Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Before I come to the ATR, I would like to say that the JPC has then said what that these people did not look into . General Prakash Mani Tripathi and Shri Kirit Somaiya are as committed to this sentence as I am. I quote:

"Had these issues", that is the issues relating to capital and financial markets, "been taken up by the HLCC periodically, it would definitely have helped in minimising , if not averting altogether, the irregularities which have surfaced in the present scam. "

 Dr. Manmohan Singh put the HLCC in place. What does the ATR say in response to this? It is most shocking and amazing. The NDA’s ATR says:

"As per the present terms of reference, the HLCC is expected to consider only divergences in policies. "

 It is amazing! Dr. Manmohan Singh set up the HLCC. He then brought the mandate of the HLCC before the Parliament. They said that did not want the ATR of July 1994 and walked out of the House for 13 days. They forced Dr. Manmohan Singh to bring another ATR in December 1994. The poor man obliged. His chief innovative mechanism is the HLCC. It has everybody of significance in it. Then, it never met to discuss the most important part of its mandate. Instead of accepting that we made a huge mistake, instead of saying neithic zimmedari, instead of saying – Pradhan Manthri ji – prayaschit, what did they say? I quote:

The Report says at paragraph 8.79 and I quote:

"The Ministry of Finance did not adequately address itself to issues relating to the Mauritius route. "

 It says at paragraph 8.97 as follows:

"Misuse of this route appears to have been significantly responsible for market manipulations during the boom of 1999-2000 which led to the bust of 2001. There was no regulatory framework put in place by the Ministry. "

 There was no regulatory framework put in place by the Ministry. With the result, the SEBI said that regulation is RBI’s responsibility. The RBI said, "No, that is not our responsibility." The Governor, RBI said, "Of course, we could regulate it provided the Ministry had set in place a regulatory framework." Rs.15,000 crore of largely bogus money from characters like Ketan Parekh comes into this country and instead of regulating that inflow, the Minister throws up his hands and says there is a statutory regulator, and I am not responsible. Can this House accept it?

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR : Sir, with regard to the Calcutta Stock Exchange, the JPC … (Interruptions) I need your attention. With regard to Calcutta Stock Exchange, I would like to quote paragraph 6.19:

"The Committee are of the considered view that, at bottom, the payments crisis on CSE arose because the SEBI in consultation with the Ministry of Finance had permitted resumption of badla without arranging for curbing or regulating rampant off-market internal badla."

 I further quote:

"…that no one was interested in intervening when the going was good. "Now, I come to the Finance Minister’s reply on this issue to the Rajya Sabha Calling Attention Motion where three sentences are there. I am quoting what Finance Minister spoke in Rajya Sabha on 13.3.01. He says: