MEGHALAYA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

BUDGET SESSION 1996

BULLETIN NO.6

( Friday, the 22nd March, 1996 )

        The House met at 10 a.m., with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair. The day was devoted for the transaction of Government Business.

1. QUESTIONS :

        Starred Questions Nos.40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, with Supplementaries thereto were disposed of. Starred Question No.43 - no supplementary and Starred Questions Nos.48 to 58 no supplementary question was asked since the question hour was closed.

2. VOTING ON SUPPLEMENTARY DEMANDS FOR GRANTS:

        Shri J.D.Pohrmen, Minister in-charge of Law moved Demand No.1.

        Shri A.H. Scott Lyngdoh moved his Cut Motion. He discussed at length on the over lapping of functionaries in the Law department and consequently wastage of public money. He also urged upon the Government of the necessity to appoint the legal adviser to the Chief Minister when there is the Law Secretary and wanted to know what was the monthly expenditure incurred by him. He suggested the State Government to enhance the salary of the Government Advocates in order to attract the profession.

        Shri G.S. Massar, Shri B.B.Lyngdoh and Shri E.K. Mawlong supported the Cut Motion whereas Shri S.L.Marbaniang opposed.

        Replying to the points raised by the mover and other participants, Shri J.D.Pohrmen, Minister in-charge Law stated that the Legal Adviser comes under the purview of the Chief Minister's Secretariat and the fund for his expenses were being provided from that Secretariat and not from the Law Department. However, he clarified that this matter should be taken up with the Chief Minister's Secretariat. He refuted the allegation that Government Advocate, prosecutors have been appointed on political consideration. As regards the appointment of the Government Lawyer from Jowai, he apprised the House that excepting one, other local lawyers have refused such appointments. He further mentioned that this Supplementary Demand was not meant for the Legal Adviser to the Chief Minister but for the payment to the Government Advocates and other Lawyers who came from Gauhati High Court.

        Since the mover was reluctant to withdraw his cut motion, it was put to vote and was ultimately lost by a voice vote.

        (Demand No.1 was passed)

        Shri R. Lyngdoh, Minister in-charge of Elections moved Demand No.2.

        Shri E.K. Mawlong, moved his cut motions. He raised a discussion on the implementation of P.I.C. Schemes in the State. His discussions were inconclusive.

        (The House was adjourned till 1 p.m).

After adjournment

        The House re-assembled at 1 p.m. with the Chairman in the chair.

        Shri E.K. Mawlong, resumed his inconclusive discussion on his cut motion. He called for a clarification from the concerned Minister as to whether the P.I.C. shall be made applicable/compulsory to all the voters in the State at the ensuing Parliamentary Election. He also wanted to know the names of the firms who have been allotted the photography work, the total amount involved. He suggested that the scheme be confined in the constituency where by the photography has not been completed by selecting few centres.

        Shri A.H. Scott Lyngdoh, Shri B.B.Lyngdoh, Shri O.N. Chyrmang supported the cut motion whereas Shri Tonsingh N. Marak opposed.

        Clarifying the points raised by the mover of the cut motion as well as the participants, Shri Rowell Lyngdoh, Election Minister told the House that the total expenditure of Rs.3,53,000 had been incurred as the cost of printing of photographs and other miscellaneous item. He also apprised the three firms namely Uttam Enterprise, New Delhi, D.P. Enterprise, Shillong and Nice Photo Labs, Calcutta and the amount was paid according to the number of population they have covered. As regards the validity or otherwise of the P.I.C. in the ensuing Parliamentary Elections, the Minister stated that instruction from the Election Commission, of India is being awaited. The cut motion was withdrawn by the mover with leave of the House and Demand No.2 was passed.

        Shri J.D.Pohrmen, moved Demand No.3.

        Shri E.K. Mawlong moved his cut motion. He discussed on the manner of payment of relief to the victims of natural calamities. He suggested enhancement of the quantum of relief t each victim and the simplification of the process of sanctioning the relief/aid. He also suggested that a certain amount of relief be placed at the disposal of the concerned D.C. and the B.D.O. for natural calamities on emergency basis.

        Shri A.H. Scott Lyngdoh, Shri H.S.Lyngdoh, Shri O.N. Chyrmang and Shri P.D. Sangma, supported the cut motion whereas Dr. Mukul Sangma, Shri M.I. Sarkar and Shri Tonsingh N. Marak opposed.

        In reply to the discussions, the Minister-in-charge of Revenue, Shri J.D.Pohrmen stated that the 10th Finance Commissions had sanctioned and additional amount of Rs. 63,00,000 as grant of relief in 1995-96 but the amount was insufficient to meet expenses vis-a-vis unprecedented natural calamities.

        His reply was in-conclusive on Monday, the 25th March, 1996.

3. ADJOURNMENT :

        The House rose at 3 p.m. and stood adjourned till 10 a.m. on Monday, the 25th March, 1996.

Secretary

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly