Proceedings of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly assembled at 9. A. M. on Monday, the 10th December, 1973 in the Assembly Chamber Shillong with the Speaker in the Chair

        The Assembly met at 9. a.m. on Monday, the 10th December, 1973 in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong with the Speaker in the Chair. 

Mr. Speaker :- Let us begin the business of the day by taking up Starred question No.1.


STARRED QUESTIONS

(To which oral replies were given)

Meghalaya Excise Act

Shri Jor Manik Syiem asked:-

1. Will the Minister-in-charge of Excise be pleased to state-

(a)

Whether there is an Excise Act in force in the erstwhile British Villages of Khasi Hills 

(b)

If, so, who issued licenses for out-still in these villages?

(c)

Whether it is a fact that licence was not issued to an out-still in the Nongshluit Sirdarship when an application was submitted for such a still?

(d)

If yes, why?

(e)

Whether it is a fact that the Meghalaya Excise Act has been extended to the whole of Meghalaya including the Khasi Syiemships?

(f)

If so, whether areas under the erstwhile Khasi States have been included?

(g)

If not, why not?

(h)

Whether Government is aware that illicit distillation is still rampant in many parts of Khasi Hills?

(i)

Whether Government is also aware that considerable quantities of rice are being used by these illicit stills?

(j)

If replies to (h) and (i) are in the affirmative what measures Government propose to check such illegal practices?

(k)

Whether a Superintendent of Excise has been appointed for the Khasi hills District?

(l)

If so, what are his qualification and experience?

(m)

The number of cases detected during the period from January to October 1973 for illicit distillation. How many of these cases ended in conviction. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) replied :-

1.(a)

-Yes. 

(b)

-The Deputy Commissioner with prior approval of the Government. 

(c)

-The application is still under consideration.

(d)

-Does not arise in view of reply at (c) above. 

(e)

-Yes.

(f)

-Yes. 

(g)

-Does not arise in view of reply at to (e) and (f) above. 

(h)

-Yes.

(i)

-Yes.

(j)

-Several steps, including gearing up of Governmental machinery, Central allotment of molasses to the State for this purpose, are being taken .

(k)

-An officiating appointment of Superintendent of Excise has been made. 

(l)

-The Officer is a law graduate and has passed the Departmental examination in all obligatory subjects. He has more than 10 years experience as Inspector of Excise and is serving in areas now forming part of Meghalaya since 1964. 

(m)

-Eighty-two cases of illicit distillation were detected and 59 cases so far disposed of and ended in conviction. The remaining 23 cases are pending for disposal in court. 

Shri Jor Manik Syiem :- Whether the Syiems and other Heads of Administration in the Khasi Syiemships are invested with powers under the Act?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, so far as these cases are concerned, they have not been invested with powers but we have consultations with the MLAs of this district that a proposal to invest them with powers should be formulated.

Shri Jor Manik Syiem :- Who is to issue licences for out-stills in the erstwhile village of Khasi Hills?

Mr. Speaker :- The reply is already in (b). 

Shri Jor Manik Syiem :- Who is to decide the location of out-stills in the Khasi Syiemships?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Commissioner is to decide in consultation with the Syiem.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, who issue licence in the Khasi Syiemship areas?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, at present, we have not decided yet. 

Shri Maham Singh :- Legally speaking, Mr. Speaker, Sir, are we to understand that there is no authority to issue licences in the Khasi Syiemship areas.

 Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) :- For some time because the case is pending with the High Court and when it was transferred to the Supreme Court, certain confusion arose that is whether the Syiem or the D.C. is to issue licences pending the decision of the Court. As such, the Syiem is to issue licences in the Khasi Hills Syiemship areas. 

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, legally who is the authority to issue such licences?

 Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Excise) :- At present, pending the decision of the Court, the D.C. is to issue licences.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to unstarred Question No.19. 

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(To which replies were laid on the Table)

Water Supply at Silkigiri

Shri Jackman Marak asked :-

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

(a)

Whether Government purpose to start the work the work of Water Supply at Silkigiri and Chockpot villages?

(b)

If so, when?

(c)

Whether survey works have been done for the purpose?

(d)

If so, the total amount so far incurred fro both the places?

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, PHE) replied:

19.(a)

-Yes. 

(b)

-The schemes will be taken up during the 5th Plan period.

(c)

-Survey work of Silkigiri was completed but survey in respect of Chockpot has not yet been taken up. 

(d)

-Rs.918 was incurred fro survey and investigation of Silkigiri Water Supply Scheme. 

Water Supply Schemes in Garo Hills District 

Shri Singjan Sangma asked:

20. Will the Minister-in-charge of PHE be pleased to state-

(a)

Whether the Water Supply Schemes proposed to be taken up in Garo Hills District have been finalised?

(b)

If so, the names of these schemes may please be stated?

(c)

The budget estimates for the schemes?

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, PHE) replied:

20.(a)

-The list of Water Supply Schemes to betaken up during the 5th Plan Period has been received only recently from the Garo Hills District Council. The schemes are under scrutiny. 

(b)

-Does not arise as the schemes are yet to be finally selected.

(c)

-Does not arise in view of (a) and (b) above. 

Tura Water supply Scheme

Shri Jackman Marak asked:

21. Will the Minister-in-charge of Public Heath be pleased to state-

(a)

The estimated cost for the Tura Water Supply Scheme?

(b)

The amount actually spent so far for the same? 

(c)

The distance of the water sources from Tura Town?

(d)

The name of the Executive Engineer in-charge of Water Supply Scheme for Garo Hills District?

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, PHE) replied:

21.(a)

-Rs.79.35 lakhs.

(b)

-Rs.70.96 lakhs.

(c)

-8.9 Km. Ronghhon Source (approximately) 13.5 Km. Ganol Source (approximately). 

(d)

-Mr. Bijaya Kumar Bordoloi. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether the Tura Water Supply Scheme has since been completed?

Mr. Speaker :- You can say only whether the scheme has been completed. 

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- Part of the scheme has been completed and the remaining is yet to be completed.

Culvert construction on Chokpot-Sibbari Road

Shri Jackman Marak asked:

22. Will the Minister-in-charge of Public Works Department be pleased to state- 

(a)

Whether the culvert constructed at Bibragiri on Chokpot-Sibbari Road is pucca?

(b)

The number of pucca culverts so far constructed on Chokpot-Siju Road?

(c)

The names of the Executive Engineer in-charge of the construction work?

(d)

Whether it is a fact that the bridge constructed on the Buga River in the Tura-Dalu Road is for permanent use?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, PWD) replied:

22.(a)

-Yes, Sir, all the culverts constructed at Bibragiri on Chockpot-Sibbari Road are pucca. 

(b)

-Total number of pucca culverts so far constructed on Chockpot-Siju Road (seventy eight). 

(c)

-Shri Umesh Borthakur, Executive Engineer, Tura South Division. 

(d)

-Does not arise, since there is no river by the name of Buga on the Tura-Dalu Road. 

Water Supply Scheme at Riangdo Bazar 

Shri Raisen Mawsor asked:

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

(a)

Whether Government propose to take up water supply scheme at Riangdo Bazar (Sonapahar)?

(b)

If so, what action has been taken?

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, Health) replied:

23.(a)

-Yes.

(b)

-Survey work was completed and the estimate is under preparation. 

Food situation in the State

Shri Dlosing Lyngdoh asked:

24. Will the Minister-in-charge of Supply be pleased to state-

(a)

Whether Government have any future plan to improve the food situation in the State?

(b)

If so, how?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) replied:

24.(a)

-Yes.

(b)

-Government is making every effort to improve the food situation in the State both by increased demand from the Central Pool of the Government of India and also by internal procurement of rice/paddy within the State. There is no alternative to this other than increased production by our own farmers. 

Central State Library 

Shri S.D. Khongwir asked:

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

(a)

Whether it is a fact that the Central State Library located in Shillong has since been taken over?

(b)

If not, why not?

(c)

Whether Government have as of now, any connection in the affairs of the Library?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) replied:

25.(a)

-No.

(b)

-Negotiations are in progress with the Assam Government in the matter. 

(c)

-Does not arise. 

Prof M.N. Majaw :- What are those books that were being regularly removed from the State Central Library by  the Government of Assam to Gauhati?

Mr. Speaker :- But question No.25(a) is whether the Government of Meghalaya has taken over in the State Central Library or not. Therefore, your question that the books have been shifted to Gauhati is to be asked on the floor of Assam Assembly.  You may ask whether the Government of Meghalaya is aware of the fact that. 

Prof M.N. Majaw :- Is the Government of Meghalaya aware of the fact that the books are regularly shifted from Shillong to Gauhati?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, right from the very beginning when the question is asked I have stated that the State Central Library has not been handed over to us and we as the Government have impressed upon the Government of Assam not to remove any single book or a single item of furniture pending final agreement'

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Since when negotiations were started?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Quite sometime back Mr. Speaker, Sir. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- May we know the present position of the negotiation?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- The negotiations are continuing and officers of the Government of Assam and Meghalaya are jointly working out a scheme for division of books and articles and other items. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, how long ago is that some time back?

Mr. Speaker :- He as already replied.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the first question is whether the Government is aware that books are being regularly from the State Central Library to Gauhati?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have just stated a few moments ago that officers of the Governments of Meghalaya and Assam are jointly working out a scheme to divide the various books and other articles and until this work is completed we will not be in a position to state categorically what books are being taken down.

Shri Maham Singh :- Whether negotiations are going on only in papers or physical verification. 

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- On physical verification also. 

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to unstarred Question No.26. 

Food adulteration in the State

Shri D. Lyngdoh asked:

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

(a)

Whether there have been cases of food adulteration detected in the State of Meghalaya lately?

(b)

If so, who detected these cases?

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, Health) replied:

26.(a)

-Yes.

(b)

-The Food Inspector. 

Shri Dlosing Lyngdoh :- Sir, how mane cases we detected?

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, five cases were detected in Garo Hills of which four cases were detected during the quarter ending June, 1973. Four cases have been instituted in court for prosecution and other cases are under trial.

Shri Dlosing Lyngdoh :- How many Food Inspectors are there in the State?

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- (Rose to answer). 

Mr. Speaker :- The answer is 'the Food Inspector'. So it implies that there is one Food Inspector. Is there only one Food Inspector. Is there only one Food Inspector?

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- At present there are two. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Are we to understand that these cases were detected only in Garo Hills District?

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- Yes, Sir. I have already replied that five cases were detected in Garo Hills and four are under trial. I have not mentioned anything about Khasi Hills. 

Shri S.N. Koch :- Whether any foodstuffs were seized. 

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Health) :- I think the hon. Member supposed to know about the procedure. The sample is taken and sent to Shillong for analysis and only after that prosecution can be made. 

Shri S.N. Koch :- Sir, under the law, the Food Inspector is supposed to.....

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch, here you are not to come for argument from the legal point. Your duty is to seek information from the Government. 

Registered Government Vehicles, Pool cars, etc. 

Shri R. Lyngdoh asked:

27. Will the Minister-in-charge of Transport be pleased to state-

(a)

The number of Government vehicles registered under MLG/MLP/MLX number?

(b)

The number of Pool Cars in the State? 

(c)

Categories of Officers entitled for allotment of Government 

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) replied:

27.(a)

-(i) MLG-417.
 (ii) MLP-106.
 (iii) MLX-18. 

(b)

-11 (eleven) vehicles. 

(c)

-The vehicles of the Central Pool of the Transport Department are available for the following purposes-

(1)

For use by the Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Speaker of Legislative Assembly and Deputy Speaker within or outside Shillong when it certified that the Government Car allotted to them is out of Commissioner; 

(2)

For use of State Guests ;

(3)

For use by Gazette Officers of the Government of Meghalaya for touring outside Shillong when the tour would normally entitle them to claim travelling allowance provided that officers who have been given departmental vehicles co-avail of pool vehicles for tours only when it is certified that the allotted departmental vehicle is out of order or is not otherwise available; 

(4)

For use of Gazetted Officers of Central Governments other States Governments and other distinguished visitors visiting Assam and Meghalaya in connection with the official duties when a department of the Government of Meghalaya places requisition for the same; 

(5)

For official use by the Departments of Government in special and emergent circumstances such as carriage of Budget in special and emergent circumstances such as carriage of Budget materials to Assembly and other such duties in connection with the affairs of the Legislative Assembly during Session period on on requisition from the Finance Department or the Parliamentary Affairs Department. Persons mentioned in (3) and (4) above may be allowed to use these vehicles in special and urgent cases by bearing POL charges themselves for journeys between residence and office and for other official purposes in Shillong. 

(d)

-No. 

(e)

-No such requisition appears to have been received. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Whether registration of MLG vehicles is done serially?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- Yes, Sir, serially. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Are we to understand that under MLG registration number the r are 417 vehicles?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- Up to the date on which this question was answered, there were 417 vehicles bearing registration number as MLG.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- What is the registration number of one vehicle which is always standing in the precincts of the House MLG 569?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- I do not get the question. 

Mr. Speaker :- His first question is : are the registration numbers taken serially and in reply to that you said 'yes,. Then the hon. Member asked another question : 'Are we to understand that there are 417 MLG vehicles and on physical verification one car car is found bearing No. MLG 569. Is it not a fact that No. MLG I to MLG 20 are reserved for VIPs?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- Yes Sir, they are.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Sir, 417 plus 20 make 437 vehicles. But I have see vehicle No. MLG 569 every day standing in the precincts of the Assembly. 

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- There are certain numbers of vehicles given to each district. For Garo Hills there are series of numbers, for Khasi Hills there are series of numbers an for Jaintia Hills there are series of numbers and total comes to 417. But they are not serially registered district wise. There are certain sets of number from I to certain number in Khasi Hills and they start from another number from Jaintia Hills and another series of numbers for Garo Hills. So, the total is 417 but they do not start from one to 417. In each district there is a group of series.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- What is the first number of MLG registered in the Khasi Hills District?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- I will require notice for the details. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- May we know how many allotted cars are there?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- I will require notice for that question. This is not for allotted cars.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- May we know who takes up the maintenance and repairs of the allotted cars?

Mr. Speaker :- That is a new question. 

Shri Upstar Kharbuli :- Answer (c) (5), these cars are used by the Departments of Government for official purpose. Do Government supply POL to such vehicles?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Transport) :- The question was asked on pool cars which are under the Transport Department and the answers are also on the basis of pool cars. 

Shri Upstar Kharbuli :- Sir, the reply was given in (c) (5) categorizing the type of vehicles and the officers entitled to use them for official purposes.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the vehicles of the Central Pool are available for the purpose and the categories of officers who are entitled to use the pool vehicles are listed in reply (1) to (5) of the question.

Shri Upstar Kharbuli :- In the reply in (c) (5) it has been mentioned that officers using these pool cars normally supply P.O.L. by themselves. What about the vehicles used by them for official purposes? 

Mr. Speaker :- The officers themselves bear the expenses.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Whether the members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly are entitled to these pool cars?

Mr. Speaker :- Whether the members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly are entitled to these pool cars, perhaps you may have to specify as on official duty and unofficial duty. In fact, you any write to me I will clarify the position but not in the House.

Shri H. Hadem :- Sir, I want to raise a point of order. The hon. Member has  crossed the limit of putting supplementaries on this particular question.

Shri M.N. Majaw :-  Supplementary Question to answer 27 (d) whether a Log Book is maintained for each vehicle?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- Yes Sir.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- For each vehicle?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- It is supposed to be. But I will require notice for that.

Prof. P.G. Marbaniang :- 27(c), whether the officials of the North-Eastern Hills University are entitled to use these pool cars?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- I will require notice for that.

Mr. Speaker :-  Let us pass on to Unstarred question No.28.

Members on the Meghalaya Board of School Education

Prof. M.N. Majaw asked :- 

28. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state-

(a)

The names of those persons recommended by the Inspector of School, Khasi Hills District for inclusion as members on the Meghalaya Board of School Education?

(b)

Whether those names or recommendations were accepted by the Government?

(c)

If not, why?

(d)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the largest concentration of educational Institution as in Meghalaya in Shillong?

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

28.(a)

1. Mr. A. Hannan, Headmaster, Government Boy's H.E. School, Shillong. 

2. Mr. K.R. Deb, Headmaster, Jail Road Boys' H.E. School, Shillong. 
3. Mrs. P. Ghose, Headmistress, Laban Bengali Girls High School, Shillong. 
4. Mrs. B. Mitra, headmistress, English Synod School (English Section of K.J.P. Girls' High School, Shillong.

(b)

-No, Sir. 

(c)

-Section 4 of the Meghalaya Board of School Education Act, 1973 prescribed the manner in which the Board is to be established. In sub-section (vii) of the said Section it is specifically stated that Government is to nominate a prescribed number of Members in prescribed number of members in a prescribed manner. In the exercise of its prerogative to so nominate a certain number of the Members, the Government did consult, among others, the Inspector of Schools, Khasi Hills District. Government, however, did not accept the recommendations made by the said Inspector of Schools, as it is of the view tat those ultimately selected would better serve the interest of education in the State. 

(d)

-Yes, Sir. 

Prof M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we know if these names i.e., 1. Mr. A. Hannan, 2. Mr. K.R. Deb, 3. Mrs. P. Ghose, 4. Mrs. B. Mitra, are the only names that have been recommended or there are any others left out?

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- These are all that are recommended. 

Government trucks and buses in the State

Shri F.K. Mawlot asked:-

29. Will the Minister-in-charge of Transport be pleased to state-

(a)

Whether it is a fact that a number of trucks are lying idle at the State Central Library compound for quite a number of months? 

(b)

If so, the number of trucks and buses, and the reasons thereof?

(c)

The number of buses, trucks plying regularly in the different routes in the State?

(d)

The average quarterly income derived there from? 

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) replied:

29.(a)

-Yes. 

(b)

-Five truck and due to acute and due to acute shortage of tyres.  

(c)

-13 (thirteen) buses.

(d)

-Rs,1,84,427.12p. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in 29 (d) the average quarterly income is Rs. 1,84,427.12p, may we know the amount of expenditure when the income is so much.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- I need notice for that. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what the Government proposes to do with these five trucks which are lying idle.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- As soon as the tyres are available, we are planning to use them. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- When the Government expect to get these tyres?

 Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- Since the matter of supplying tyres is not under the control of Government, I cannot say.

Meghalaya Bus Service

Shri R. Lyngdoh asked:

30. Will the Minister-in-charge of Transport be pleased to state-

(a)

The monthly receipt from the Meghalaya Bus Service on
(1) The Shillong-Tura
(2) Shillong-Nongstoin
(3) Shillong-Mawsynram
(4) Shillong-Cherra and 
(5) Shillong-Jowai Routes, separately during the first six months of the current financial year 197-74?

(b)

The monthly expenditure on pay and allowances of the personnel involved in these routes during the said period?

(c)

The total amount incurred on POL, maintenance and wears and tears during the said period?

 Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) replied:

30.(a)

- (1) The Shillong-Tura Route-
April, 1973 Rs.26,744.88 Rs.1,58,005.70
May, 1973 Rs.26,894.06
June, 1973  Rs.26,166.50
July, 1973 Rs.27,436.69
Aug, 1973 Rs.24,436.69
Sept, 1973 Rs.26,414.51
(2) The Shillong-Nongstoin Route-
April, 1973 Rs.13,740.31 Rs.77,274.07
May, 1973 Rs.12,405.05
June, 1973 Rs.8,752.88
July, 1973 Rs.11,668.24
Aug, 1973 Rs.15,744.43
Sept, 1973 Rs. 14,963.71
(3) Shillong-Mawsynram Route-
April, 1973 Rs.3,328.33 Rs.23,992.36
May, 1973 Rs.4,610.43
June, 1973 Rs.2,054.86
July, 1973 Rs.4,616.53
Aug, 1973 Rs.4,325.44
Sept, 1973 Rs.5,056.77
(4) Shillong-Cherra Route-
April, 1973 Rs.15,401.96 Rs.95,516.02
May, 1973 Rs.15,378.06
June, 1973 Rs.14,049.56
July, 1973 Rs.17,846.81
Aug, 1973 Rs.17,438.46
Sept, 1973 Rs.15,401.17
(5) Shillong-Jowai Route-
April, 1973 Rs.1,657.72 Rs.23,745.88
May, 1973 Rs.1,394.43
June, 1973 Rs.3,266.96
July, 1973 Rs.6,016.45
Aug, 1973 Rs.5,617.03
Sept, 1973 Rs.5,793.29

(b)-

Rs.1,07,373.00 for all routes

(c)-

Rs.2,26,930.00

Administrative Unit

Prof. M.N. Majaw asked : 

31. Will the chief Minister be pleased to state-

(a)

The difference of an "Administrative Unit"?

(b)

The difference between "Administrative Unit" and a "Subdivision"?
(c) The nature and rank of the execute judicial powers of an "Administrative Officer" incharge of an Administrative Unit?

Capt. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied :

31. (a)

-The term "Administrative Unit" has not been defined in any statute or rules. The term is used for an area in a district or subdivision where special administrative arrangements are made on the consideration of administrative expediency development needs and grounds of public policy.

(b)

-A Subdivision is held by a Sub-divisional Officer whereas an Administrative Unit is under the charge of an Administrative officer who is a slightly junior officer normally drawn from the State Civil Service.

(c)

-An Administrative Officer of an Administrative Unit is usually a State Civil Service functioning as an Assistant Commissioner or Extra Assistant Commissioner of a district. He is usually invested with judicial powers of a Magistrate 2nd Class and in case he has requisite judicial experience with 1st Class powers. An Administrative Officer  is Subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner of the district


Leave of absence by Member

Mr. Speaker :- Before we pass on to the next item in today's list of business I have to bring one information to the House an intimation from Shri B. Kharkongor addressed to me in writing asking fro leave of absence from the sitting of the House which runs as follows :-

To

The Speaker, Meghalaya Assembly,
Shillong, 

Sir,     

        As I have been lying ill on account of influenza and paratyphoid for the last one month or so, it is not possible for me to attend the present session of the House. I, therefore, beg that leave of absence is granted to me for the whole session. 

Your faithfully,
Sd/- B. Kharkongor, 
MLA". 

        May I have the consent of the House that leave of absence be granted to the Honourable Member.

(Voices :-Yes)


Privilege Motion

        There is another complaint today which I have received from Mr. Hoover Hynniewta, MLA giving notice of his intention raise to-day a question of breach of privilege and contempt of the House against Mr. B. Diengdoh, MDC, Mr. K Mawlong, MDC, Prof G. G. Swell, M.P., and Mr. U Kharbuli, MLA and owner and printer of the North Eastern Press, Shillong to the effect that in the book published by the Public Department Implementation Committee entitled "Misdeeds of the APHLC Government the Hon. Member contends that there are passages which constitute serious breach of privilege and contempt of the House by all persons mentioned above has been served to him also through this office and he has already received it. But incidentally, the Member has just gone out. I have it to the House whether we should take up this matter in spite of the fact that he attended and left the house or shall we take it on some other day. 

Shri D.N. Joshi :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. member has gone out and he is not present at the moment, we may take up the matter some other day.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. speaker, Sir, in this particular case, the Member has receive the notice. 

Mr. Speaker :- The Member has received the notice and he has already been made to understand that the Matter will be taken up today. But the question is whether the fact that he has gone out is a willful absence or he has some other urgent business outside. 

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, he has just gone out to meet some people. 

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to submit, if that is the case it is for the hon. member atleast to get the permission of the Chair when he had attended the House already. Under rule 167 of the rules of Procedure and conduct of Business it has been laid down that if the member is unable to attend, the House may further postpone the matter. I beg to submit that this particular provision does not apply in this particular case. The Member was able to attend, the question of unable to attend no longer arises. Further, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. member had received the notice and moreover he left without the permission of the Speaker. With this humble submission, I propose that the matter be taken up to-day.

Mr. Speaker :- In this connection, the member does not need to ask my permission in writing, but whether he goes out willfully or not.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker Sir, this House was not given notice to observe the way in  which the Member took leave of the House. But Sir, we are governed by the rules. It there is nothing in the rule which says that if the Member chooses to leave the precincts of the House when a Privilege Motion is to be taken up, it is not the duty of the House to wait till it suits the Member to enter the House. There is no such thing. A notice has been given to him and he has duly received his notice. It is distracted from the dignity of the House to deliberate as to whether the matter which has been announced to be  taken up would await consideration because the Member concerned chooses to leave the Chamber of the House. So I humbly submit that it does not conform to the dignity of the House that we should deliberate at all on this question.

Mr. Speaker :- Now, I want to know the view of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the present stand. The hon. Member has already received a copy of the complaint when he was present in the House. He knows very well that the matter will come up immediately after the questions. So, according to the rules of procedure, we have to interpret it and before I give my ruling, I would like to get more enlightenment from other hon. Members also. May I have the view of the Leader of the Opposition vis-a-vis Rule 167.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I believe the hon. Member did not move out of the House deliberately because some people might have wanted him outside and I think he may come back soon.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Maham Singh, do you think the business outside the House is more important than the business of the House?

Shri Maham Singh :- May be he will be coming back very soon, Mr. Speaker, Sir. He did not know also upto what time the questions will take.

Mr. Speaker :- He has already been informed that the matter would be taken up today.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- I suggest, Sir, that he should be informed.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- Sir, I will draw your kind attention to Rule 167. The relevant portion reads as follows: "The member complained against shall attend the house in his place on the day fixed by the House or proposed by the complaint, as the case may be". The complainant, Sir, has proposed to take it up today, because it cannot be a mere proposal. Sir, it has proposed that this matter will be taken up today and that proposal also was contained in the very complaint notice. Therefore, the matter is very complaint notice. Therefore, the matter is very clear the rule is very clear. It is mandatory; it uses the word "shall". "The member....shall attend the house in his place on the day proposed by the complaint." Therefore, as I said earlier, in view of this clear provision, mandatory provision, I think we should go ahead with the business which is placed before the House.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the matter that we are deliberating here today is an important one in the sense that the hon. member is not present. Now, if the this House deliberates on this matter conditioning itself it is not right because in this case, the Member concerned I think it is not right because in this case, the member concerned knew very well about the notice of complaint and he also knew very well that this matter is normally taken up after the question time. Now, he chooses to be absent just at that period of time. I would say that this is a case of willful absence. It is not a question of his absence just for a little bit of time. It is not a question of knowing that this matter would be taken up and he has chosen himself to be absent. Therefore, I contend that this absence is a willful absence and the rules clearly say : "If he is unable to attend,  the house may further postpone the consideration of the matter; but if he, in the opinion of the house, willfully absents himself, the House may proceed with the matter in his absence." Therefore, I would Sate that House should proceed with the matter without waiting for his presence.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Transport) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the last hon. Member who spoke before me mentioned the question hour. If we are to be fair to the member who is absent and it may be that he expected the questions to continue fro one hour i.e., upto 10 O'clock.

Mr. Speaker :- It is not said "after the question hour". 

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy :- I think, to be fair to the Member concerned, he might have taken it to be at 10 o'clock rather than at this particular time.

*Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also like to refer to Rule 167 and in this Rule there is a word 'attend"-shall "attend" I entirely agree with the hon. member from Nongkhlaw when he said that it is mandatory on the part of the hon. member concerned to attend the house in his place on the day fixed by the house. But this word "attend" Mr. Speaker, Sir, means attend from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock because here in the other lines in this particular rule, it is written that an opportunity or a chance be given to the hon. member but if he is unable to attend, there is  also a provision, in this particular Rule 167. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in so far as  this particular hon. member is concerned, we do not know that is the reason that he has gone out from the Chamber of the house. But it may be Mr. Speaker, Sir, that he has suddenly taken ill or something and he has to leave the Chamber of this House. That, of course, we do not know. So, I would suggest Mr. Speaker, Sir, if the Member concerned is unable to attend, the House my further postpone the consideration of the matter. So. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I we have to do it with a sense of justice, because here we have to give him a chance to say something against the complaint it would be only fair and proper t give him another chance so that he can attend and reply to the complaint.

Mr. Speaker :- My duty is always to do justice to whichever Member of the House but may I ask the opinion of Mr .Khongwir that the Member complained against attended to day but at the time when this matter was taken up he was not inside the house.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- I also pose the question Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether the word attend means attend from 9 AM to 1 p.m. Whether attending at 9.25 tantamounts to having attended the Session of the house or not.

*Shri Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the first place, may I point out that the particular sentence referred to in Rule 167 says that "The Member complained against shall attend the house in his place on the day fixed". Sir, on the day fixed. I have heard also from the complainant that this notice was given to the hon. member from Malki just 5 or 10 minutes before the house sat in session. This is a fact Sir, and under Rule 168 it says "The member complained against shall be given an opportunity to be heard in explanation or exculpation". Mr. Speaker, Sir, since this matter relates to an incident just one or two minutes old, I do not see any reason why we cannot give one day more in view of the gravity of the discussion and in view of the fact that has been stated above, I think it would be better if we postpone this matter by one day. I purpose, Sir, that we take-up this matter tomorrow.

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister for Parliamentary) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the motion as already hinted by the Hon. Member in the context of the rule that a member complained against shall attend on the day fixed, coupled with Rule 168 that the 'the member shall be given an opportunity to be heard'. Sir, I would agree with the hon. member from Mawhati that it will not do any harm or cause any difficulty to the house if we post-pone he matter for one day. 

Mr. Speaker :- May I request the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs to help me from which section of Rules can I really interpret to give the hon. Member an opportunity to be heard?

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister for Parliamentary) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as already hinted by yourself the member complained against shall attend the house in his place on the day fixed by the house. Sir, the day proposed day is today and the Member attended, but it is not very clear here and also not compulsory that he may attend at the time of the day fixed. Of course, Sir, there is room for interpretation of Rules for our benefit. Therefore, sir Rule 168 says that "the member complained against shall be given an opportunity to be heard" coupled with Rule 167, I would submit Sir, the discretion lies in your ruling and I would suggest that the matter be taken up some other day. 

*Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister of Agriculture) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is said here that the attended on the day and to-day we have seen him attending session. He was within his House but Sir, after this matter came up for discussion, he went out willfully to avoid this matter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the rules are very clear here and if he remained absent himself, the House may proceed with the matter even in his absence. We have seen him in and going out of the House, I mean his name is marked present and Mr. Speaker, Sir, he has received well in time the notice of complaint before we discuss the matter here. It will really create a very bad precedent if we postpone this matter till some other day. This will make every-body skipping out of the House. Therefore, I feel that the matter should be taken up now.

*Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Sir, I will submit that it is stated here that the member complained against shall attend the House in his place. He had attended in his place and on the day fixed. We have heard that the matter will be taken up today. Sir, I would like to ask, what do you mean here by the day fixed, and I beg to read out Rule 11 as already amended by the House. Sir, the House normally sits from 9A.M.  till 2 P.M. Does it mean that because this matter is brought up here that he will sit from 9A.M. to 1 P.M.

*Shri S.D. Khongwir :- One more point Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Minister, Agriculture has already stated that the hon. member willfully absented himself.......

Mr. Speaker :- Actually, it is well within the Rules whether he willfully absents himself or not, the question does not arise. He was already present in the House. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- When he chooses to go out of the house does it tantamount to be a willful absence from the House?

Mr. Speaker :- I have already sad that. The question does not arise. 

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that we cannot presume anything when a Member was present here in the morning and then left his seat whether it can be presumed that he willfully absented or not. But Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that we cannot presume that the willfully absented himself. 

Mr. Speaker :- I have already ruled that, that question does not arise. 

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, that question really does not arise here. Then again in the rule it is stated that in case a prior notice has been given by the House to the Member concerned and that the member complained against shall attend the House in his place on the day fixed by the House, I feel Sir, that accordingly notice of complaint has been issued to the Member but there is no mention of any proposed day. 

Mr. Speaker :- I did not issue the notice to you but only to Shri Upstar Kharbuli. Wherefrom did you get a copy of that letter.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the cat was out of that letter. 

Mr. Speaker :- It appears that he burden to interpret the rules lies only with me, but I request the hon. member to help me in so far as this matter is concerned, a copy of the complaint had already been sent to Mr. Upstar Kharbuli by the Secretary of the House, whcih he had duly received. I have listened carefully to the speeches of all the hon. members who spoke. Shri Upstar Kharbuli was present today although,  of course, Mr, Hopingstone Lyngdoh and Mr. Maham Singh, told the House that * * * * *  In dealing with such matters we are governed by Rule 167: Where the complaint is to be made against a member, the member should be given prior notice by the complaint, petitioner or Secretary of the Committee is to be made against a member, the Member should be given prior notice by the complaint, petitioner or Secretary of the Committee, as the case may be. here, a copy of the complaint had already been issued to him by the Secretary. Had no prior notice been given, the House could had adjourned the consideration of the matter till notice is given to the member concerned or the House could have declined to uncertain the complaint. In so far as this case is concerned nobody spoke in favour of declining entertainment of the complaint have adjourned the consideration of the matter till notice is given to the member concerned or the House could have inclined to entertain the complaint. In so far as this case is concerned nobody spoke in favour of declining entertainment of the complaint. The question does not arise because he hon. Member complaint against had already received a copy of the complaint. It is incumbent on his part to attend the house in his place on the day fixed by the house or proposed by the complaint, as the case may be. The hon. member was present this morning and it was expected of him not to leave his place before this question was disposed of. No business can be more important than the business of the House. If he is unable to attend, the House may further postpone the consideration of the matter. This question also does not arise. He did attend since morning till the privilege issue was taken up. The minister for Parliamentary Affairs as well as Mr. Khongwir quoted Rule 168 : As soon as the question of the motion founded on the complaint is proposed by the Speaker, the member complained against shall be given an opportunity to be heard in explanation or exculpation. The hon. member could have availed himself to this opportunity to explain himself before the house when he knew that the matter was being taken up by the House as proposed by the complainant.

        By absenting himself from the House at this juncture, the hon. member has denied himself of this opportunity to he heard, and has no explanation to offer. I had stated earlier, it will be in the discretion of the house to proceed with the matter in his absence. he would, perhaps, want to offer his explanation at a later stage.

        The Secretary will now read out the complaint. 

        Secretary Assembly-

         To

The Secretary,
Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Dear Sir,

        I here by give notice of my intention to raise to day a question of breach of privilege and contempt of the house against Mr. A. Blingstar Diengdoh, MDC Mr. K. Mawlong., Mr. G. G. Swell., M.P., Mr. U. Kharbuli, MLA and the owner and printer of the North-Eastern Press, Shillong.

        The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:-

        On behalf of the Public Demands Implementation Committee a Public meeting was convened on 3rd November, 1973 by Messrs. U Kharbuli, MLA and K. Mawlong MDC, its Chairman and Secretary respectively. On the appointed day the meeting was held and addressed by Mr. G. G. Swell, M. P. who read but and moved the resolution of the meeting. The resolutions was subsequently published  in a booklet under the caption "Misdeeds of the People's Rally at Shillong on November 3rd 1973" by Shri U Kharbuli, MLA and printed at the North-Eastern Press, Shillong. The offending portion appears in pages 6 and 7 of the booklet and is produced herein below:-

(a)

While failing safeguard, protect and promote the interests of the people of the State., the APHLC State Government has retorted to actions which will result in further crippling and fight for this development and upliftment. For instance. 

(b)

It had the Meghalaya Agriculture Income Tax Act and Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act enacted by the Legislative Assembly by which unrealistic and unacceptable taxes on farmers and small tradesman in the State were imposed. Both these measures instead of promoting agriculture and commerce in the State will have the effect of destroying both. 

        The meeting was presided over by Mr. U Kharbuli MLA while Messrs. A Blingstar Diengdoh ad K Mawlong took an active part in organising the meeting and were present at the time that the resolution was passed and as such were a party to it.

        The impugned statement constitutes a gross breach of the privilege and contempt of the House in that :-

(1)

It made a false contention that the Meghalaya Agricultural Income Tax Act and the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act were enacted by the Meghalaya Assembly, thereby constituting a willful misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House. 

(2)

It referred to the House in derogatory terms and sought to create the false impression that laws were enacted by the House with the permission, and at the behest, of the State Government, and that the House was nothing more than a mere department of the Government, thereby casting a reflection on the house an bringing it into odium, contempt and ridicule. 

(3)

It falsely and maliciously accused the house of undertaking measures resulting in crippling the people and taking measures resulting in crippling the people and weakening their will to stand on their own and fight for their development and upliftment, thereby casting a reflection on the House and lowering its authority and dignity. 

(4)

It described the taxes imposed through Acts that the House had not only allowed to remain in the statute book but also adopted follow-up legislative measures there on as

(a) unrealistic, thereby casting a reflection on the House and lowering its prestige. 

(b) unacceptable, thereby challenging and defying the authority of the House and thus lowering its authority

(c) measures which instead of promoting agriculture and commerce in the State would have the effect of destroying both, thereby casting reflection on the House and bringing it into odium and contempt. 

(5)

it maliciously sought to create the false impression that taxes are imposed on all farmers and small tradesmen in the State, an insinuation which amounts to a reflection on and a contempt of the House. 

        In his capacity as the Chairman of the Public Demands Implementation Committee, Mr. U Kharbuli, MLA, not only forwarded the resolution of the meeting to outsiders but also demonstrated with them as follows :-

       "As a representative of the people of India in the Parliament we feel that you have a responsibility to this new and small State to ensure that it proceeds on proper lines for the Welfare of the people of the State as well as of India as a whole. I therefore take this liberty of forwarding a copy of this resolution to you for your perusal"

        The above remonstrance constitutes an insinuation that our State is not proceeding on proper lines and as such amount to a further reflection on the house. Mr. U Kharbuli has thus abrogated to himself the liberty of infringing the  prestige and dignity of this august House. In printing this offending statement, the owner and printer of the North-Eastern Press ahs committed another breach of the privilege of the House. 

Dated Jaiaw, Shillong 

Yours faithfully,

the 10th December, 1973. 

Sd/ K. Hynniewta, MLA.

*Shri S.D. Khongwir :- On a pint of order Mr .Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to Rules 159 and 262 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business. Rule 159 reads as follows : "A member wishing to make a complaint of a breach of privilege shall give notice in writing to the Secretary before the commencement of the sitting on the day on which it is proposed to be made. If the complaint is founded upon a document the original thereof shall accompany the notice" and Rule 262 ends as follows: "The Secretary shall circulate to each member a copy of every notice or other paper which is required by these rules to be made available for the use of members". Mr. Speaker, Sir, it appear that no copy of the complaint has been circulated to the Members.

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I humbly submit that these Rules cannot verse the process that you have allowed to take place in the house. You have already allowed this motion to be taken up for consideration by this House and you have gone to the extent of asking the Secretary to road out the complaint and the Secretary of this august House has duly carried out your orders. The matter, therefore, has come up before the House fog consideration. Sir, the hon. member has referred to Rule 262 in which it is laid down as follows :- "The Secretary shall circulate to each members a copy of every notice or other paper which is required by these Rules to be made available for these of members". The qualifying words are which is required by these rules to be made available for the use of members. therefore, I submit Sir, that Rule 159 has not made it necessary for this particular notice to be distributed the members. Because otherwise it would have given much longer period of notice. Because here I have given this notice one minute before the commencement of the sitting of the House. Therefore, within this one minute's time it is humanly not possible to get this notice cyclostyled and distributed among the members. So, Rule 159 has preclude the necessity of distributing this particular notice among the Members of this House. In addition to that Sir, the matter cannot be distributed unless you Sir, in your wisdom and direction. After hearing, you may rule that is is not in order and as such it should not be taken up by the House.

Mr. Speaker :- I would like to remind the hon. member who has referred to Rule 159 as well as to Rule 262, Rule 262 refers only to notices whereas for any notice of complaint on breach of privileges against an hon. member of the House there is a special procedure laid down under Rules 167 and 168. So also in other matters there are some special procedures. For instance when a Minister makes the Budget Speech on the floor of the House, no Minister can demand budget papers until and unless it is duly presented before the House. Therefore in this particular case also we have to take resort to the special procedure which is contained in Rule 167 and Rule 168 which are specially concerned with the special procedure against a Member. So Rule 159 an Rule 262 do not apply in this case. therefore, the point of order raised by Shri S.D. Khongwir is ruled out.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir if we are to abide by Rule 167, the hon. Members should have been given prior notice.

Mr. Speaker :- Are you challenging my ruling?

Shri Maham Singh :- I submit to your ruling. On a point of order...........

Mr. Speaker :- I have already given my ruling. Are you raising s point of order against the ruling of the Speaker?

Shri Maham Singh :- On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker Sir, I do not find any time has been fixed by this House for consideration......

(voices - It is a challenge)

Mr. Speaker :- I have already given my ruling on this issue and you may take part in the discussion after the hon. mover has made his submission before the House. Now Mr. Hoover Hynniewta.

Shri H. Hynniewta :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, although it may appear that I am launching on a political vendetta against a certain person and others who are in his political company or it may appear that I am indulging in an excessive dose of vindictiveness, I regret very much Sir, that the same percentage of 1.6 per cent of the prestige and dignity and the rights and privileges of this House which I enjoy as a member has imposed upon me an onerous. although unpleasant, duty to raise this matter for the second time in the session of this House. Sir, every one of us, imperfect as we are, has got his individual personal equation. It is open for any person on keeping with his personal equation to throw this paper or that paper into the waste paper basket and if he chooses to go basking in the sunshine of his personal equation, I would have left him alone and undisturbed. But, Sir if that personal equation impinges upon the dignity, prestige, rights and privileges of this House, I feel it is my duty as much of that of any one in this House to rise as one man and pick up the gauntlet which that person or group of persons had thrown on the constitutional precincts of this House. Sir, I beg to say here that our very survival, political or otherwise, as members is inextricably bound up with the prestige and the dignity of this House and if the sort of  things we were accused in the resolution of having done, which I now bring before the notice of this House, were true, Sir, it is humanly impossible for us to effectively function any longer. So, Sir, I had to resort to this course of action also as a measure if self protection so that we may go about without any impediment to serve the interest of people to the best of our convince. Sir, a certain individual might feel that the public meeting which he addressed had got divine approbation, and I think, if he carried he belief to its logical conclusion, he should have thought many many times before indulging through the public meeting in accusations which amounted to a contempt of this House. The circumspection should be the more so to the members of the Khasi community, who were brought up in the tradition of believing that our public durbars had some aspects of divine nature. Therefore he should have reflected many many times before he chose to utilise that forum fro indulging in remarks amounting to contempt of this august House. Therefore, Sir, although it is a painful task, yet I feel it is also my proud privilege to raise this matter before this august House. 

        Sir, as I have stated in my notice, on behalf of the Public Demands Implementation Committee, a public meeting was convened on the 3rd  November, 1973 by M/s U Kharbuli, MLA and E.K. Mawlong, MDC as its Chairman and Secretary respectively. On the appointed day, a meeting was held and addressed by Mr. G. G. Swell who read out and the resolution of the meeting. The resolution was subsequently published in the booklet under the caption "Misdeeds of the APHLC Government Resolution of the people's rally on November 3rd, 1973' by Shri U Kharbuli, MLAs and printed by the North Eastern Press, Shillong. In the offending portion which appears in pp.6-7 of the booklet, Sir, it is stated as follows :-

        "While failing to safeguard, protect and promote the interests of the people of the State, the APHLC State Government has retorted to actions which will result in further crippling the people and weakening their will to stand on their own and fight for their development and upliftment. For instance:-

        (b) It had the Meghalaya Agriculture Income Tax Act and Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act enacted by the Legislative assembly by which unrealistic and unacceptable taxes on farmers and small tradesmen in the State were imposed. Both these measures instead of promoting agriculture and commerce in the State will have the effect of destroying both".

        Sir, the impugned statement made a false contention that the Meghalaya Agricultural Income Tax Act and Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act enacted by the Legislative assembly, thereby constituting a willful misrepresentation of the proceedings of this House. Sir, these Acts only an autonomous State and subsequently became a full State. Sir, what happened was that the Acts were adopted adapted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and subsequently adapted by the Government in exercise of certain powers conferred by the Reorganisation Act (No.81 of 1971). But Sir, although these things had happened they do not justify the contention that the Acts were enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. For instance, supposing a lady doctor adopts a child and undertakes some surgical operation affecting the physical condition and appearance of that child, can that lady doctor be predicated of being the physical mother of the child? Certainly not. In the same manner what this Assembly has done is to adopt the legislative operations to make these provisions more amendable to the purpose of serving the interests of the people of this State. 

Mr. Speaker :- I think the analogy of this type does not hold good so far as the physical side of the question is concerned. This Assembly has adapted these two Acts and we are the competent authority to do that. We cannot disown what we have got. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that we  should disown anything. What I am saying is that it is not correct to charge the lady doctor of being the physical mother. (Laughter)

        Sir, as I have read out, the impugned portion of the booklet alleged that the State Government had the Meghalaya Agriculture Income Tax Act and the Meghalaya Purchase Tax Act enacted by the Legislative Assembly" I underline the the word 'had' whose connotation in the context in which it has been used is "allowed to be done". Sir, I would therefore, emphasise the seriousness of the derogatory reference to this House as if, as a mere department of the Government; it could enact laws by the permission and at the behest of the latter only, thereby causing a reflection on this House and bringing it to contempt and ridicule. Thirdly, it also accused the House of undertaking measures which instead of promoting agriculture an commerce in the State would have the effect of destroying both. Sir, can anybody with impunity also accuse this House of undertaking measures resulting in crippling the people and their development and upliftment? This is a very serious reflection Sir, on this august House. Sir, it has also been charged that the taxes imposed through these Acts which were already in the Statute Book and also adapted by this Legislative Assembly are unrealistic. This is also, I submit, an aspersion on the House. Can any-body also say with impunity that the Acts or laws enacted by this House in exercise of its constitutional authority are not acceptable to whom? Will these four or five persons assume the extra legislative right to decide that the laws adapted or enacted by this House are acceptable or not. In so assuming they committed a serious breach of privilege and contempt of this House. Sir, the impugned statement has also created a false impression that the taxes are imposed on all farmers and small tradesmen in the State. Sir, this also constituted a serious reflection on this august House. I submit that this House had not imposed taxes on all farmers and small tradesmen and I Believe that my submission will stand the test of the most through judicial scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker :- May I point out to the hon. member Article 175 wherein it is laid down that your duty is only to establish a prima facie case and that you should not make a speech.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- I have been very brief.

Mr. Speaker :- Be brief.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- All that I have been trying is to establish a prima facie case, and if you, Sir, feel now that my mission is over I shall immediately resume my seat. Sometimes I feel that raising my voice will underline the seriousness of the charge. But I am under your control, Sir, if you feel that I have made out a prima facie case at this stage, I would with a smiling face resume my seat. Sir, I have practically come to the end of my submissions. In the concluding paragraph, Sir, the hon. member, Shri U Kharbuli, Chairman of the Public Demands Implementation Committee had not only forwarded the resolution to outsiders but also after distorting the facts he remonstrated with them as follows. "As representatives of the people of India in Parliament.....

Mr. Speaker :- Who is the representatives of the people of India?

Shri H. Hynniewta :- If you go through the forwarding note, you will find that he forwarded it to some outsiders and remonstrated with them in this vein: "as the reprehensive of the people in India in Parliament we feel that you have a responsibility to this new and small State to ensure that it proceeds on proper lines for the welfare of the people of the State as well as of India as a whole. I, therefore, take this liberty of forwarding a copy of this resolution to you your perusal." Sir, it tantamounts to  a reflection to you for your perusal". Sir, it tantamounts to a reflection that our State is not proceedings on a proper line. 

Mr. Speaker :- That this Assembly cannot ensure. 

Shri H. Hynniewta :- If that is so then those people in Delhi according to him, will have to take up to task or pull us up by our Legislative ears and say admonishingly to us. "You boys, you have not behaved well". This approach to outsiders on the part of a member of this Demands Implementation Committee, I would humbly submit Sir, casts a reflection on the House. Sir, U Kharbuli has abrogated to himself the right to infringe the prestige and dignity of the house, which I submit, he does not possess. He can as Chairman of the Public Demands Implementation Committee take liberties with the rights and privilege of his august House. Therefore, Sir, I humbly submit that this is a fit case for this House to take up for the purpose of upholding its rights, privileges and dignity.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister for Parliamentary Affairs) :- May I have your ear, Sir? As you have already remarked that before this House takes up the matter it should establish a prima facie case in order that this motion can be referred to the Privilege Committee. The hon. member from Nongkhlaw had a length very badly done so to show that there is a very strong case of breach of privilege and contempt of the House by the publication of the resolution. I find it very difficult just on the spur of the moment to say anything because I did not have the notice until it was read in the house. However, Sir, I feel constrained to make an observation on this motion. We are a country where the rule of law prevails and where the legislature is a sovereign body and therefore, respect of the laws, passed by the Legislatures of the country is most important for the country and for the nation as a whole. But Sir, along with this rule of law we are also in a country where democracy prevails, and the right of criticism is allowed of any action done by the Government, by any personnel, or by any officer, and also of any law passed by the Legislature. Criticism of law is quite different from distortion of the proceedings of the House which is the privilege of the Legislative Assembly and of the Parliament. Sir, reading through this allegation, apart from the motion, I am constrained to say and I feel that there is no distortion of the proceedings of the House or that of the Acts that went through in the House when I referred to the breach of conduct and also of the Meghalaya Taxation Act. It has been criticism that this measure taken by the House and these laws passed and adapted by the House, but whatever laws adapted by the House, but whatever laws adapted or enacted or passed they have the same meaning. They are the laws passed by the Legislatures. The laws passed by the Legislature have been criticised as being unrealistic. Well, I do not know how the criticism a being unrealistic. Well, I do not know how the criticism outside the house of the laws passed by the House amounts to a breach of privilege of the house. I am afraid, if we go too far in this line we may be charged of committing an act of suppression of the rights and freedom of expression of the people of the State as well as the country. Sir, so far as I am concerned, this is not a prima facie case of any breach privilege; and we may go as far in thinking of our own self; but that may effect the rights and privileges of another superior body, the people of India and the people of the State, their rights and freedom of speech, which are enshrined in the Constitution and enshrined also in the history of democracy in country. Well, it is unacceptable to the farmers that progressive taxes have been imposed on these people. As a matter of fact, this tax seeks to levy taxes on certain types of lands inside the State whose net income from agriculture is beyond a certain limit. It is unrealistic; it may be bad or it may be good, that is a matter of opinion which we may not express. Therefore, Sir, with this humble submission I feel that it will affect the dignity of this House, it will affect the prestige of this House inside or outside the State. Therefore, I feel that this motion should be referred to the Privileges Committee.

Shri Francis K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I fully fall in line with the expression of Hon'ble Finance Minister. We are here on the floor of this august body as elected representatives of the people and I feel it is our duty to work for the betterment of our own people. We are aware of the fact that we should not be very touchy because in  a democratic country, the people have every right.

Mr. Speaker :- May I draw the attention of the hon. member to that fact that the House must become touchy when there is a prima facie case. If you personally feel un-touchy, then what can I do. Your point now is only to support or oppose the complaint on some strong grounds.

Shri Francis K. Mawlot :- Sir, I strongly oppose the motion. In my opinion, the expressions as appeared in the resolution are not against the Constitution of India. We have adopted the Constitution which allows us to exercise our fundamental rights.

Mr. Speaker :- I must remind the hon. member that in supporting or opposing the motion, you must bring strong grounds not by repeating the same words which have been expressed before. I think I will close this discussion now and I will give my ruling tomorrow. 

        Let us pass on to the next item in today's list of business. 

        (At this stage the Speaker left the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker took the Chair).


GOVERNMENT BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Now, I will call upon the Minister of Finance to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion move. Now, I put the question before the house. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

        The motion is carried and leave is granted. 

        The Minister to introduce the Bill. 

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973 be introduced. 

(The motion was carried)

((The Secretary read out the title of the Bill.)

        In now request the Minister of Finance to beg leave to introduce the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973.  

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy to Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the house: the question is that leave be granted to introduce the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion Moved. I put the question before the house. The question is that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

(The motion was carried and the Bill was introduced). 

(The Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

Item 4

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Labour) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Bill, 1973.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Bill, 1973.

        The motion is carried and leave is granted. 

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Labour) :- I beg to introduce the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Bill, 1973. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Civil Task Force Bill, 1973 be introduced. 

The motion is carried and the Bill in introduced.

(The Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

        Let us come to Item No.5-Voting on Supplementary Demands for grants and Supplementary Appropriation for 1773-74. I now request the Minister-in-charge to move Demand No.1. 

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.74,152 be granted to the minister-in-charge of 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 (III-Commissioner and District Administration)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. In this respect I have received a Cut Motion by Shri W. Syiemiong and Shri Upstar Kharbuli.

Shri W. Syiemiong :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.74,152 under Supplementary Demand No.1 Major Head "19-General Administration (III-Commissioner and District Administration)". at  page 1 of the list of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100.00, i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.74,152 do stand reduced by Rs.100.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can raise a discussion. 

Shri W. Syiemiong :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would say that the Government has done very well that soon after its completion of the Trade Agreement with Bangladesh, it has considered necessary to appoint a Special Class of Officer known as Inspector of Border Trade. We know it very well Sir, that Trade Agreement is very delicate and it requires current implementation so that the agreement with a foreign Government is not subjected to sabotage through ignorance of people or undesirable act of unscrupulous traders because a failure here and there may cause a sang to the entire machinery of the trade agreement. As it is, this border trade is very important to the border people. Therefore, appointment of these offices would go a long way in helping and facilitating the smooth functioning of the trade. But what is the problem with the Government is arranging the pay these offices for so long. I wonder why their pay could not be paid in due time. These is the first question. I have seen already from the explanatory note here and the pay is supposed to have been for the year 1972-73 and in any case, these officers could have been paid or regularised by Supplementary Demand in the month of July, but it seems it took longer time to decide. I do not know how these officers manages to go without getting their pay. As I said easier this question is very important is very important and contracted officials are called for in implementing the Trade Agreement. But what has the Government been doing. Another thing is that I have been told that very often it was found that these officers are too often joy-riding in certain trucks belonging to the District Relief Force. I do not know whether their jobs is only meant riding in these trucks and supervising them.

        And once or twice, whenever I happened top look at these trucks I found that they were carrying nothing or very little. I think it is the B.D.O. or  the D.C. who is looking after these trucks but then what I find is that these officers are only busy with supervising these trucks and these trucks, as I have said earlier, do not carry anything or very little. As far as I know, these trucks are sent only during the peak season when agriculture produce of the border area cannot be channeled to Bangladesh so that the excess produce can be brought to Shillong or any other place. Nowadays, petrol is very dear whereas these trucks are utilised for carrying nothing. In fact, during the lean season much of the agricultural produce could have been absorbed by the local traders for the merchandise that came out to the market. But I am afraid, Sir, that these trucks under the supervision of these border trade Inspectors by going all the year round since to carry the goods of only certain business man otherwise I can hardly understand way they go there all the time. With these few words, Sir, I move the cut motion.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the cut motion by the hon. member from Nongspung. Sir, as the explanatory notes show, the Border Trade Inspectors have been appointed for looking into border trade but what we wonder is that we find no trade what we wonder is that we find no trade at all in the border areas. The people of the border are suffering though they know that there ideas the agreement between the two Governments of India and Bangladesh for border trade, yet, specially in this district, we find no trade at all in the border. So, we cannot understands now and where these Border Trade Inspector are used. Besides, Sir, during the last few years we understand these inspectors were entrusted with the jobs of enquiring into the damages done by the influx of refugees during 1971. We are also given to understands that the people in these areas, who have suffered losses, have not as yet been paid anything. It seems, therefore, that no work has been done by these Inspectors or either they have not completed the work or they have not enquired into cases at all since the Government have not paid anything to these sufferers. Moreover, Sir, we have seen that, as the member who spoke before me has said, these officers are attending only to the border area, free of cost, as a relief to the border people but instead we find that the trucks are not carrying free of cost the border produces. Infact Sir, they carry or used to carry only the goods of some businessmen. It has come to my constituency the border people wanted the truck to carry their produce, specially oranges and other perishable goods, outwear charged Rs.100 per trip. I verbally told these things to the BDO and the BDO assured that he would look into the matter. But I understand that even now no free carriage of these border produces has been done. Sir, it is also a wonder that one truck No.MLG.206 is always garaged in one house at Mawngap. 

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? When the hon. Member is referring to the assessment of the damage done by the refugees I would say that this is not under this Department. This under Relief and Rehabilitation Department. 

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh:-I referred to the border trade where these Inspectors were entrusted with that job also, if they are not I correct my statement. Sir, one border truck No.MLG.206 is always in one particular house at Mawngap belonging to new Ex. MDC a party worker of the Ruling Party. Therefore, Sir, this truck used to go not only in the border areas but it used to earn money for carrying potatoes everywhere and it used to bring potatoes to Shillong. Therefore, I do not understand whether this truck is for relief of the border people or not. We have also seen here and there that these borders trucks which are meant to give relief to the border people, are used even to carry football players and spectators here in Shillong and the suburbs of Shillong. With these few words, Sir, I support the cut motion. 

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in supporting this cut motion I just want to get a clarification from the Government because the demand is here; why this demand of Rs.74,152 is there? It was mentioned here that "consequent upon the implementation of the Border Trade Agreement between India and Bangladesh". The Minister who mentioned about the implementation of the border Trade Agreement between India and Bangladesh deserves congratulations because actually there is no implementation of Border Trade Agreement between India and Bangladesh. Therefore, Sir, using the same words that our Finance Minister used last time, it appears "irrelevant" as there has been no implementation of this agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Before the minister-in-charge replies. I would like to inform the hon. members that each hon. member will get only 20 minutes for each cut motion. Now I request the Minister-in-charge to reply

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as to the question raised by the hon. member, Mr .Syiemiong, as to why this is not foreseen, I would like to state that the explanatory note will explain this. 

        "Consequent upon the implementation of the Border Trade Agreement between India and Bangladesh it is considered necessary to appoint the Inspectors for Border Trade and the ministerial staff in the district offices. As the expenditure is unforeseen, no provision of funds was made in the  budget of the financial year for 1972-73. Fund to meet the expenditure could not also be arranged as it was in the last part of the financial year. Hence the expenditure involved   in the payment of pay and allowances of the officers and staff could not be incurred in that year. Therefore, Sir to meet the expenditure in the shape of pay and allowances of the officers and staff, we feel the necessity of this supplementary demand. Again Sir, so far as truck No.MLG.206 is concerned, I can say that this is the first time that we receive such information and whether it is true that it was used for the purpose intended or not, I would like to say that this matter shall be looked into and enquired and if found to be so, then necessary action will be taken. So, Sir, in view of all these and in view of what I have already said that we could not make provision fro the supplementary demand in the 1972 budget I request that the cut motion be withdrawn.

Shri W. Syiemiong :- In view of the explanation given by the Finance Minister that appropriate action will be taken against that particular truck, 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 with leave of the House withdrawn. Now I put the question before the house. the question is that, an additional amount of Rs.74,152 be granted to the Minister in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of ,payment during the year ending 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "19-General Administration-II-Commissioner and District Administration.

(The Motion was carried and the demand was passed)

        Now, I request the Minister-in-charge of Industries to move Demand No2.

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.26,335 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "26-Miscellaneous Departments-V-Civil Supplies Department".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received-three Cut Motions in the name of Mr. Khongwir, Mr. Kharbuli" and Mr. W.C. Marak. The other two hon. Members Shri Upstar Kharbuli and Shri W.C. Marak are absent. Now Mr. Khongwir to move.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.26,335 under Supplementary Demand No.2. Major Head "26-Miscellaneous Department-V-Civil Supplies Department" at page 2 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100.00 i.e. the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.26,355 do stand reduced by Re.100

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can raise a discussion.

*Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, my intention to bringing this cut motion is to point out to the Government the condition of the present building where the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Supply is housed. I consider it to be the duty of the Government to provide officers and staff with good, healthy and clean office building. If I am not  mistaken, the office of the Industries Department and Factories are provided under certain provision with some clean and well ventilated buildings. Sir, if the working condition is not at all changed, we cannot expect our officers and staff to carry on their function properly. So in this regard, I would like to point out to the Government the condition of this particular building. This building is very dirty, its surroundings are very filthy and everywhere there is leakage and on the walls there are many holes. It seems that no proper maintenance and repair was done to this building. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to me, this particular building is not fit for public convenience. So through this cut motion, I wish to request the Government to shift the office building immediately to some better buildings if possible. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot also understand as to why arrear rents are accumulating. Why this amount of Rs.26,335 again as stated in the explanatory note and that the expenditure is unforeseen and urgent while arrears have been pending for a long time since the time of the composite State of Assam. So I take it that immediately before April, 1970 the arrears have been kept pending and if we work out on the basis of about Rs.400 per month, the arrears have accumulated since about five and a half years back. The means right from the year 1964 or 1965. Now about the condition of this building, if I am not mistaken, according to the Urban Areas Rent Control Act, it is the duty of the land-lord to give wind proof and weather -proof to the house and also to do repairing works and maintenance for the benefit of the tenants. Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, I have seen that these buildings need repairing and I do not know how Government are going to adjust the rent of these buildings. But my intention, through this particular cut motion is to impress upon the Government the need for repair and maintenance of these buildings. With these few words Sir, I resume my seat.

*Shri Upstar Kharbuli :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was late but I think I should take part on this particular cut motion moved by my friend from Mawlai. It is indeed a pitiable condition that the staff and the public should be housed in this building. I think this is one of the district office which are frequented by the public but the condition of the buildings is such that it is simply unsuitable for the staff to work. If there is heavy rain like yesterday, I wonder how they would be able to do their work. So Sir, I find it is undesirable to continue to house these office in this building. If the Government continue to house these offices here it will be difficult to serve the public. So I would urge upon the Government is immediately have this office building shifted to better buildings specially when some of the officers in Shillong which belong to the Government of Assam have started shifting. In that case, there will be adequate number of buildings available. With these few words, Sir, I support this cut motion.

*Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in supporting the cut motion moved by the hon. member from Mawhati I want to say something regarding the liabilities to be borne by the Government of Meghalaya. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there has been no apportionment uptil now between the Government of Meghalaya and the Government of Assam. This building is situated in the area which was previously outside the jurisdiction of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to the Reorganization Act, 1969 the section dealing with assets and liabilities, the Government of Assam is to pay all the liabilities incurred upto the appointed day i.e., on 21st of January, 1972, and only after 21st January, 1972 when our State came into being the question of liabilities will be considered by the Government of Meghalaya. Of course, there us a section where the apportionment is to be  made. It is the duty of the Government of Assam to pay all the liabilities incurred before the 21st January, 1972. So in supporting the cut motion I want to press this point.

*Prof M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, one cannot over-emphasise the necessity of immediate shifting of  the District Supply from the present building which goes by the misnomer of the building as has been pointed out by the hon. member from Mawlai. It cannot have been served as a proper place fro the public, not even for a Chowkidar. In such a building with ceilings hanging in shreds, with huge holes and with a floor lower in level with the ground, outside, thereby leaving spotted larks in the walls as if it was bombarded during the was and you cannot imagine fro such a building, food-stuffs like sugar, rice, atta, etc. are being supplied. Therefore, it needs immediate shifting from the ramshackle buildings, half broken down building. Besides Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is the duty of the owner whose name  we would like also to know from the reply of the Minister, to repair the building and so on, and since he has failed to fulfill and carry out the provision of the Urban Rent Control Act, I move that we  should not pay to a person who does not care to respect neither the Assam Government not the Meghalaya Government, and having violated all the provisions of the Urban Rent Control Act, may we know whether the Government is still prepared to pay for this rejected service. And then again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in addition to all this, the lightening in the building is very poor because of the damages and so many racks and files are covered with heavy dust. It does help certain elements; probably this darkness helps those elements to transact something in this office. That precisely should be rooted out and we should not only introduce air and light but also honesty in the office by shifting it to another good building. Therefore Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this cut motion. Also I suggest that we should not pay the arrear house rent to the owner for his audacity to continue to collect rent when he has got no courtesy even to repair the building.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Supply etc) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy that the deplorable condition of the office buildings concerned has been brought to the attention that the deplorable condition of the office buildings concerned has been brought to the attention of the house and to my notice some time back. In this connection, I would like to give some clarifications on some of the points raised. First of all regarding actual demand I would like to inform the house that rent from the District Supply office Shillong, amounting to Rs.26,355 is in respect of the following periods, namely - 

Name of the building 

Rent per month 

Period for which the rent if sanctioned 

Amount

1. Hermitage Bungalow

Rs.150 

from 1st March 1968 

Rs.300.00

    Hermitage Bungalow

Rs.231.12

from 1st May 1968 to 20th January 1972

Rs.10,318.83

2. Portion of Morello's Buildings

Rs.163.07

from 18th October 1965 to the March 1967

Rs.2,730.10

    Portion of Morello's Buildings

Rs.222.87 

from 10th March 1967 to 20th January 1972 

Rs.13,005.54 

Total

Rs.26,354.02

Say

Rs.26,355.00

        From the above statement it will be seen that the rent sanctioned relates to the period before Meghalaya became a full-fledged State and hence the rent is in fact the liability of the Government of Assam. The owner of the buildings filled legal notice for the realization of then for the said buildings. The Government in order to avoid unconvinced to the public, proposed to pay initially the past liabilities incurred in the areas failing now in Meghalaya (i.e., from 21st January 1972) and then claim fro reimbursement from the Government of Assam on those liabilities which arose from contracts made before the coming into being of the State as power provision of Paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the North Eastern Area (Re-organisation) Act, 1971. I think I need not read the contents of the Act since it has been circulated to the Members.

        In view of the above, the liability has now devolved on the Meghalaya Government for the entire period and whatever payment we made to discharge this liability will be claimed by the Finance Department as part of the general assets and liabilities claim of the Government of Meghalaya from the Government of Assam. Accordingly this claim and similar other claims will be disposed of in this manner. The demand, though it is an arrear, has become unforeseen as it  was clarified that the liability now has developed on the Government of Meghalaya. A similar stand has also been taken by the Government of Assam in other claims of similar nature i.e., that all such arrears are the liability of the Government of Meghalaya. The District Supply office, Shillong, has continued in buildings since the time of the composite State of Assam. We have not been able to shift to new buildings vacated by the Government of Assam's offices as they are not yet lade available to us. We are aware of the difficulties and undesirability of office being accommodated in these present buildings but at the same time we feel it unnecessary to shift to a different buildings since very shortly we are getting proper Government buildings. We expect that in the month of January, 1974 it will be possible to arrange suitable accommodation. Further, we are taking steps to improve the working atmosphere and the administration of the Supply office and the District offices. The rent as sanctioned is certified as reasonable by the Deputy Commissioner and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D as required under the provisions of the Assam Urban Rent Control Act, 1966 and the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, some time back this matter was brought to my notice regarding accommodation of the office and I had spoken to the Secretary of the Committee which was appointed by the Government of Meghalaya and I requested him to allocate buildings that would be made available to our Government when the Assam Government shifts. Also I requested the Secretary to give highest priority to this question and to allocate buildings as soon as possible so that this office may be adequately accommodated, and the public would not be put to inconveniences. In this connection would like to inform the hon. Member that the present Supply office is accommodated in two buildings, viz., Hermitage Bungalow and Morello's Building and the owner of these two buildings is Shri Rameswar Goenka. Now it is not the policy of the Government to patronize such affairs whoever he may be, and we are trying to shift this office at a very early date. We have already taken up this matter with the officers concerned to take steps and I trust it will be done within the next two weeks. But since the office buildings have not yet been handed over to us, I cannot expect that we will be able to shift it today or tomorrow. But certainly I hope it will be possible for us during the month of January, 1974, when the shifting of Assam Government takes place. I think this covers most of the points raised by the Members concerned. It is regretted that the buildings which we are occupying today are in a very bad condition but at the same time it would not be advisable for us to occupy any alternative buildings at this moment since many Government buildings would be vacated by the Government of Assam shortly. With these observations I would request the hon. move to withdraw his cut motion.

Prof M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think there is a little anomaly in the statement of the Minister. If my ears have served me well, I heard him say that we will pay this money now, and the Finance Department will later on readjust this from the general division of assets and liabilities. I think I heard him correctly. But if such is the case, if we are going to pay now and later claim this through the Finance Department, how will that be possible, in view of another statement made by the Minister that the Government of Assam states made by the Minister that the Government of Assam states that this is the liability of the Government of Meghalaya? It means that later on also he Government of Assam will not accede to our claim.

 Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Supply etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while referring to the above, perhaps I should read the Reorganization Act. I shall read the portion of the Act now- 

"14. 

Contracts: (1) where, before the appointed day, the existing State of Assam has made any contract in exercise of its executive power for any purposes of that State, that contract shall be deemed to have been made in the exercise of the executive power, -

(a)

If such purposes are, as from the appointed day, exclusively purposes either the State of Assam or the State of Meghalaya, of the State of Assam or, as the case may be, of the State of Meghalaya; and

(b)

In any other case, of the State of Assam, and al rights and liabilities which have accrued or may accrue under any such contract shall, to the extent to which the should have been rights or liabilities of the existing State o Assam be rights or liabilities of the existing State of Assam, be rights or liabilities of the State of Assam, or as the case may be, of the State of Meghalaya: 

        Provided that in any such case as is referred to in clause (b), the initial allocation of rights and liabilities made under this sub-paragraph shall be subject to such financial adjustment as maybe agreed upon between the States of Assam and Meghalaya or, in default of such agreement, as the central Government may, by order, direct."

        In view of the above, the liability has now devolved on the Meghalaya Government for the entire periods and whatever payment we made to discharge this liability will b claimed by Finance Department as part of the general assets and liabilities claim of the Government of Meghalaya from the Government of Assam. Accordingly, this claim and similar other claims will be disposed of in this manner. 

        So in this particular case, the purpose for which this contract was entered into was the State of Assam upto, as already pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, 21st January 1972. Therefore, it is a liability on the State it in the financial adjustment as may be agreed upon between the two States or in default so such readjustment, the Central Government may apportion. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- I think it is clear. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the clarification made by he Hon. Minister, I withdraw the cut motion. 

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

(Voices-Yes, yes)

The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn. 

        I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.26,355 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 "26-Miscellaneous Departments-V-Civil Supplies Department. 

(The motion was carried and the Demand was passed)

        Let us come to Demand No.3. May I request the Minister-in-charge to move. 

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of  Rs.1,00,000 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the 31st March, 1974 for the administration of the head "31-Agriculture". 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. In this respect I have received two cut motions one in the name of Shri, S.D. Khongwir and another in the names of Shri F.K. Mawlot, and Prof. M.N. Majaw. I request Shri S.D. Khongwir to move.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.1,00,000 under Supplementary Demand No.3, major head "31-Agriculture" at page 3 of the list of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Re.1.00, i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.1,00,00 do stand reduced to Re.1.00. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Cut motion moved. Now you may raise a discussion.

*Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have seen from the list that two other Members have also to move cut motion on this particular grant, I would like to speak on a particular point regarding the transaction in so far as aerial spraying is concerned. Here in a explanatory note, it is stated that the proposal for aerial spraying in the State was appeared by the Government of India in July, 1973 and the actual spraying was done some time in September of the same year. So. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the wordings of this note, I could gather that the initiative on the part of the Government has already been taken even before July, 1973. From the date the approval of the Government of India was received to the actual spraying, there is a gap of bout 2 months and the point which I wanted to bring out is regarding the contract which was signed between the Government and the firm concerned. Yesterday during the question hour, the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture had informed the House that there was some kind of an agreement in the form of a contract between the Government and the firm. If I am not mistaken, the name of the firm was Jack Aviation or something like that. So of the firm was Jack Aviation or something like that. So of the firm was Jack Aviation or something that. So. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say in his regard that where as the actual spraying of the areas of about 25 acres of paddy fields in Tura was done in September, 1973 the contract for the work was executed after the actual work has been done. My intention in bringing out this cut motion, as I have already stated, is to raise a discussion on the policy of the Government with regard to the handling of this transaction. So if it is a fact that the date of the contract comes after the actual performance, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is highly irregular and as such I have moved this cut motion against the action or the policy of the Government in this regard. With these few words, Sir, I resume my seat.

*Shri M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while supporting the cut motion moved by the hon. member, I would not like to talk on the points where larger spraying is required, but I would like to say that we are only entering into the discussion on the contract and also on the nature of  the demand. I would like to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in he first place, how and by what arithmetic have some genius of the department come out with the exact figure of one lakh of rupees like the Member of the Planning Commission who comes with the exact amount of one lakh demand. As to my small mind I presume whether the whole sum of money has been sanctioned for pesticide or only part of it has been sanctioned for pesticides. That is one question. The other part of the demand says that the cost of aviation is reimbursable to the Government of India as provision of the State budget, therefore it does not mean that the whole sum of one lakh is aviation cost and it does not mean that the remaining sum of money is reimbursable to the Government of India. And this one lakh of rupees has been so calculated that it is neither one paise  more nor one paise less. But these matters should be looked into and we would, through you, Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, request the Government to give us a copy of the contract between the Department and M/S Jack Aviation. May I ask through this august House for a copy of the contract. I am sure the Department is going to give us a copy of the contract. It may be that the yare having a copy of this contract.

*Shri Francis Mawlot :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think is is necessary to move again the cut motion. What I personally feel is that this aerial spraying is rather dangerous to the lives of the people of the State. So my intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to disapprove the aerial spraying. I remember in 1969 and 1971 in the Urban Area, people had used pesticides in their paddy fields to fights against the pests and as a result large number of cattle died because they had taken the water which had been plotted by pesticides. Now even the cattle dies, I don't think that a human being has more power of resistance than that of an animal. Therefore, Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that by this aerial spraying a large number of people in the State will be affected. Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am to urge upon the Government to stop this aerial spraying of pesticides.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to extend my thanks to the hon. Mover fro bringing this cut motion. Because according to him it has been found out that certain irregularities have escaped my notice when this matter was under consideration. I am very thankful to him but I have very little to say in this respect. First of all I would like to clarify why an amount of exactly one lakh, not one paise less and on paise more, has been sanctioned by the Government of India. So we cannot reduce even on paise. One lakh was sanctioned for the cost of aviation and not for the cost of pesticides. The Government of India is to bear the cost of operation and the State Government is to bear the cost of the pesticides. Actually the Government of India I to give us money to spray 25,000 acres of paddy fields. But when they sanctioned the amount of one lakh only, and when they sanctioned the amount of one lakh only, and when we received the instruction,  we found we could do only 20,000 acres out of 25,000 acres at the rate of Rs.5.00 per acre. So the one lakh here is the money given to us by the Government of India to be spent immediately by our Government and to reimburse I to the Government of India. Actually our intention was to do the spraying in a much bigger area, because we really wanted to cover the plain portion of Garo Hills. Now-a-days we find that aerial spraying is less harmful than the ground spraying. because doing the ground spraying it may dangerous to the animal and human lives but by aerial spraying it may I why not directly affect the cattle and human beings and that is why wherever it I possible, we can adopt this aerial spraying and even other States in India are also doing this aerial spraying. Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, all these States are also doing this aerial spraying. 

        Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Mover of this cut motion asked whether there was any contract between this Firm an the Government. To that I think I have replied that there as a contract. His next question was that the contract was signed after the work has been executed. The point here is that when we accept the quotation of a man, we give him the wok order and then we allot the work and we do this on certain conditions. If he agrees, then one of he conditions is that the firm is to sign an agreement with the Government. And it is a fact that the agreement was agreed upon on 12th September, 1973 and the final part was done on 12th October, 1973 (Interruption)........,

        Because we have reached he agreement and we have agreed that this should be entered into contract then the work was done. It may be said here that unless the work was done it might be harmful, so we sprayed the area in time. Therefore, we use to do like that .... Interruption).....

        If we have agreed on certain conditions then we signed the agreement and the work was allotted. With these words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I request the hon. member to withdraw the cut motion. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to get a clarification from the Minister, whether the aerial spraying was undertaken in the plain areas and not in the hilly region?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Spraying is not possible in the hilly area as spraying was done from a height of only 5 to 7 ft from the ground in the paddy fields. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, are we to understand that in al cases of works to be done y the contractors of firms or agencies, it is the practice on the part of the Government that first of all works are done and the agreement executed later on. In other cases, for example, in  the Public Works Department, we understand that there is some kind of agreement or contractor and unless a contract is signed we understand that the work order cannot be issued. In this case, the work order cannot be issued. In this case, the work was already carried on since October but the contract was signed at the later date, i.e., on 12th October, 1973. I would also request the Hon'ble Minister to look into it.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I said that the time is so short that we have to implement certain schemes. We used to do like this. There are cases when the urgency if there I that we go ahead with the work and later on the work order was issued and tenders were called formally. So also signing of contract. The hon. member also asked fro the name of the officer who signed the contract. Well, it was the Secretary of the Department who signed the contract on behalf of the Government.

*Shri M.N. Majaw:-Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am unhappy with this kind of explanation from the Hon'ble Minister. Please refer to the explanatory from note at page 3 which States that spraying in the State was approved by the Government of India in July, 1973. If we are who allow the Department one  month to issue tender notice and reply to the notice, the Government still can have the whole month within which the contract can be entered into after carefully examining it. Then it takes only a day to fly from Delhi to Shillong and come here and sign the agreement. What earthly reason can there be for one further month to lapse before this contract could be signed, and then another month had elapsed, and then came October; and on the face of all these, the plea of the Minister that there is shortage of time, is completely untenable. 

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is easy to say one month. It is very easy. I have said it is up to the Government to see whether there was time, whether the contract could be signed. 

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the pathetic stage in which the Minister is in, I withdraw my cut motion (laughter). 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, because I have moved my cut motion, I am not going to withdraw it. 

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, have already said when he took part in this cut motion that he would not move hi cut motion. He has already declared so as a gentleman .......(Interruption). 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- I said since the cut motion has been moved I will not withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the correct position is that the first cut motion was moved and after being withdrawn, the second cut motion listed fro the day's business, is yet to be moved, I think  ...... (Interruption). 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have actually stated that since my cut motion relates to the same subject matter of the first cut motion, I said I will not read out my cut motion. I have not stated that I will not move my cut motion. 

Shri Blooming B. Shallam :- On a point of order, Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have heard hat the second mover has  distinctly stated that he will not read hi cut motion since the first motion has been moved by the first mover. Therefore, we take it that when he said he will not read, it means that he will not move it. 

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- On a point of clarification Mr .Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. member has stated that he will not move his cut motion.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- On a point of clarification, the hon. member just now has referred to same rules. May we know hat are those rules?

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Sir, with your permission may I move my cut motion?

Shri Blooming B. Shallam :- No Sir, he has already said that he is not going to move his cut motion. 

(At this stage the Hon'ble  Speaker occupied the Chair)

Mr. Speaker :- What is the point of order?

Shri Blooming B. Shallam :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, there was a cut motion in he name of the hon. member from Nongstoin. The point of order is that the hon. member from Nongstoin is supposed to move his cut motion. But in spite of the fact that he stated that he will not read his cut motion as the same has been moved by the first mover of the first cut Motion, we feel that it tantamount to the hon. member not willing to move it. 

Mr. Speaker :- But who moved the cut motion?

(Voices : Mr. S.D. Khongwir) 

        Now, it is not a point of order; it is a question whether the mover has withdrawn his cut motion or not. 

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the first cut motion I quit a different motion altogether. Regarding the second cut motion the hon. mover, Shri Mawlot, has stated that he will not read the cut motion but he has not stated that  he would not move.

Mr. Speaker :- When the hon. member refuses to read it, it means that he refuses to move it. Now, let me put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000 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 "31-Agricultutre". 

(The motion was carried and the demand was passed). 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I have your ruling because I was not called upon to move my cut motion. 

Mr. Speaker :- It was already ruled out. 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I point out that according to the Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in this House, the first cut Motion which the hon. member from Mawlai has agreed to withdraw, that withdrawal did not receive he permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- The demand was passed already whether the Chair makes a wrong or correct ruling, that is a different matter. let us pass on to Demand No.4. The minister-in-charge of Animal Husbandry to move to Demand No.4.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Animal Husbandry) :- On the recommendation of the Governor, I beg, Sir, to move that an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000. 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 "33-Animal Husbandry".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Since I have received no cut motion I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs. 5,00,000. 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 "33-Animal Husbandry".

(The motion was carried and the demand was passed). 

        Let us now pass on to the Demand No.5. the Minister-incharge of Finance to move Demand No.5.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- On the recommendation of the Governor, I beg Sir, to move that an additional amount of Rs.4,15,385 be granted to the Minister-in-charges 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 "71Mscellaeous-V-Expenditure on Displaced Persons".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received one cut motion which stands in the name of Shri F. K. Mawlot and now he may move his cut motion. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.4,15,385 under Supplementary Demand No. 5 Major Head '71-Miscellaneous-V-Expenditure on Displaced Persons". at page 5 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100.00 i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.4,15,385 do stand reduced by Rs.10.00.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion  moved and you may raise a discussion to seek clarification from the Government on matters relating to payment of compensation to the contractors and land owner. 

*Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this question has been brought in this House on more than three occasions on which I am compelled to seek more clarification from the Government whether the bills, supply bills of the contractors who have completed supplying food and other articles to the evacuees from Bangladesh during 1971, were fully paid or not. Actually the information which I have received is that there are some contractors who have-not received payment of their bills since 1971 and also there are contractors to whom payment was made who were asked to refund certain amount of the bill which they have received. I do not know whether it is the fault of the contractors or the fault of the department itself. Such bills were overpaid to the contractors. Now, if the contractors were paid, I do not think the Government has paid the contractors were paid, I do not think the Government has paid the contractors without any proper account. Before paying the amount to the contractors, the Government has got all the papers in hand and all accounts were deemed was made and why these poor contractors were asked to refund certain amount of the bill and that also after a long lapse of time when the contractors concerned would have thought that they have received the bill and would be in a position to repay loan taken from some other people and had utilised the amount thus received. How on earth is it possible, Mr. Speaker, Sir, for the Government to realise the money from the contractors. I would also like to seek clarification from the Government whether the Government has deputed officers to go and investigate the destruction which was done by the refugees or by the construction of the campus by the department itself to the plantation, to the trees, to the land owners etc. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have also received information that there are cases where the land owners have submitted claim fro compensation. They have requested the Government to investigate into their lands whether destruction was actually done or not. But no such investigation was made by the Government and so far I have  heard that no compensation was paid to the land owner. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would beg to ask the Government to make proper investigation, and with these few words  Sir, I move my cut motion. 

Mr. Speaker :- Is there anybody else?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- I support the cut motion. 

Mr. Speaker :- Will the Minister-in-charge reply?

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as to the first query regarding the delay in payment of these bills to the contractors who supplied rations to the refugees in Munai and other camps amounting to Rs.1,52,325.20 in respect of 12 Fair Price Shop dealers, the matter is under scrutiny in the R.R. Directorate. The delay in the payment of all these bills is due to the fact that construction of camps and supply of ration was made on emergency basis and sometimes official for militates and procedure were not observed. These bills therefore have to be properly scrutinized and thoroughly checked in respect of accuracy, genuineness and observance of financial rules and procedures.

        The second point raised was about compensation due to destruction by the military authorities and refugees to the land, trees, crops, etc. With regard to this Sir, these compensations are broadly classified in 3 categories: 

(1)

Damages done due to defence preparation. 

(2)

Damages done due to Pakistan firing i.e., damage caused due to enemy action or due to hostilities between India and Pakistan. 

(3)

Damages done to private properties by the refugees,

        Out of the above three categories of damages, categories No.1, i.e., damages done due to defence preparation, is covered by the scheme sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence in their letter No.10/(49/70/D/GS II), dated 24th February, 1971 which includes:

(a) damages to standing crops. 

(b) damages to standing fruit trees, mango-groves, etc. 

(c) Crops, fruit three etc. around air-field and other vital installations damaged or destroyed due to the Defence preparations. 

(d) damages to fences, sheds, structures connected with agriculture and other agricultural properties.

        Regarding Category No.2 i.e., damages done due to Pakistan firing i.e., damages caused due to enemy action or due to hostilities between India and Pakistan, is covered by the schemes sanctioned by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) in their letter No.PWB,/DDR/71/14, dated 29th December, 1971. 

        Category 3 i.e., damages done to private properties by the refugees, no such scheme is yet formulated by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation.

        As to the matter raised above, I have not got the information now. I require notice. So Sir, this is the explanation that I have regarding compensation for different categories and in view of this, the Category No.3 i.e., damages done by the refugees, it is this Government to take the initiative to write and move the Government of India for  sanctioning of funds and the Government of India have not actually got any scheme for consideration. In view of this Sir, I request the hon. member to withdraw the cut motion.

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, before I withdraw the cut motion, I would like to ask by way of clarification regarding Category No.1 whether construction of the camps falls under defence preparation or not.  

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Construction of camps is under the R.R. Department. 

Shri H.S. Lyngdoh :- For clarification, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that there is no scheme formulated by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation for the damages done so far by the Bangladesh refugees and military authorities although this fact was informed by the people to the Government-what does the Minister mean by saying that schemes have not yet been given by the Ministry of Rehabilitation?

*Shri B. B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- In this connection I have said clearly. So far as the two categories are concerned, the schemes were also formulated by the Government of India itself. But so far as category "c" is concerned, i.e., the destruction of crops, etc. a proposal was sent to the Government of India by the State Government to give compensation for all these damages. We are now in correspondence with the Government in India and the Government of India have not decided to accept the proposal, but recently, we have received a letter from them asking us to send cases for consideration in anticipation of their acceptance and also to make out a case for the Government of India's expenditure, the State Government have appointed officers to enquire into the extent of the damages in several places and so on.

Mr. Speaker :- Whether from the State Government, they have submitted schemes to the Government of India. 

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- We have submitted a proposal in the matter and we are sending now a scheme on those cases to the Government of India in which damage was done in several places. This proposal was forwarded by the State Government.

Mr. Speaker :- So that means the scheme with specific amount was assessed by the State. 

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Assessed; some have been completed and some cases are nearly completed.

Mr. Speaker :- Therefore, they are in the process of sending. 

Shri F.K. Mawlot :- So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, having good faith in the Government that these things would be taken up very speedily and seriously, I withdraw my cut motion. 

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. member leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion!

(Voices - yes, yes)

        The cut motion with leave of the House is withdrawn.

        Now I put the demand before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.4,15,385 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the31st March. 1974, for the administration of the Head "71-Miscellaneous-V-Expenditure on Displaced Persons".

        (The motion-was carried and the Demand was passed)

        Let us come to Demand No.6 Minister for Relief and Rehabilitation to move.

Shri S.K. Marak (Minister, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Government, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.99,000 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.-VII-Loan to Displaced Persons".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and since I have received no cut motion, I will put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.99,000 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.-VII-Loan to Displaced Persons".

        (The motion was carried and the Demand was passed). 

        Let us pass on to Item No.6. 


The Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1973. 

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

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1973. 

        The motion I carried. leave is granted. 

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

        "In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (2) of Art. 207 of the Constitution of India I. Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the introduction of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1973.

Dated Raj Bhavan, Shillong,

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH

7th December, 1973. 

Governor of Meghalaya."

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill. 

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1973 be introduced. 

        (The motion was carried) (The Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

        Before I ask the Minister Finance to move the motion for consideration I will read out the message from the Governor:

        "In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Art.207 of the Constitution Of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. IV) Bill, 1973.

Dated Raj Bhavan, Shillong,

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH

7th December, 1973. 

Governor of Meghalaya."

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to have that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 1973 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 1973 be taken into consideration. The motion is carried. 

        Since I have no amendment to the Bill, I ask the Finance Minister to move the motion for passing. 

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 1973 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 1973 be passed. 

The motion I carried and the Bill was passed.


ADJOURNMENT

        Since there is no other business for the day, the House stands adjourned till 9 a.m. on Tuesday the 11th December, 1973.

R.T. RYMBAI,

Dated Shillong

Secretary,

The 10th December, 1973.

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

*****