Discrimination faced by Mumbaikars...

If the housing societies in Mumbai (Bombay) are only meant for families (married couples), then the government of Maharashtra should make marriage compulsory in the state/city.
Or else the government should tell its citizens where will Unmarried, Divorcees, Bachelors, Spinsters live in the city of skyscrapers or is Bombay only for those who have families.
This is one of the greatest mental blocks of Mumbaikars, who otherwise want to bask in the FALSE HALO of Cosmopolitanism.
This disease (of not giving apartments to Bachelors, Muslims, etc on rent) is specially prevalent in housing societies where the Gujaratis, Marathis and North Indians (to some extent) abound; while the rest of the population is more or less okay with the concept.
The government of Maharashtra should take this matter seriously and devise laws to eradicate this malice ASAP, so that BOMBAY (and its suburbs) becomes free of discrimination based on Marital Status, Religion, etc. Or else the Honourable Supreme Court of India should step in, and give directions to the state or central governments -- so that the fundamental rights of its citizens enshrined in the constitution of India is not violated.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

Apex Court Clears Hurdles For FDI In Multi-brand Retail
[Editor: Future Retail Ltd (Rs.145.85, BSE Code:523574), the erstwhile Pantaloon Retail Ltd, was already recommended in this blog for a price target of Rs.164. Now after this news, the price target has been increased to Rs.171]
New Delhi, May 1:  The Supreme Court has cleared the hurdles for implementing FDI in multi-brand retail sector, saying that the “consumer is king and if that is the philosophy behind the policy, then what is wrong.”

The apex court said the policy aimed at “throwing out” the middleman, who are a “curse to Indian economy” and “sucking” it, has to be “welcomed”.

A Bench headed by Justice R. M. Lodha said the policy does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality requiring it to be quashed. “This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.

“The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires,” the Bench, also comprising justices Madan B. Lokur and Kurien Jospeh, held while dismissing a PIL challenging the notification on the FDI in multi-brand retail sector.

The Bench in its order said “it is thus left to the choice of State governments whether or not to implement policy to allow FDI up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail.”

The apex court further said there was no merit in the contention that the Centre has no authority to formulate FDI policy and the PIL filed by advocate M. L. Sharma has to be dismissed.