

When Vedanta counsel and senior advocate CA Sundaram pointed out that HZL was a loss-making unit when his client took it over a decade-and-a-half ago and now the company has been transformed into a profitable venture, Thakur responded: “Yes, it was once loss-making and today it is making profit. So let the government also make some profit.”

The court made it clear that the restraint was not meant as a roadblock for Vedanta’s operations in HZL, but only a pause on the government’s plans to sell its residual stake till the court finally decides on the issue.

‘Illegal, arbitrary’

The Bench took serious note of a submission made by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner National Confederation of Officers’ Associations of Central Public Sector Undertakings, about alleged violations of law in the first disinvestment.

“Already there are allegations of you having committed a wrong and we would not allow a second transgression,” the court told the government.

The petition has alleged the proposed disinvestment to be “illegal, mala fide and arbitrary.”

‘Policy decision’

When pressed for the reason behind the move to disinvest, Rohatgi maintained that it was a policy decision. “What is the compulsion for you to disinvest? You can’t do this without amending the law as the company was formed as an Act of Parliament,” the court said, even as the Attorney-General submitted that parliamentary sanction was not required for disinvestment.

Published on January 19, 2016

Follow us on Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Linkedin. You can also download our Android App or IOS App.

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

You May Also Like