Brewery challenge: CM breaks silence, Chennithala not convinced

Mail This Article
Thiruvananthapuram: Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's attempt to give a utilitarian gloss to the brewery decision has been rejected by opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala.
The chief minister, in his first public response in the brewery controversy, said that new breweries and bottling units would reduce the state's dependence on liquor companies outside the state. The opposition leader, however, stuck to the charge that the chief minister himself was the prime accused in what he has termed a 'corruption scandal.' “It was the chief minister himself who had picked his favourites and granted them sanction without discussing it within the LDF or the Cabinet,” Chennithala said in response to the chief minister's explanation.
The chief minister emphasised the advantages of the government's decision. “As it stands, the Beverages Corporation sources eight per cent of its IMFL needs and 40 per cent of its beer requirements from companies outside the state. Once the new units become operational, the BEVCO will source from within the state. This will of course hurt liquor companies outside the state,” the chief minister said.
In a sarcastic vein, the chief minister said that the opposition leader seemed to have by now realised the gains. “He has now send me a letter saying he is in favour of reducing liquor imports,” Vijayan said.
A question of principle
The chief minister also stressed the oft-repeated LDF argument that only an in-principle nod was given. “The licenses will be issued only after various departments conduct their inspections,” the chief minister said.
Chennithala questioned the 'in-principle' argument. “Is there a provision for in-principle sanction in Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules 1975 and Brewery Rules 1967,” he asked. “Even the order granting sanction has no mention of in-principle sanction,” he said. Chennithala said the order was nothing but an attempt to grant licenses to the companies of the chief minister's choice.
“This sanction is the crucial aspect. The rest, the inspections to be carried out by departments, are mere technicalities. If the unit satisfies the conditions laid down in the rules, it will automatically get the sanction,” the opposition leader said. Chennithala said that even if the excise commissioner refused the license after the inspections, a unit that had already secured the sanction can go to court.
“This was how a unit that was given sanction in 1998 during E K Nayanar's term was issued a license in 2003, when Antony was in power,” Chennithala said. The chief minister had earlier held up the license issued in 2003 to counter the opposition charge that no new licenses were issued after 1999. Chennithala's argument was that once the sanction was given, whether in-principle or not, the decision was a fait accompli.
Incomplete applications
The chief minister said all sanctions were granted as per norms. When he was told that some of the decisions were allegedly hasty, the chief minister refused to be drawn into a detailed comment. “I don't think such decisions can be taken in a day or two,” he said.
Chennithala but said all the four sanctions were steeped in mystery. “In two of the cases, the applications had not even stated the location of the proposed units. An application, if it is filed according to norms, should have the plan sketch of the site, its survey number, details of the building and machinery involved,” the opposition leader said.
He said that KINFRA's role was also suspect. “The land has been allotted by the general manager (projects), who happens to be the son of a prominent CPM leader. What I have gathered is that this man has no power to accord such a sanction. The application has to be received by the managing director, and the allotment has to be done by the general manager (business development). Even the Ernakulam District Industrial Committee has been kept in the dark,” he said.
The ghost of 1999
The chief minister also argued that the 1999 order (issued by the the taxes principal secretary Vinod Rai) had been wrongly interpreted. He said the order, issued on September 29, 1999, had taken three major decisions. One, there was no need to consider the 100-odd applications that had been submitted for starting new units. Two, the application of Mannam Sugar Mill can be accepted. Three, if existing distilleries wanted to augment their capacity it can be allowed on the basis of very stringent conditions.
“How can this be interpreted as saying that no new units should be sanctioned in future,” the chief minister asked. “The point the order made was that only suitable units need to be given sanction. That was how Mannam Sugar Mill got the nod,” he added. Further, he said that the 1999 order could not be linked to breweries. “The order had no mention of breweries,” he said.
Chennithala said that the chief minister's argument that the 1999 order was a time-specific one was a classic case of deception. “Many governments, including that of the LDF, had filed affidavits in both the High Court and the Supreme Court saying that the 1999 order was government policy. Even the orders received from the courts were based on the 1999 order,” Chennithala said. “The chief minister should have at least examined the affidavits filed by the governments in the courts during the last 15 years. It was during the last LDF government, when P K Gurudasan was excise minister, that the government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that the 1999 order was government policy,” he said.
Chennithala argued that even the note excise commissioner Rishi Raj Singh sent to the government (when the issue of granting sanction to Sree Chakra Distilleries came up) had stated that the 1999 order was existing government policy. “He had even written that the application could be considered after the 1999 order was revised,” Chennithala said. The opposition leader also said that it was on the basis of his order that alternating governments during the last 19 years had refused sanction for new distilleries.
Backroom deals
The opposition leader had also questioned the secrecy surrounding the sanction of new units. The chief minister, repeating what was earlier stated by Excise Minister T P Ramakrishnan, said that never had such a move been advertised through newspapers or through a public notice. “Applications are not even invited. The government acts on the applications that are submitted before it,” the chief minister said.
Chennithala then wanted to know why only a handful of people knew that the state was about to grant sanction for new breweries and bottling plants.