THE ASSEMBLY MET AT 9. A.M. IN THE ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, SHILLONG ON THE 25 TH JULY, 1973 WITH THE HON'BLE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us being the business of the day by taking up Unstarred Question No.7.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(Replies to which were placed on the table)

Appointment of the Assistants Inspector of Schools for Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills Districts.

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

7. Will the Minister in-charge of Education be pleased to state

(a)

When will Government propose to appoint the Assistant Inspector of Schools for Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills Districts?

(b)

Whether Government propose to create the post of Joint Director of Public Instruction in the State?

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, in-charge, Education) replied :

7. (a)

Steps are being taken to fill up the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools for Khasi Hills through the Meghalaya Public Service Commission.

The necessity of having either the post of Inspector of Schools or the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools for Jaintia Hills is under active consideration of Government.

(b)

The post of Joint Director of Public Instruction, Meghalaya was created quite sometime back and the Officer is now in position.

Water Supply Scheme in Jaintia Hills

Shri Lewis Bareh asked :

8. Will the Minister in-charge of Public Health be pleased to state

(a)

Whether Government propose to provide the Water Supply Schemes for the following villages?

1.

Pamnakrai Shnong Village

Jaintia Hills Districts.

2.

Khliehriat

3.

Lumshnong

4.

Lumkiang

5.

Ratasora

6.

Bataw.

(b)

If so, when the Schemes are expected to be finalised?

(c)

Whether it is a fact that the Rymbai Water Supply Schemes has been completed?

Shri Grohonsing A. Marak (Minister, Public Health Engineering) replied :

8.(a)

The  villages to be included in the list of Rural Water Supply Schemes during Fifth Plan period are yet be finalised.

(b)

Does not arise in view to reply to (a) above.

(c)

No.

Water Supply for Shangpung Village

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

9. Will the Minister in-charge of Public Health Engineering be pleased to state

(a)

Whether Government propose to construct a water supply for the Shangpung Village of Jaintia Hills?

(b)

If so, when construction will be started?

Shri Grohonsing A. Marak (Minister, Public Health Engineering) replied :

9. (a)

The village to be included in  the  list of Rural Water Supply Supply Schemes during the Five Plan period are yet to be finalised.

(b)

Does not arise.


RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY - FIRST) AMENDMENT BILL, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to item No.9. Discussion on the Government resolution which seeks to ratify the Constitution (Thirty-First Amendment) bill, 1973. Who will start the discussion?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I must say that after carefully going through these constitutional amendments, amendments to Article 81, Article 330 and Article 332 of the Constitution, I find it very difficult to believe my eyes when I see that the Chief Minister has casually moved a resolution asking this House to ratify these amendments to the Constitution without incorporating any proviso or any further amendments in the form of a resolution. I say this because it is difficult to express any more grievance, problems and apprehension and anxiety that I fee and after going through certain provisions of this amendment, as we all know basically that amendment is to increase the number of Members of Parliament from 500 to 525. I may not enter into arguments as to whether there will be 500 to 525. We have been well supplied with documents, on account of the debates in the Houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the merits and demerits of increasing or retaining the same number of Members of Parliament. I can only add in that respect that it is only a pity that the number of M.P.s form the Union Territories has come down form 25 to 20. I feel that smaller Unions in the Union of India should get greater attention from the Centre because of their special backwardness but what is more serious.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- On a point of information. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member will realise that the number of Union Territories ahs been reduced because some of them have been upgraded to Statehood.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is no point of information to me. I happen to know that also and even the Constitution should not go according to the present number of Territories or present number of States. States may go on increasing. We may have a new State of Andhra tomorrow but the Constitution cannot be changed  every time. The Union Territories, if one looks at the figures are being reduced from 16 to 9 and therefore, the reduction from 25 to 20 has been substantiated. But it is really this that I would like to say for the Union Territories, since they are small backward areas they should not lose their representation in Parliament. What is very sad for us in this House, particularly those of  who  are Members of the scheduled tribes is that there is a statement of objects and reasons attached to the Bill which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 26th April, 1973 and the last paragraph reads as follows - Articles 330 of the Constitution relates to reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha  for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The provisions of this Article have, however, been made inapplicable to the State of Nagaland on the ground that it has a predominantly tribal population. According to the 1971 - Census, 88.6 per cent of Nagaland's  population belong to the Scheduled Tribes. The corresponding figures for the State of Meghalaya and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are 80.5 per cent, 79.0 per cent and 94.3 per cent respectively. Government therefore, consider that the provisions of Article, 330 should not apply also to the predominantly tribal units of Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. These are as far as Parliamentary States are concerned. Now regarding that Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I would say of course that for the time being there is no real danger to the member of scheduled tribes, in the State of Meghalaya, the danger of being not the total population of scheduled tribes, in the State, well we can be certain that for the next 15 or 20 years, we will get representation since the percentage of tribal population is quite large. But when we come to the second part of the last sentence affecting this august House this Assembly, I would request all my friends of both sides of the House irrespective of any party affiliations to give a very serious consideration to this. This second part reads "Similarly, it is considered that as in the case of Nagaland. There need be no reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Meghalaya and that Article 332 of the Constitution may be amended suitably. Clauses 3 and  4 of the Bill seek to achieve these  objects". In other words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the reservation of seats for the members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Meghalaya has been accepted, approved by both Houses of Parliament and now we are faced with this resolution. Will the Chief Minister forget the tribal character, forget his blood and ask us to ratify a resolution whereby we lose a reservation as scheduled tribes in the State.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- I have got more tribal blood than you.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, another thing however, on the 20th April, 1973 when this Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha there was no special provision made for the State of Assam. But because of the activity and keen interest of the Members of Parliament at that time who took great care of their own people, of their own scheduled tribes, that they were able to bring about amendment in the Government Bill itself so that when this Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed, Assam was able to get a final amendment to protect the tribals of Assam which is not predominantly a tribal State. So where were the Members of Parliament of our ruling Party, where were they Mr. Speaker, Sir? With my two eyes given by God, I have gone through the debate in the Lok Sabha, I have seen what the member of Parliament from our State neither in the Lok Sabha nor in the Rajya Sabha were doing in defence of their own people. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was thinking that perhaps these members were tongue tied and not able to speak in defence of their people.

Mr. Speaker :- This can be spoken in the public meeting and not inside the House. We cannot cast aspersion on the members of other Houses.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- But they are representing the whole State.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- But I feel that it is quite relevant to this case because we are faced with the Constitution (Amendment) Bill in which two M.P.s of this State are there. They belong to the ruling party, the ruling party in this State. If they did not speak at least they could have cast their votes during the various stages of the consideration of this Bill. I find that no one of the names of the two members of the Lok Sabha who represent our State is there in the list. the third M.P. a member of Rajya Sabha of course his name is not there and he said nothing. Some say that silence is golden. But silence here is very black. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am amazed that the silence there has been continued by this Government our benign Government. They are merely bringing this simple resolution asking this House to ratify the Constitution (Amendment) bill -ratify this position of not allowing our people to have reservation of seats in the Assembly. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is the apprehension in my mind. Mr. Dage has drawn a comparison between Nagaland and Meghalaya and I submit, Sir, that the case of Meghalaya's is not the same as that of Nagaland. We all know that in the Nagaland, there is the Inner line Regulation. If we tribal people want to get into Nagaland, if we want to go to Dimapur, we have to obtain a permit form the S.D.O. Even fellow tribals of other States have to be screened, not only a non-tribal but also the unwanted tribals in their State Mr. Speaker, Sir, alas, all the passes of this hill kingdom of ours are open-very wide open to foreigners. Now, will the Government come up to check the foreigners who come to our State and  and finally settled on our lands. We have the great leader form the other country who wanted Meghalaya including Tripura, Mizoram, Cachar and West Bengal. His dream has come true. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the members of this House form the Treasury Benches have found that to-day in Shillong there are at least 30,000 to 40,000 outsiders who have come as refugees during the influx along the border. They shaved their bread and wore clean clothes and were you to ask them - did you come yesterday from Sylhet? They will reply, 'my mama is here, my mama is here I was born and brought up here. I ask this question in this House. Whether the Government has foolproof method of distinguishing between the refugees who came in 1971. and the refugees who came in 1949?  The Government I submit,  Mr. Speaker, Sir, has not foolproof method of distinguishing them. Such being the case, how can the Government ensure and give us a guarantee today that there will be no further influx into the State. Now I remember the other day, I personally happened to be at the check gate at Mawphlang where I saw trucks of people who would like to come to Shillong. Before they come here, they change their dress, put on their ties, shave their breads to look like old citizens of the State. In the constituencies in the Bhoi areas the people are coming from the other neighboring areas and have settled in the Bhoi areas and they became permanent citizens of the area. Mr. Speaker, Sir, a man may be citizen by virtue of his being in the State, he casts his vote as his head counts, What happened Shillong? In these unreserved seats what happened? One area known throughout Khasi Hills as Laban because in ancient days Shillong was known as Laban, what is the representation ? the great ancient Laban, Mr. Speaker, Sir, today is not represented by a tribal. These are actual facts. I hope my friend here need not be hurt. But blood is thicker than water. Unfortunately, Government made this seat an unreserved seat. Then what will be the fate of Mawprem Mawkhar, Jaiaw and Nongthymmai? Can this Government give a guarantee? I beg my Garo friends to forget their party affiliation and party whips issued to them and to look at the plain areas of Garo Hills. Some weeks ago some of the Garo youths while coming here for the Sports Gymnastics, stood up in protest. I requested them today also to stand up and express their opinion particularly in the plains area adjoining the plains areas of Assam. What will be the future after 20 years? will there be a second Tripura if we do not have this reservation? I think it is a shame to this Government that they have brought forward this resolution asking us to ratify it. I put it to the House Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- In this matter, the Government cannot give any observation outside the House.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Inside the House the Government could have moved an amendment as the Nagaland did in the case of the Constitution (25th Amendment) Bill because they have their own lands and customs. A resolution could have been moved by this Government but instead only a blank ratification of the 31st Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Are we giving this entire State on golden platter. We have no guarantee from the Government. I want a definite reply from the Government how to control the influx of outsiders who have come during the influx or refugees into the State. Then only we will accept this resolution.

Mr. Speaker :- I think the remarks made by the hon. Member that the Government will have to put up check-gates in every corner of the State is quite unconstitutional because if an Indian citizen comes to Meghalaya he can move freely. But if the contention of the hon. Member is to check the entry of foreigners into the State, that is a different matter.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- All foreigners who are coming here

Shri Akrommozaman :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was rather keeping silent in the belief that this bill will be ratified by this House. But I wish to speak something about some comments which have been made by the Hon. Friend here particularly about the Plain areas in Garo Hills. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are here in this august House to use it is as a forum to bring about the integration of the State in such a way that we could live as brothers  I feel that it will not befit the dignity of this House to foment the issue in such a way that it will create confusion, something of distress among the people of this State. I can only say regarding the plains people in the plains area irrespective of caste and creed that they are no less. patriotic than other persons of State of Meghalaya. Sir, this thing.

Mr. Speaker :- I will give you time later on Any way. Mr. Kyndiah.

Shri R. Ripple Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, participating in the discussion on this Government resolution. I would like to make a few observations. Now the contents of the Bill, under Article 82 of the constitution necessitate the adjustment of the territorial constituency. Now already the Parliament has constituted the Delimitation Commission which is doing its work in the re-adjustment of the territorial constituencies. If Article 8 is formally amended  then naturally a small State like ours will be tremendously affected. Therefore, I welcome the 31st Constitution Amendment Bill in as much as it has given weight age and maintained the present quota enjoyed by smaller states like Meghalaya. This is a very important point. Now having gone through the Bill very carefully I want to share my views with the previous Member who had mentioned about certain apprehensions. As it will be seen, the main objective of the bill is to increase the number of seats in the Lok Sabha to 525 where at present there are 500 seats. So this Amendment Bill in so far as it is to increase the limit, it is quite proper, more so as I have said earlier it has maintained the quota that we have, although the State of ours has only a population of 10 lakhs. If we go strictly by population we will not get 3 numbers in the Lok Sabha. by this  Amendment the Parliament is maintaining 2 seats in the Lok Sabha. This is the main aspect of the bill. Now I have gone through the Statement of objects and reasons of the Bill and I have found, as Mr. Majaw had already stated, that Article 330 has not to be amended by this Bill. Now here it is only in relation to the de-reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha, of those seats which are reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes But what I would like to draw the attention of the House here Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the very important statement of how Minister Shri Gokhale where he has stated that the provisions in this Article have further been made applicable to the State of Nagaland on the ground that it is predominately a tribal population. This I think is a very important point that all of us should consider. Now rather than looking at it in the way that the Member from Mawhati has stated I want to look at it from a different angle. Here there is a clear-cut recognition of this fundamental aspect of the question that the de-reservation of seats also is done on the basis of this ground that Meghalaya is a predominantly  tribal population. Now if the Parliament in its wisdom in its discretion has recognised this important facts there is nothing against it. The question reservation of seats and de-reservation is a secondary issue but what is very important is that the Parliament has recognised Meghalaya as a predominantly tribal type of population today. Now, supposing ,as our friend from Mawhati said, that in a future time the tribal population decreases.

Mr. Speaker :- Say after 10 years.

Shri R. Ripple Kyndiah :- After 1981. Then it that case the tribal population decreases and in that case there is a need  to amend the Constitution. So the argument is this that the recognition that Meghalaya is a predominant population is a important factor for us in the State. It not only did recognise this time but it is more or less incumbent at this stage to see that this population structure is maintained. It is the duty of the State, it is the duty of the Government to resort to some provisions of the Constitution to see that the population structure is maintained. Of course, we cannot go to the extent of an inner line regulation as it exists in Nagaland, Mizoram or Arunachal Pradesh but there are other provisions in the Constitution to which we can take resort  and maintain the population structure and in doing so under Article 19 I think the Government can easily do that. Article 19 reads like this, "Nothing in clause (d) ,(e) and (f) or the said clause shall effect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State for making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Schedule Tribe". So I quite associate myself with the sentence which fulfils the provisions as expressed by our friend form Mawhati that the population structure may change and that it is incumbent on our part to see that it does not change. Now how we can do about it is for the Government to consider and Article 304 it is very clearly written and it is also a fact that as it is happening in our State today it is our experience that persons from outside the State, we may call them outsiders coming to the State unchecked but more so foreigners also do come in the shape of graziers and ultimately they settle down in these Hills. So unless certain restrictions are imposed I share the apprehension of my friends that a time may come that it will be against the very concept to make Meghalaya a pre-dominantly tribal population. So I have seen that this is a blessing in disguise. To me it is a blessing in disguise because this recognition itself imposes a bounden duty to come forward with a new law, to impose reasonable restrictions on the outsiders coming to the State for settlement, trade and so on. So Mr. Speaker, Sir,  I think this resolution has been brought forward with the objective to give us a lot of scope for taking steps to ensure the interest of the people of the State particularly the Scheduled Tribes who are in  need to safeguard their interest, With these few observations I support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker :- Any other hon. Member?

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the resolution moved by the Government is in the right direction and I have little to say about this resolution. But in respect of the remark passed by the hon. Member from Mawhati I would like to say a few words.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch, this is not a place where you can exchange views or give counter-views. You can have it in some other forums but not inside the House. The hon. Member from Mawhati has his views and you can express your own views.

Shri S.N. Koch :- I shall not go beyond the subject Mr. Speaker, Sir, The hon. member form Mawhati has expressed his apprehension and the apprehension was directed towards this that a time may come when the non-tribals may uproot the tribals. Of course, I do not say that the apprehension has no merit. No doubt, it has But then the way the hon. member has expressed it naturally hurts the sentiments of the people who belong to the minority community. Moreover he has made a specific reference  to the people of the plain areas of Garo Hills. This I feel, is not justified. Perhaps the hon. Member has no knowledge of plain areas of Garo Hills.

Shri Martin N. Majaw :- On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, Sir,...

Mr. Speaker :- Please do not interrupt. You can clarify your point afterwards.

Shri S.N. Koch :- There may be influx in Shillong or in Tura town. I myself come from the plains areas of Garo Hills and I can say that there is no influx from the plains areas.

Mr. Speaker :- May I remind the hon. Members of the house that we are not here to discuss the problem of influx of people from foreign countries or other parts of the country. But we are here to discuss about the Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution which seeks to increase the number of members in Parliament.  Of course, what Prof. Majaw raised is about the due reservation of seats in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. These are the two pertinent points which Prof. Majaw has already raised.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we thank the Government for this measure. Actually, our population does not justify two seats but the Central Government has shown a good gesture which is praise-worthy and there is no reason why we should not pass this Bill which has come to this house for  ratification.

        But one thing I would like to point out here. Though there is a ruling form the Chair in my case that we are not supposed to discuss here a thing which is not at issue, that is, regarding the influx or the minority or the tribals and non-tribals but, when one hon. Members spoke on that line he could speak without any check though it hurts the feelings. This gives a picture and creates and impression among the minorities that in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly though the Members from the majority communities are free to say and express their views freely but there is no such safeguard for the minorities. So, Sir, it seems to me that there is a contradiction here.

Mr. Speaker :- Anyway you need not contradict yourself. What ever an hon. Member speaks inside the House is his own responsibility and not the responsibility of this house or any other Member. No body will say that Meghalaya Assembly has said that but people will say that so and so individual Member has said that.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Since the Chair has disallowed to speak on this line, I have nothing to say now, and I support the resolution of ratification of the Bill

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to clarify my point? Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have not the slightest intention to cast aspersion on any member of the minority community and please forgive me if I did say so. My point was only in respect of influx from outside.

Shri Jormanick Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe this Emergency Session has been summoned mainly for this Constitution Amendment Bill. It is necessary that this Assembly accepts or passes the Amendment Bill

Mr. Speaker :- Not necessarily, it may ratify or it may not.

Shri Jormanick Syiem :- This Assembly may ratify this Amendment because under Article 81 governed by Article 332 and 333 of the Constitution, ratification has got to be obtained from 50 percent of the State Assemblies. it is mainly due to the increase in the population during the last census that the number of seats in the Lok Sabha may have to be increased. I do not see in this Article any mention about the influx of people into any area it mainly concerns with the representation in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. So, with these few words, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the Resolution.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this Amendment to the Constitution I find that the object of amending the Constitution is to increase the number of seats in the Parliament from 500 to 525. I find that it is neither on the population basis or on any specific criteria but it is imply to increase the number of M.P.s in the Parliament.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Lyngdoh I think you have studied the Constitution very carefully and must have learnt the after each census there will be reallocation of seats to each and every State according to the latest census figures. If you take a little pain to do a little bit of arithmetic, you will find that, except the small States like Meghalaya or Nagaland, all other States have got their seats according to the census figures. In our case, of course, we have got more than what we deserve.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- That is correct Sir. On the basis of population our State should have go only one M.P. Besides that, my point is that by bringing  this Amendment to the Constitution. This State of ours is affected in as much as the usual reservation of seats for the Scheduled Tribes is done away with. Here in our State all seats become general seats in a few years time we may not have  an M.P. of our tribal people but his representatives may be from other communities. So, I feel that this will not serve our interest.

Mr. Speaker :- We are not now in a political arena. I would like to ask a question here. Is it a fact that we are to divide on the basis of  scheduled tribes and non-scheduled tribes or on the basis of political analogy. If you say that it is on the basis of political analogy or political identity, then there is no question reservation for the scheduled tribes anywhere. you contention is that reservation should remain in the Assembly as well as in the Parliament.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Yes, Sir, even seats in the State Legislative Assembly, it appears, have been de-reserved by this 31st Amendment bill of the Constitution. The sixth schedule of the Constitution has re-cognized us as Scheduled Tribes hence we must have reservation of seats in the Assembly and Parliament. It most necessary to reserve the seats in the Assembly also. So this is the point, Sir, that in future we may have plenty of non-tribals in this house. Therefore, Sir, as I think most of the States in India might have  ratified the Constitution, this State of ours should refrain from ratifying this amendment.

Mr. Speaker :- From the point of view of the Constitution this amendment will affect the two General Elections. Because after the Census Report of 1981 another Constitution Amendment Bill is necessary for reallocation of seats.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- That will be in regard to Parliamentary seats, Sir. But here I do not know how this amendment was brought to change the character of representation in the Assembly. In 1981 it will be for the Parliamentary seats and the question of reservation. Here also I do not know whether the State Government of Meghalaya was consulted or not.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the resolution on two main points. These are because, though our population does not justify that form Meghalaya we will have 2 seats, still by this amendment we are having the same 2 seats. Secondly, Sir, we were granted a State separate from Assam because our Hills were mainly inhabited by the tribal people and in Census of 1971, it was found that our State is so even now. by doing away with the reservation of seats and according to the statement of objects and reasons as already stated by the previous speakers it implies that it has also been recognised to such by the Parliament and by the Central Government. So by going back to the old process of reservation of seats, to me, means an indirect imposition to our people against the fact of what they really are at present. So I do not see another reason why we should go back to that position unnecessarily. With these few words, Sir, I wholeheartedly support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker :- May I ask the Minister-in-charge of Law to wind up the discussion?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as the hon. Members might have seen from the papers supplied, this Constitution (31st Amendment) Bill was brought to the Parliament specially necessitated by the creation of our State and which was referred to in the statement of objects and reasons, wherein it was stated that "As a result of the enactment of the North-Easter Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971 (81 of 1971) the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha allotted to the States has increased to 506, six more than the permissible limit of 500 under Article 81" Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are in a way responsible for the necessity to bring about this amendment in the Constitution so far as Article 81 is about this amendment in the Constitution so far as Article 81 is concerned regarding representation in the Parliament. At the same time, during the very process of negotiation for the  formation of the State, I mean immediately after the formation of the State of Meghalaya, the leaders of the State look up with the Government of India and the election Commission urging them for giving better representation in the Parliament from this small State of ours. As the hon. member form Mynso-Raliang has said, as the position stood before us and it stands today, if we follow strictly according to Article 81(2) (a) of the Constitution each State would have representation in the House more or less on equal ratio of population, then this State of ours would not be full justified even for one member in the Parliament. However, the Government of India and the Election Commission had recognised the need to have a bigger representation from small States, the State inhabited by the Scheduled Tribes and they have agreed that this State would get 2 Members in the Lok Sabha. But by doing so and for other reasons the Parliament had increased or exceeded its Members, as stated here, to 506 which is beyond the Constitutional limit of 500. Therefore, now they have to make an amendment to the Constitution to accommodate this fact and, at the same time, to amend Article 81 in such a way that though on the basis of the population that they had fixed for representation of the States from 500 to 525, even then Meghalaya would not have entitled to more than one member. Therefore, they have amended in such a way that for smaller States having a population of less than 6 millions, they would be entitled to two seats as they have now, in spite of the readjustment of seats according to the 1971 census. In other States they divide the constituencies on the basis of population which is nearly one and a half million. But here where we have only one million of people we got two representatives. So far as this part is concerned, we should welcome this 31st Amendment Bill very much. So far as the other part is concerned, it does make a certain change that on the surface of it is seems to be a loss which would affect the interest of the people of the State. It is human nature, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that once we have a thing we would like to cling to it for all times and under all circumstances. We have benefits and there are so many benefits that we the tribal population of this State and also of India have enjoyed and we still continue to enjoy but there may be a time when the circumstances will change-that some of the benefits, like the Income Tax, and so on, may be done away with and, at that time, surely we shall be unhappy at the loss. However, I would like to request the hon. Members to look at the question at the at the present time from a reasonable point of view. I am very surprised at the way or angle or aspect that the hon. Member to look at the question at the present time from a reasonable point of view. I am very surprised at the way or angle or aspect that the hon. member from Mawhati  had viewed this question. I wonder how the question of influx of people into this State is linked up with the reservation of seats to the legislature of Meghalaya. Whether you reserve or you don't reserve, if there is influx it won't affect. We have had reservation for the last 25 years. Do we say that because of the reservations we had protection against the influx?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- A refugee may be a candidate.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Law ) :- That has nothing to do with the influx. So, if we use this forum in the House just to make the so-called popular expression on communal lines which tends to hurt the sentiments of the various people in the State and to which the hon. Member Mr. Koch has objected, I think it is not the responsible way that is expected of the hon. Members of this august House. The framers of the Constitution, the national leaders of the country, the national parties of the country right from the very beginning of the framing of the Constitution in 1946-49 and up till now, had recognised the value and the need to protect the minority communities, to encourage them by various provisions of the Sixth Schedule, Art.19 clause (5) of the Constitution and so on. We have not seen, we have not noticed anywhere in the country any national party or nay national leader who had plainly advocated a change from this policy that the Government of India or the National leaders have adopted and continued to follow and to implement in all aspects the need that the minority communities, specially the Scheduled Tribes, should be protected, encouraged and be give all opportunities of growth at the same time. Therefore, when we look at the question of reservation of seats in the legislature the Government of India and the national leaders have now recognised a new factor, that has come so far as these Hill Areas constituting the State of Meghalaya are concerned. That is, it has come to a stature of equality, dignity and status as one of the sister States in India. It has got enough political maturity to be given the responsibility to run its own affairs completely as any other State in the country, States like U.P. with 88 million people, States like West Bengal, Maharashtra and so only. It has got the status, and dignity, that responsibility was entrusted to it and, therefore, let us look form a reasonable point of view. If we say now that we are so backward, so dull, so ignorant and that the majority of the Khasi people, and the Jaintia people, who constitute 80.5 per cent of the State's population are so backward that even a person from Rajasthan or Punjab or West Bengal stands as a candidate and wins the election, then if.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- After 10 years.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) :- Then let us see after 10 years.

Mr. Speaker :- Then the whole Scheduled Tribes would become extinct. 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Thanks for that, Mr. Speaker, Sir,

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) :- After 10 years, I would also expect that our people will advance more and will also be more politically educated; more advanced that perhaps even in a population where the majority are non-tribals a tribal candidate may win.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Family Planning is there. (Laughter).

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) :- And there to use this occasion just to give the so-called popular sentiment which is not reasonable or realistic it is not right to use this august House as a platform. This question of reservation of seats has nothing to do with the population ratio of various communities in the State. But since the matter has been raised  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would say that so far as protection of the ratio of population of the State is concerned we may look somewhere else. As the hon. member from Jaiaw, Mr. Kyndiah has said, we have the power under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution by virtue of our having become a State and other powers like the Sixth Scheduled which are continuing now. In spite of our achieving the Statehood the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution for the protection of the Schedule Tribes in the State, is still being continued and, in fact, we have had a discussion  on this in Delhi. A question was raised why after achievement of the Statehood. We have still to continue and, in fact, we have a discussion on this in Delhi. A question was raised why after achievement of the Statehood we have still to continue the District Councils under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. This has been questioned even have in the State as a matter of fact. However, I would not elaborate as to what likely steps to be taken if really there is a danger or threat of disturbing radically the population ratio of the State. I leave it to the wisdom and to the discretion and the responsibility of the hon. Members of this august House to consult and discuss and suggest as to how in this Assembly under Art. 19(5) if at all we are going to take certain steps in that line, should meet the apprehension. And it is the Members of this House as a whole who would take step, only only this side or that side, the Government or the non-Government. Therefore, so far we know, every State, not only this State but in every State perhaps there is the general difficulty of adjusting the population ratio so that the people originally inhabiting a certain area should continue to maintain their ratio in that area. This has been accepted even in the Fifth Scheduled Areas. Not to speak of the State area. The Fifth Schedule to the Constitution gives power to the State to protect even the people of certain areas in the States not to speak of the people of the State as a whole. therefore, there are various other ways of dealing with this matter. With the co-operation of all the Members of this House inside and outside and with reasonable, constructive and realistic approach we will be able to do quite a lot of things in view of the fact as I have stated that the policy of the leaders of all the parties in the country continues to be the same uptil now. So far as this subject is concerned we will get  full sympathy and cooperation in every way we do in a reasonable manner. The word reasonable is there in the Constitution time and again for the protection of the interest of the Scheduled tribes and scheduled castes and so on. So far as this question is concerned I would appeal to the Members not to be carried away by unreasonable and irrelevant expressions or words but to go to every subject and every issue with certain logic, with realistic and reasonable approach. Sir, so far as this question is concerned, I feel that now that we have the population of 80 per cent scheduled tribes plus 15 per cent non-scheduled tribes in the State, it is very very unfair and unreasonable to demand that we should have reservation. You see reservation is always for the minority. To protect minorities in the whole state we seek protection in every was. But here it is a question of protection the 85 per cent from the 15 per cent. We are having an inferiority complex that is unreasonable and unrealistic. Our fears are contrary to the course of history as if we are going backward to 10 or 20 years. I appreciate the hon. Members from Mynso-Raliang. Mr. H. Hadem when we said that he supported the resolution with all his heart in the interest of the State to have our full representation in Parliament and the reasonableness to do away with reservation About the remark whether the Government is consulted and whether the M.P.S have been consulted and have participated in the discussion of this matter. So far as the Government is concerned, we have been fully consulted and this is a view that we have given. So far as the M.P.s are concerned I do not know whether they have been consulted perhaps they did not speak because being absent or because they thought it was not right, reasonable, correct  and good to have such unreasonable demand of speech in Parliament. With these words, Sir, I would request the hon. Members to have unanimous ratification of this resolution.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr.  Speaker,  Sir, since my colleague representing Jaiaw Constituency has made a reference to certain constitutional protective measures for the interest of the tribals, I would like to make a few observations. In the first instance, I would like to remind the House through you, Sir, about the very concept of having the Statehood for Meghalaya. What were the reasons and circumstances that led the people  to think of having their own State? What were our objectives and what were the the implications behind it? Plainly speaking, we wanted to be equal partners in the country. We do not consider ourselves to be backward from the political point of view. We are confident that we can run our own State according to our own genius and tradition and make better speed in bringing all-round development to the State and the people, whom we represent. We are confident of our own capacity and it is with that conviction that we sought the masses to be behind us to march towards the achievement of political goal, that is, there Statehood. If there is a though or idea that we should continue to be the protected community in the country for years and years together, I think we should not have even dreamt of having a separate State of our own. Here, I should say that every one of us should have the determination to see that we make progress economically politically and socially. We are not second-class citizens in this big country or ours. We are equal with any other community in the country and these should  be our objectives. If we still talk about protection and reservation in the matter of representation in the Parliament and the State Legislature, I think, we are not true to our concept or principles and our objectives and  am afraid, it may mean that we still have the complex of inferiority.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Why have the District Council then?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Sir, I am coming to that. These are the administrative arrangements. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the first instance, I would like to appeals to all the hon. Members, through you, to realise our own responsibility and duty, specially after having asked the nation as a whole to give us the opportunity to march together as equals in the country. The programme ahead of us should be how soon we can be equal with others. Every one of us should think of that big programme, an ambitious, programme seriously. It is only then that we shall be in a position to prove that we have been able to come to the same level of development-economically, socially and politically-in a shortest possible time with the attainment of Statehood. Let us, therefore, as my colleague has pointed out, not think about the past or the things of 10 or 20 years back but let us think about the future.

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, it must also be realised that the constitutional provision for special protection of certain castes, which have been termed as Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste, etc., is not going to be a permanent one. If it is to be a permanent one, then the very Preamble of the Constitution will be defeated. The Preamble of the Constitution says like this "we, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic Republic and to ensure to all its citizens, justice, social, economic and political", etc., etc., Now, if the provision of the Constitution for special protection or safeguards to certain community is allowed to continue permanently, that will not be in accordance with the spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution. We should not think in terms of Constitutional provisions to protect ourselves, as a community, permanently. We must realise that we must also try to develop ourselves in all respects. We must have the desire and determination to develop ourselves. It will not be wise for us to ask for reservation of seats after attaining the Statehood with more than 80 per cent tribal population. It will be something which will be anomalous and contradictory to the very concept of having a State of our own.

        I agree, however, that at present we are still to resort to Constitutional provisions providing for special safeguards for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, including our own people in Meghalaya. But we must see to what extent this constitutional  provision for special safeguard and protection of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes should be utilised in the interest of the people of Meghalaya.

        Mr. Kyndiah has referred to Article 19 clause (5). May I say here for the information of the House that the Government have taken measure to utilise this particular provision, that is, Clause (5) of Article 19 of the Constitution. Now, Article 19 Clause (f) runs like this - "to acquire, hold and dispose of property", In this connection, the House has had the occasion in the past to pass the Land Transfer Bill. We have already taken recourse to this. Again, under Clause (g) of the same Article, it is give like this - "to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business". Here, under para 10 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the District Council is competent to regulate trade under its own Regulation in respect of persons other than Scheduled Tribes resident in the district. These are the various protective measures provided either under the Constitution itself or under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Now, if we do not know how to make use of these provisions and simply ask to continue to make reservation of seats, I think we will be exposing ourselves. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would not like to repeat the points already covered by my colleagues, but I must make it very very clear to this House that while there no more need for the reservation of seats in the Parliament and the State Legislature, I agree that in order to give us an opportunity to go ahead with our programme of raising the standard of our people economically, socially and political, there is still need to utilise these protective measures, as provided under the Constitution, at least for some years to come. My Government will be prepared to do this not  with a selfish motive but to give our people a change, under these provisions, to be a t par with others in every walk of life and to make a speedy progress in every field. With these few observations, I would like the hon. Members of this House to fall in line with us.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- On a point  of clarification, it is a fact that the President of India refused to assent to the Land Transfer Act?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is quite irrelevant and I am not going to reply

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- The Chief Minister himself referred to this Act. However, Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I know how many tribal candidates returned from unreserved constituencies?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- This is irrelevant

Mr. Speaker :- I think time has come to close this discussion. Now, I put the resolution before the House. The question is that this house ratifies the amendment to the Constitution of India falling within the purview of the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 368 thereof proposed to be made by the Constitution (Thirty-First Amendment) assed by the two  Houses of Parliament.

(The motion was carried)

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to item No.3, discussion on Supplementary Demands for Grants and Supplementary Appropriation for 1973-74. We will have a general discussion for one hour and after that we will have a voting on supplementary demands. Is there any hon. Member who would like to discuss on the supplementary demands for  grants? We will have a general discussion. But if you are more interested in the voting on supplementary demands, then you have so be brief.

*Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the list of Supplementary Demands for Grant and Supplementary Appropriation for 1973-74. I would like to point out that this has almost become a routine practice with the Government whenever you are kind enough to allow them. This Government comes running and scurrying for further demands for grants.

Voices - Every other Government also, not only this Government.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- I think the Finance Department should be warned that whenever they pass the annual budget, so many things should be considered, but there are one or two exceptions here. When you come to page 6, Mr. Speaker, Sir, under Grant No.4 to be moved by the Chief Minister where an additional amount of Rs.6,55,153 was advanced from the Contingency Fund during 1972-73. If that was done in 1972-73, why was it not adjusted in the budget for 1973-74 which we have passed? It is surely a mistake a very very great mistake, when it should have been corrected or regularised. When you go further Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have got this on page 9 under Grant No.6 for the improvement of Tura Market. This, of course, I won't oppose as Tura should have a market, but I am talking of the time in moving this supplementary demand. This is a scheme for 1972-73 and it should have been regularised in 1973-74 budget. Then again Mr. Speaker, Sir, on page 10, Grant No.7, a sum of Rs.10,69,500 was required for payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "64 Famine Relief" and the share capital contribution which was not provided they come running, to the Assembly demanding for supplementary demands. I do not know what the Finance Department is doing. Mr. Speaker, Sir, to ratify this 31st Amendment Bill of the Constitution as we saw today, it took us only one and a half hours and by bringing supplementary demands  for grants, as the House knows, the more supplementary demands you submit, the more we have to oppose and bring cut motions, the more it takes time, and time means money in this House Mr. Speaker, Sir, then I come further. The entire ideas is that they know that they are in a great majority in the House, so they come before the House with that demand however logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable it may be, because of the huge majority they have come to the House. of course legally or constitutionally, the money will be granted.

Mr. Speaker :- Why complain that you belong to a minority. You can always sit with the majority if you like.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Anyway, Mr. Speaker, Sir, they have come forward with supplementary demands. Some of them must be granted and some of them we have to oppose by way of cut motions. This is only wasting the time of the Assembly wasting the time of the hon. Members by bringing the matter which could have been dealt with during the budget session. Other details Mr. Speaker, Sir, we will deal in the cut motions.

Mr. Speaker :- Any other hon. Members?

Shri Francis K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I would like to add few more words on this. If we come to page 5 under Grant No.5. the Grant to be moved by the Chief Minister under the head "28- Education". Here it is mentioned that Development Schemes (Fourth Five Year Plant)-II-State Plan Schemes-B-3-Secondary-2 Direct-Grant to non-Government Secondary School-19 Educational Building High Middle English Schools and Grant No.3 for Primary Schools direct grant to Non-Government Primary Schools, It will be seen that the Grant Voted by the Assembly was for Rs.1,60,000 whereas in the budget it is mentioned Rs.6,77,500. So it has puzzled us as we do not understand from which portion or column this amount of 6 lakhs is derived from . the hon. Member has just repeated the same thing. In almost every Grant, the amount required is for regularisation of the expenditure during 1972-73 except 2 or 3 Grants.  I fail to understand why Government should come at this moment with Supplementary Demands, to regularise these irregularities. Actually if the amount is spent during 1972-73 it should have been provided in the budget of 1973-74 regarding this Famine Relief under Grant No.7, an amount of Rs.10,69,500 was advanced from the Contingency Fund during 1972-73 for meeting the expenditure incurred in the implementation of the Test Relief Scheme in the budget we have provided a sum of Rs.2,00,000 for the purpose. But here it was mentioned that this money has not been provided. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would only request the Government that from now onwards we expect that the Government will not come repeatedly with the same demand.

Mr. Speaker :- If we can have a Joseph at the head of the Government to interpret all the dreams then I think we can do away with the demands.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, if it is like this then it proves that the Government is just sleeping or dreaming.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, just on one point before I take part in the discussion. I want only one information from the Minister of Finance. We were only 4 months after the last financial years has elapsed and another Supplementary Demand for 1973-74 was presented to the House with another colour.

Mr. Speaker :- I do not know about the colour but to avoid certain difficulties  sometimes there is a necessity for  a Supplementary Demand.

Shri H. Hadem :- But that also is hypothetical, nobody knows about the future.

Mr. Speaker :- But there is always the need.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- I thank the hon. Member who said that nobody knows about the future. But the very idea of preparing the budget one can imagine that it is for the future. Mr. Speaker, Sir, having read all Heads of Expenditure here at present, all the grants and demands have been particularized on the expenditure of last year, i.e. 1972-73 What is the reasons that has compelled the Government to come up with this Supplementary Demand time without number? It may, however, appear here that it was due to the fact that the departments concerned could not prepare the bills in time otherwise for the expenditure that had been allocated only four months after the end of the financial year. Why the Government is to come again with this Supplementary Demand? Therefore, I would suggest that the Government should give strict directions to the departments concerned that these expenditure which have been incurred by the departments concerned might have been incurred about 10 or 12 months back, but still they are coming today with Supplementary Demands. This gives rise to suspicion in the mind of us all. Therefore, Sir, while taking this opportunity to discuss, I would request the Government to see that in future the Departments should be very very prompt in sending the bills to the Government so that they will not come with another Supplementary Demand. Because Sir, as stated above I participate in this discussion because we are only four months after the financial year elapsed and we never anticipate that another Supplementary Demand will be brought about.

Mr. Speaker :- I think it is better to close the discussion now and I will call upon the Finance Minister to reply.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance etc) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, I find there is no scope for a reply to a very minute matter of this Supplementary Demand  that is bound to occur and is occurring in all Governments and all States. For example, now, we have the Budget Session during the month of March last and it is impossible to include the expenditure that were incurred during the months of March in the budget. Hence we do not regularly have the expenditure drawn form the Contingency Fund especially for those expenditure that occur time and again which are more or less of an unforeseen nature and the very purpose to include this Contingency Fund of Rs.50,00,000 in this State as in any other State is because of the nature of work in the departments of the Government that is always there. The written and abnormal happenings of expenditure that cannot be incorporated in the budget which is a to tune of Rs.25 crores this year and therefore, these unforeseen expenditure to the tune of 50,00,000 of half a crore, would not really be so material as to arouse so much heat on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- Actually there is no heat in the discussion. The hon. Members are only seeking clarifications on the subject matter.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- May we know Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether there was really a lapse on the part of the Finance  department?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance etc) :- No, Mr. Speaker, Sir, there were no such lapses. It is the duty of the Government to have these expenditure regularised by this House.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- With due respect to you, Mr. Speaker,  Sir, my point is that at page 6, I am reading, 'An additional amount of Rs.6,45,153 was advanced form the Contingency Fund during 1972-73 to meet the shortfall in the budget provision for payment of the renewal of Grant in-aid to deficit/Adhoc Colleges, arrear dearness allowances and interim relief of Lecturers and Office Assistants of Deficit Arts Colleges. Hence the Supplementary Demand to regularise the advance.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance etc) :- The Budget was being prepared right in the month of February. therefore, we cannot simply bring all columns of the papers for circulation to the Members only at the fag end of the March and it is in this month that the Session has been summoned and that is from 15th and perhaps, all the papers are to be ready a few weeks and a few days before they were printed  and before they were presented before this House. However, for that reason if any expenditure that we will discuss, the discussion may come in the Cut motion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Just to get a clarification on the point raised by the hon. Member from Nongstoin regarding grants for the Primary Schools.

Mr. Speaker :- That will come under cut motion. I will close the discussion now so that the House will have more time to discuss the Cut Motions. Let us pass on to Item No.4 in today's list of business. The Chief Minister to move Grant No.1.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,29,240 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "91-General Administration-I-Heads of States and Minister".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received two Cut Motions, the first Cut Motion stands in the name of Prof. M.N. Majaw and the second in the name of Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh Now, Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw may move his Cut Motion.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs. 1,29,240 under Supplementary  Demand No.1 Major Head "19-General Administration, Minor Head (I-Heads of States and Ministers), Sub-Head (a) Chief Minister and his Secretariat, Detailed Head 5-Contingencies-Purchase of Motor cars at page 1 of the list of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Rupee 1.00 i.e., that amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.1,29,240 do stand reduced to Rupee 1.00.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved, now, you can raise discussion to disapprove the policy of the Government to purchase another car for the Chief Minister.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, of course, it is an embarrassing subject which affects the personal comfort and relaxation the Member.

Mr. Speaker :- It affects also the dignity of the State.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- It also affects the economy of the State. Now, of course, I find a ray of hope in the fact that an amount to the tune of Rs.25,000,00 has been earmarked under this head. I have  thought that Rs.2,00,000 for another foreign car would be earmarked but indinization has taken place form a foreign car to an Indian Car. Although the sum of Rs.25,000 appears to be small to this Government which breakfast on lakhs and lunch on crores yet Mr. Speaker, Sir, as the Finance Minister has stated that there is so much heat in so much of rupees. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Rs.25,000 is a large sum of money. May I humbly submit that there are a large number of cars in the State poor of course they not to be in an excellent condition and may not be so suitable to the dire necessity of the Minister concerned. but there are a large number of cars in the State pool, cars and can be shifted, transferred our substituted. the string may not be perfect and the coils may not be perfect but still there are cars. There is one huge foreign car in this State which some other States in India might have auctioned it. I do not see there is any reason why this foreign car also cannot be auctioned there are a large numbers of interested businessmen here in Shillong who would easily go for this foreign car and Government could have money for 4 cars instead of only this one lovely car. I would therefore, suggest  to the Chief Minister or for that matter the State pool to auction this huge air conditioned modern Car. It is difficult to understand that there is such a luxurious car roaming every day in the streets of Shillong and I wonder why further expenditure for another foreign car should be borne by this poor States of ours.

Shri H. E. Pohshna :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is very difficult to support the Cut Motion , but really I find that our Chief Minister's can while parking here has got some scratches this side or that side. You may find some sort of accident scratches on both sides. The reason for there scratches was perhaps due to the size of the car. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think this is the first time that I agree with the Government as far as the Chief Minister's car is concerned because. I find that his present car is too big to ply an the roads of Meghalaya.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, my point is to auction that car which is too big and get some more cars.

Shri Grosswell Mylliemngap :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the cut motion. as we know the Chief Minister has got his own Secretariat and as it is at the moment, he is having only one car and his Secretariat has got no car. So if the Chief Minister wants to meet somebody, may be M.L.A.s or common man or any body, he will have to send his car for that. This does not look nice and proper. So I feel that having another staff car allotted to the Chief Minister and, attached to his Secretariat is not an expensive thing because he needs to go out for meetings and for other requirements besides his own official duties. Therefore, I oppose the Cut Motion. Sir.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that I have to defend myself but I am glad that the position has been correctly explained by the hon. Member from Sohryngkham. I also now like to explain the position. This car has not been bought for my own use or for my personal comfort and pleasure. This car is being attached to my Secretariat that is, the Chief Minister's Secretariat to enable it to function more efficiently and properly. The hon. Members will realise that in addition to his own departments, the Chief Minister as the head of the State, it does not matter whether I or somebody else become the Chief Minister, is responsible for the eco-ordination of the entire administrative set-up. As such, as has been correctly pointed out, I and my Secretariat would have to be in constant touch with my colleagues dealing with different subjects and for that purpose the personnel of my Secretariat, including my Private Secretaries and the principal Private Secretary, will have  to be on the move. Sometimes when there is an urgent work and comes to my attention and knowledge, I must be readily in a position to dispose of that matter and for that purpose, I must have the means for movement. In the past, I have had occasions to utilise the car, which was allotted to me, to contact my colleagues or to perform the duties in connection with the discharge of my duties of the Secretariat. It is only because of this that the Department under my control finds it necessary that there should be a car, a staff car, attached to my Secretariat. This car is always available to my Secretariat in the day time during the office hours, though it is being garged in the compound of the chief Minister. The reason why it is garged in the comp90und of the Chief Minister is that there is need of the vehicle sometimes even at odd hours to contact my Secretaries not only in the Secretariat but at their residence also. So, it is not for personal comfort of the Chief Minister or to maintain his personal dignity that the car has been purchased. But it is in the large interest of the public service and  for more efficient and smooth functioning of the office.

        The hon. Member has also remarked that we spend crores of rupees on breakfast. It is not a fact. I generally take very simple breakfast. I would next invite my friend, the hon. Mover of the Cut Motion, to have breakfast with me or are least to have a cup of tea. In fact, I believe, my colleague has had the occasion in the past  to have breakfast with me and to lunch and dine with me and knew that I myself sometimes prepare my own food. Sometimes my friends come to see me and they know also that I take simple breakfast. I take only a cup of tea and one half-boiled egg. How can I spend crores of rupees for my breakfast.

Mr. Speaker :- I think these are irrelevant points.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Therefore, I will leave it to the House to decide on the points raised by the Mover of the Cut Motion. It is not his duty to know; it is the duty of the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya and it is up to him to see all this expenditure because it is an exceptional thing.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- So in view of clarification given by the Chief Minister I withdraw the Cut Motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his Cut Motion? (voices - yes-yes). The cut Motion is with leave of the House withdrawn : Cut Motion No.2. will not be moved as the hon. Member is absent. Now I put the question. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,29,240, be granted, to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "19-General Administration (I-Head of States and Ministers)" (Motion was carried and Demand passed)

        Now, the Chief Minister to move Grant No.2.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg, to move that an additional amount o Rs.1,53,356 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come tin the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "22-Jails."

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. There are two Cut Motions, one in the name of Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh. He is absent. The other in the name of Prof. M.N. Majaw. Mr. Majaw to move.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.1,53,356 under  Supplementary demand No.2, Major Head "22-Jails" at page 2 of the list of Supplementary demands be reduced to Rs.1.00 i.e. the amount of the whole Supplementary demand of Rs.1,53,356 do stand reduced to Re.1.00.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is another subject that concerns another sister State. It has maintained a very good and cordial relationship I have no intention to oppose the financial aspect but it is linked up with the location of this Jail in Meghalaya. It has been stated in the explanatory note that the expenditure incurred will be reimbursed by the Government of Nagaland. But what  we are opposing (The Speaker, left the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker took the Chair) Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the policy of keeping political or other types of prisoners form our sister State, is a thing unheard of. At one time we had prisoners form the Union territory in some of our jails but to construct and locate the jail in our plot in some of our jails but to construct and locate the jail in our plot of land in our area, specifically meant for keeping the prisoners. I should say to this august House Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is not desirable because of the uncertain political situation in Nagaland. Only sometime ago we had read in the newspaper how the former Chief Minister of Nagaland, I will not quote his name, was locked up in jail and the other Ministers also were looked up in Jail. Now if we go on making allocations for their imprisonment it is a form of punishment - we are to give punishment to the political prisoners what will happen to this sister State tomorrow if perchance these prisoners come into power. Because of the political situation in this sister State they will have the election in the next year. So we are unnecessarily embittering our relations with the race which is one of the noble races in India. By having them looked up in our area we have helped them to imprisons some-body in other States but certainly not in ours.

Shri Winston Syiemiong :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the cut motion already moved by my friend from Mawhati because I know that this State of us is known as and desired to be a patch of beauty and grace should not be known as an imprisonment camp of other person of Nagaland. I understand, many Naga youths feel that Shillong is some sort of a concentration camp like Siberia in Russia. I am afraid if these things continue it will embitter our relations between our people and the people of Nagaland.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, after learning about the background for the choice of Meghalaya for locating the jail at Shillong I am sure my friend opposite will readily withdraw this Cut Motion. The fact is that 124 people were arrested for various security reasons and the substance of the Government of Nagaland  they were put in the Nowgong Jail. These people were members of the under ground movement and they had been arrested on certain specific charges. They were arrested at Kohima but since it is near the hostile camps  and can thus easily be linked up by the rebels, the Government of Nagaland thought that it might not be safe and might create problems of security  and law and order. Therefore, the State Government of Nagaland itself requested that these people should be kept at Nowgong Jail. Since they have been arrested on specific charges, there will have to be trial of cases of every one of them. It was thought by the Government of Nagaland, perhaps rightly, that it would not be good to try the cases in Kohima or Mokokchung or any part of Nagaland. They feared that there may not be fare and impartial trial and justice may not be obtained if the that have to take place inside Nagaland.

        The people were kept in Nowgong Jail and their trial should have, in fact, taken place at Nowgong itself. But there were certain legal difficulties. You know, when we were in the compose State of Assam, we were governed by certain rules which is known as the rules for Administration of Justice and Police. Under that Rule, the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistant is the competent authority to try cases. There it is stated like this "Criminal justice shall be ordinarily administered by the this Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Deputy Commissioner and by such trial court as many be constituted according to the rules to be made by the Governor of Assam, like Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chief headmen or other Chief Village authorities of the different communities". These Rules are applicable for Nagaland and it is under these rules that the trials will have to take place. These Rules are however, not applicable to the plain districts of Assam.

        We also have got a similar provision far administering justice & Police in Khasi Hills. Rule 16(7) of the said Rules runs as follows "Criminal justice shall be ordinarily administered by the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistant and the Sirdars, Dolois and other village chiefs or authorities of the different communities.

        It is because of this that the Government of Nagaland moved the High Court to find a suitable place where they can be confined in the Jail and where trial can also be conducted according to the rules of procedure. It is in that context that the Government of Nagaland have moved the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court exercising its own authority has decided, after discussion on which the two Governments,  namely, Nagaland and Meghalaya  at the initiative of the Nagaland Government, to locate the Special jails at Shillong to keep the under trial prisoners  and to try their cases. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that this action will hurt the sentiment of the people of Nagaland. This was done at the instance of the Nagaland Government itself.

        Again this is not going to be a permanent, jail. Once the trial is over, this jail will no longer be required and this is not, in any way, going to spoil the beauty of the city. Since the matter is very urgent we had to find a piece of land and has bring the Government land, we have agreed that it may be located here considering also that this going to be there only temporarily. It may have been too far to bring the under-trial prisoners to the Deputy Commissioner's Court for trial. It is only on these legal and procedural considerations that Shillong was found to be suitable for location of the trial and also for the trial of the prisoners. The other consideration is that the Government of Nagaland thought that it would not be in the interest of justice to put these prisoners in Kohima Jail and to proceed with the trial there. Here I may point out that the entire amount spent in this regard will be reimbursed by the Nagaland Government. As a fellow tribal when the request came from Nagaland to help them in this particular matter, I think it is good to extend our help to them. I believe, by doing that instead to adversely affecting our interests it will help us to strengthen good the relationship that exists between Nagaland and Meghalaya. Therefore, realising this background and the need for helping our neighbour Nagaland Administration in proceeding with the tribal of the prisoners by providing a jail within Shillong. I hope the hon. Member would kindly withdraw the Cut Motion and thereby allow our friends, in Nagaland to appreciate our attitude.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, was not answered. We do not want to get ourselves involved in the political row in Nagaland. Today one Government is in power and tomorrow another Government may come to power. That was my point. but in view of the orders of the High Court it may not be possible for this Government locate the jail elsewhere. But whey should it be on the side of the Gauhati-Shillong Road? Why could not the Government find some other more secluded place.

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already stated names. We needed an additional jail on a temporary basis as the present jail is not at all adequate. We have discussed a lot about this and this Jail was to be made ready immediately. There was a pressure form the Nagaland Administration for the shifting of these prisoners from Nowgong so that trial could proceed without further delay.

        So, far as the transfer of cases to Shillong is concerned, it has been done by the Hon'ble High Court and there is no scope for discussion on it.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is Mawlai that we are objecting to. Why should it not be located somewhere else?

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Shillong it is very difficult to find a place. But this being a Government land, it was easily available. It takes a lot of times to acquire land. Moreover, this jail is not going to be here permanently.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Since it is an order of the High Court that it must be in our State, I withdraw the Cut Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his Cut Motion?

(Voices..... Yes, Yes,) The Cut Motion is then by leave of the House withdrawn.

        Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,53,356 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "22-Jails".

        (The Motion  was carried and demand passed)

        May I request the Chief Minister to move Demand No.3.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,03,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "23-Police"

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there is no Cut Motion I now put the question before the House The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,03,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "23-Police"

(The Motion  was carried and demand passed)

         Now I request the Chief Minister to move Demand No.4.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.2,46,153 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "28-Education"

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since I have received a cut motion standing in the name of Shri Enowell Pohshna, I request Mr. Pohshna to move his cut motion?

Mr. H. Enowell Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.21,46,153 under supplementary Demand No.4 Major Head "28-Education", Minor Head additional amount now required at page 5 of the list of Supplementary demands be reduced to Rs.1.00 i.e. the amount of the whole supplementary demand of Rs.21,46,153 do stand reduced to Rs.1.00

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can discuss the grant.

Mr. H. Enowell Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while moving this cut motion, I do not want to take much time of the House. But I only want to get some clarification. In the explanatory it has been stated that an additional amount of Rs.9,89,000 was required for meeting the unforeseen expenditure involved in the scheme sponsored by the Government of India for providing employment to the educated unemployed. The advance of Rs.9,89,000 was obtained from the Contingency Fund during 1972-73 for the purpose. I want to know what are the schemes that have been implemented by the Government during 1972-73. Because in so far as my Constituency is concerned, I have not heard anything about any scheme being undertaken under this scheme "providing employment to the educated unemployed". This is the only thing, Sir, that I want to know and discuss. What are those schemes that have been taken up so far by the Government in the year 1972-73 by spending Rs.9,89,000 under the scheme for providing employment to the educated unemployed.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State Education) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the reply to the question of the hon. Member who has moved the cut motion is this. This entire amount was intended to provide employment to the educated unemployed and that is the name of the scheme. As the hon. Member himself has stated, this is a Centrally sponsored scheme. We implement the scheme through the agency of the Autonomous District Councils. So the entire amount was sanctioned to the different District Councils in the State and the actual implementation on the ground was the responsibility of the District Councils.

Mr. H. Enowell Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want another clarification. I could not understand how this amount for the scheme which has been demanded by the Government for Rs.9,89,000 for providing employment to the educated unemployed could be implemented by the District Councils? What are the schemes, that is the clarification I want to get. If the grant is to be given to the District Councils I also do not think that the District Councils would be given the grants without any scheme being submitted to the Government. I want this clarification.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State Education) :- The entire amount of the grant was channelised through the State, but as I said earlier, the implementation of the Scheme on the ground was the responsibility of the District Councils. Since the hon. Member wishes to know the various schemes. I will just name a few other giving additional teaches in the various primary schools which are already in existence, starting of new schools, construction of class rooms, additional class rooms and construction of schools buildings. These are some of the major sub-heads under which the entire amount was spent.

Shri H. Enowell Pohshna :- Now, I am coming to some point again, Sir. The Minister has said that for implementation of this scheme it is entirely the responsibility of the District Councils. How could it be?

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy  Speaker, Sir, in fact, there is a crash programme for appointment of 300 teachers as sanctioned by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, to give employment to the educated unemployed. Now, Sir, this amount is meant for additional teachers for the entire State of Meghalaya which was distributed district-wise. The same amount will have to be spent for starting new schools, construction of class rooms, etc. as explained by my colleague. In fact, for the first year when he was started, this amount was given to the then composite State of Assam. But we could not get our share at that time. There was a a proposal that Meghalaya would get 200 teachers under the scheme. But since we missed the first chance we moved the Ministry of Education to give us 300 teachers instead of 200. The District Councils are running the Primary Schools. Therefore, we have to ask them to send their recommendations. If it is approved, amount will be divided among them.

Shri H. Enowell Pohshna :- Thank you for the clarification and I withdraw my cut motion. Sir,

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion.

(Voices Yes, yes)

        Now The Cut Motion is with  leave of the House withdrawn. Now I put the question. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.2,46,153 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "28-Education"

        (The Motion was adopted and demand passed)

        Now I request the Chief Minister to move Demand No.5.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,10,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "39-Misc. Social and Developmental Organisations-Other Miscellaneous Organisation (VI-Directors of Social Welfare, etc)

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,10,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "39-Misc. Social and Developmental Organisations-Other Miscellaneous Organisation (VI-Directors of Social Welfare, etc)

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now I request the Chief Minister to move Demand No.6

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Town and Country Planning) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.3,50,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "39-Misc. Social and Developmental Organisations-(VIII-Town and Country Planning Organisation, etc.)"

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.3,50,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "39-Misc. Social and Developmental Organisations-(VIII-Town and Country Planning Organisation, etc.)"

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now let us come to Demand No.7. I request the Minister-in-charge to move Demand No.7.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.10,69,500 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head " 64-Famine Relief".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now there are cut motions which stands in the name of Shri Pohshna and Shri F.K. Mawlot

Shri F. K. Mawlot :- I won't move Sir.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Thank you

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Since Mr. Pohshna is absent the cut motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. Now I put the main question before the House The question is that an additional amount  of Rs.10,69,500 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head " 64-Famine Relief".

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now I request the Chief Minister to move Demand No.8

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.5,250 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head " (I-Expenditure on account of State Prisoners Detenus, Miscellaneous Gifts and Presents and Miscellaneous and unforeseen charges, etc)"

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.5,250 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head " ( I - Expenditure on account of State Prisoners Detenus, Miscellaneous Gifts and Presents and Miscellaneous and unforeseen charges, etc)"

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Let us now come to Demand No.9. I request the Chief Minister to move the Demand No.9.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.3,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "77-extraordinary Charges".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.3,000be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "77-extraordinary Charges".

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Let us now come to Demand No.10. I request the Chief Minister to move the Demand No.10

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.10,01,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "Capital Outlay on Industrial and Economic  Development (I-Investment in other Commercial and Industrial Undertakings).

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.10,01,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "Capital Outlay on Industrial and Economic  Development (I-Investment in other Commercial and Industrial Undertakings).

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now, I request the Chief Minister to moved Demand No.11.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head" 163-Capital outlay on Public Works Outside the Revenue Account."

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Since there  is no cut motion, I put the main question : The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head" 163-Capital outlay on Public Works Outside the Revenue Account."

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now let us come to Demand No.12. I request the Minister-incharge to moved Demand No.12.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,75,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head" "Q-Loans and Advances, etc. (II-Agricultural Loan , etc.)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now, I have received two cut motions which stand in the name of Shri Pohshna and Shri F.K Mawlot.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Sir, I won't move.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Mr. Mawlot is absent. So the cut motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. Now I put the main question before the House. The question  is that an additional Rs.1,75,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head" "Q-Loans and Advances, etc. (II-Agricultural Loan , etc.)".

        (The Motion was carried and demand passed)

        Now let us come to Item No.5. I request the Minister of Finance to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Deputy  Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.   (After a pause).

(The Motion was carried)

        Before I ask the Minister Finance to introduce the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

        "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Government of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the introduction of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill 1973,

Raj Bhavan,

Dated Shillong

Sd/- Braj Kumar Nehru,

The 21st, July, 1973.

Governor

        Now the Minster Finance to introduce the Bill.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Deputy  Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.  be introduced.   (After a pause) (The Motion was carried).

(The Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

Now, the Minister, Finance, to move the Bill for Consideration.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.be taken into consideration.

Mr. Deputy  Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973.  be introduced. be taken into consideration. (The Motion was carried).

Shri H. E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have only one point to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Since no amendment to the Bill is so far received, let us consider the Bill clause by clause.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, since there is no amendment, I do not think there is need to consider the Bill clause amendment, I do not think there is need to consider the Bill clause by clause and also I do not see any scope for discussion  and consideration of the Bill itself because there is no amendment to it.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker,  Sir, I think when the Bill has been introduced it may be taken into consideration and I think the members have got a right to speak on the Bill itself.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to submit as the hon. Member from Mynso-Raliang has said that the Bill be considered clause by clause if there is amendment to the Bill. As a matter of fact various demands had been granted by the House and now it is only for consideration  of these demands which have already been granted.  Therefore, it is only a matter of formality that consolidated fund be advanced by this matter of formality that consolidated fund be advanced by this Appropriation Bill, I would therefore, suggest that we come now to item 5.

 Shri H. E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is only a cordial relation. (voices - in all levels - you are right - both inside and outside the House) (Laughter)

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Since there is no amendment to the Bill the Minister may move the motion for passing.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that the motion for passing has not yet been moved.

Shri H. E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the members on the other side do not know the rules, they know only the "Ayes" and "Noes"

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I request your permission to move that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973 be passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1973 be passed. The motion was carried and the Bill passed)


Adjournment

        Since there is no other business, the House stands adjourned till 9.00 A.M. on the 27th July, 1973.

R.T. RYMBAI

Dated Shillong

Secretary

The 25th July, 1973

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

*****