Which isthe first railway station of the country to be redeveloped using public-privatepartnership(PPP) mode? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which isthe first railway station of the country to be redeveloped using public-privatepartnership(PPP) mode?

Answer: Habibganj

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which isthe first railway station of the country to be redeveloped using public-privatepartnership(PPP) mode?....

QA->Who heads the newly formed committee to review the existing Public Private Partnership (PPP) Cell in the Railway Board?....

QA->Who head the committee, constituted by the government, on revisiting and revitalizing the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model of development?....

QA->Which railway station has become the first station in the country to have WiFi facility for providing high speed internet to passengers?....

QA->When execution of public work does not need much skill, what mode shall be given priority?....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
...

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below : A, B, C, D, E, F and G are seven persons who travel to of ce everyday by a particular train which stops at ve stations-I, II, III, IV and V respectively after it leaves base station. Three among them get in the train at the base station. D gets down at the next station at which F gets down. B does not get down either with A or E. G alone gets in at station III and gets down with C after one station. A travels between only two stations and gets down at station V. None of them gets in at station II. C gets in with F but does not get in with either B or D. E gets in with two others and gets down alone after D. B and D work in the same of ce and they get down together at station III. None of them gets down at station I.At which station does E get down ?
...

MCQ->Train X departs from station A at 11 a.m. for station B, which is 180 km so far. Train Y departs from station B at 11 a.m. for station A. Train X travels at an average speed of 70 km/hr and does not stop anywhere until it arrives at station B. Train Y travels at an average speed of 50 km/hr, but has to stop for 15 min at station C, which is 60 km away from station B enroute to station A. Ignoring the lengths of the trains, what is the distance, to the nearest kilometre, from station A to the point where the trains cross each other?...

MCQ->The taxis plying in Wasseypur have the following fare structure: Rs 20 for the first two kilometers, Rs 5 for every km in excess of 2 km and up to 10 km, and Rs 8 for every km in excess of 10 km. Bullock carts on the other hand charge Rs 2 per km. Sardar Khan takes a taxi from the Wasseypur railway station to his home. On the way, at a distance of 14 km from the railway station, he meets Faizal Khan, and gets down from the taxi to talk to him. Later he takes a bullock cart to reach his home. He spends a total of Rs 102 to reach his home from the railway station. How far is his home from the railway station (in kilometers)?...

MCQ-> On the basis of the information given in the following case. Tina a blast furnace expert, who works as a technology trouble-shooter stays in Jamshedpur. She has got an important assignment in Delhi, which requires six hours to complete. The work is so critical that she has to start working the moment she reaches the client’s premises. She is considering various options for her onward and return journey between Jamshedpur to Delhi.A quick search revealed that ticket from Jamshedpur to Delhi is available in two trains. Trains 12801 and 12443 depart from Jamshedpur station at 06:45 hrs and 15.55 hrs and reach Delhi next day at 04:50 hrs and 10:35 hrs respectively. Trains 12444 and 12802 start from Delhi at 17:20 hrs and 22:20 hrs and reach Jamshedpur next day at 10:35 hrs and 20:05 hrs respectively. Another option is to reach Ranchi by a three hour road trip and take a flight to Delhi from Ranchi. The distance between Ranchi and Delhi is covered in 105 minutes both-ways by any of the scheduled flights. Air India operates two flights, AI 9810 and AI 810, which depart Ranchi at 8:00 hrs and 15:25 hrs respectively. Flight number IT-3348 operated by Kingfisher Airlines departs Ranchi at 19:20 hrs. Return flights operated by Air India, AI 9809 and AI 809, depart Delhi at 5:50 hrs and 11:00 hrs respectively. Flight number IT-3347 operated by Kingfisher Airlines departs Delhi at 17:10 hrs.From Tina’s home Jamshedpur railway station is five minutes drive, and her destination at Delhi is 90 minutes and 30 minutes drive from airport and railway station respectively. One has to reach the airport at least one hour before the scheduled departure to complete the boarding procedure. At every railway station she loses five minutes in navigating through the crowd.If Tina wants to minimize the total time out of Jamshedpur, the best option for her, from the options given below, is:
...