Vijay Mallya's extradition: UK Chancellor says 'proper for ministers to discuss it'

New Delhi: United Kingdom Chancellor of Exchequer P. Hammond on Tuesday said that extradition request for liquor baron Vijay Mallya has been made by India, adding it will be proper for the concerned ministers to discuss it.

Earlier, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) informed that extradition of absconding Mallya has been certified by Secretary of State of the U.K. Government and soon a warrant would be released against him."Somewhere in the month in the month of February, the home office of the U.K. Government conveyed that India`s request for extradition of Mallya has been certified by Secretary of State and sent to Westminster Magistrate court," MEA official spokesperson Gopal Bagley told the media here.

Earlier in March, the Supreme Court fast-tracked the proceedings against Mallya and reserved its order on contempt proceedings against him for allegedly diverting $40 million to his children`s accounts in foreign banks in violation of court orders.A bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit reserved its order on whether or not Mallya was guilty of contempt and what action should be taken to bring back the money.

The court concluded the proceedings after a three-and-a-half-hour hearing during which the Centre contended that Mallya was mocking the Indian system after fleeing the country. It said the government was holding talks with U.K. authorities to get him deported.The apex court had started proceedings against Mallya a year ago and had issued notice to him on March 8, 2016 on a plea by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) for recovery of about Rs. 9,000 crore which the businessman and his companies owed to them.The liquor baron, however, fled the country days before the apex court took up the case against him.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi urged the court to direct Mallya to bring back the $40 million which he had received from Diageo. He told the bench that Mallya had breached court orders and his refusal to bring back the money had aggravated the breach and he should be directed to appear personally before the court.