Policy instability would confuse foreign investors, he said, adding the Commerce and Industry Ministry may seek legal opinion on whether a state can opt out of the policy. (Agencies)
"Option was to join...We are not a banana republic that you create policies in the name of option or revolving doors," Sharma told reporters here.
The ministry is upset over the Delhi's government recent decision to withdraw the approval given by the previous Sheila Dikshit--led government for FDI in multi brand retail, saying the move would result in large-scale job losses.
"We had said that we are bringing an enabling policy and we will give an option to the states...but option is given to join. It is not a revolving door. Policy has to have stability for the investors’ confidence.
"It is not that today I give the option, tomorrow I give another option. Domestic and foreign investor would be confused. We will ensure that there will be stability and predictability. India had never unpredictability about its FDI policy," he said
When asked whether the DIPP would see legal opinion on this issue, he said, "we are examining it...if need be (we will seek)".
He said that the FDI policy is the Centre's subject.
The central government permitted 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retailing in September 2012 and left its implementation to the states. As many as 12 states, mostly Congress-led, including Delhi and Rajasthan, agreed to allow global retailers to open supermarket chains.
The other states include Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
Rajasthan, too, saw a change of government with the BJP coming to power after the November-December state assembly elections.
It is still not clear what stand the BJP government in Rajasthan will take on the FDI policy. FDI in multi-brand retail had not evoked the expected response from global retailers.
So far, only one proposal from UK-based Tesco has been approved by the Central Government.
Policy instability would confuse foreign investors, he said, adding the Commerce and Industry Ministry may seek legal opinion on whether a state can opt out of the policy.