THE ASSEMBLY MET AT 9.A.M. ON THE 7TH JULY, 1973 IN THE ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, SHILLONG WITH THE HON'BLE SPEAKER IN  THE CHAIR.

Mr. Speaker :-  Let us being with the business of the day by taking up Starred Questions.


STARRED QUESTIONS

(To which oral replied were given)

Government Pleaders for Khasi and Jaintia Hills 

Shri H. Hadem asked :

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

(a)

Whether the State Government have appointed Government Pleaders for Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills.

(b)

If so, who are they?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minster, Law ) Replied :-

1. (a)

Yes

(b)

(1) Shri Maham Singh, Government Pleader for Khasi Hills. 

(2) Shri A.D. Massar, Government Pleader for Jaintia Hills.

Shri H. Hadem :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, what is the retaining fee for each of them per month ?

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minster, Law ) :-  rupees 200 for Khasi Hills and Rs. 150 for Jaintia Hills per month.

Padmashri Award

Shri H. Hadem  asked  :- 

2. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether it is a fact that the Central Government have asked the Government to recommend names of deserving cases for the award of Padmashri?

(b)

If so, who were those people recommended?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied :-

2.(a)

Yes,

(b)

The State Government's recommendations which were sent in 1972 included -

(i) Shri K.K. Sinha I.A.S.

(ii) Shri J.K. Bagchi, I.A.S.

Shri H. Hadem :- Are those persons still be considered by the Government of India ?    

Mr. Speaker :- They have already been awarded.

Shri H. Hadem :- Is there any other case to be considered by the Government.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- No.

Provincialise of High School in Simsangiri

Shri Salseng Marak asked :

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

(a)

Whether Government propose to provincialise and High School in Simsangiri Subdivision?

(b)

If so, the name of the School and the basis thereof?

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

3. (a) & (b)

Yes, Sir. It is proposed to provincialise one High School in the Sub-division and the matter is receiving the active consideration of the Government.

Upgrading of Rongrong Dispensary

Shri Salseng Marak : asked 

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

(a)

Whether Government has received a letter form the people of Rongrong and its surrounding areas for upgrading the existing Rongrong Dispensary to as Primary Health Unit Centre?

(b)

If so, what action Government has taken on the matter?

(c)

If not, when Government propose to upgrade it?

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

4. (a)

No.

(b) & (c)

Do not arise.

Shri Salseng Marak  asked :

5. Will the Minister-in-charge of Revenue be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the whole village of Masagapgiri under Mendipathar police station in Garo Hills was gutted by fire during the month of March 1973?

(b)

If so, whether any relief measures has been extended to the affected villagers?

(c)

If not, the reasons thereof?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister , Revenue) replied :

5.(a)

Eight Houses were gutted in Bolpuma- Mesagap village

(b)

Yes.

(c)

Does not arise.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, may we know how much was the damage caused by the fire in terms of money approximately.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Revenue) :- We have not received final report on the matter.

Shri B.B. Shallam :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, how much money was spent for relief of the suffering people?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Revenue) :- Rs.50 per family.

Mr. Speaker :- He asked only the total amount.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Revenue) :- Rs.8 multiplied by 50

(Laughter)

North Easter Hills (Region) University

Shri H. Hadem asked :-

6.

Will the Chief Minister of  be pleased to state the probable date the North- Easter Hills (Region) University will start functioning?

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

6.

The North Easter Hill University Act came into force from the 19th July, 1973.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we know whether the site for the University has been selected?

Shri  D.D. Pugh (Minister, of State, Education) :- The final selection has not yet been made.

Shri Maham Singh :- Has any temporary office been opened for the purpose?

Shri  D.D. Pugh (Minister, of State, Education) :- Not yet, Since  the vice-Chancellor has not yet arrived.

Mr. Speaker :-  Let us pass on to Unstarred Question

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(To which replied were placed on the table)

Grants for fisheries to Mawthengkut Constituency

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw asked :

10.. Will the Minister-in-charge of Fisheries be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether any grants for fisheries were distributed to any of the villagers residing within the Mawthengkut Constituency, during the period form March to May :1973?

(b)

If so, what are the names of these villagers, there addresses and the amounts given to each of them?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture, etc) replied :

10. (a)

No.

(b)

Does not  arise.

Construction of Sutnga- Saipung Road

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

11. Will the Minister-in-charge of P.W.D. be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether it is a fact that construction of Sutnga-Saipung Road has been stopped?

(b)

If so, what steps Government proposes to take to continue construction of the said road?

Shri  Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) replied :-

11.(a)

Yes, the work has been stopped temporarily.

(b)

The revised estimate is under process.

Road entrusted for construction to the District Councils

Shri H. Enowell Pohshna asked :

12. Will the Minister-in-charge of P.W.D. be pleased to state -

(a)

The numbers of roads entrusted for construction to the three District Councils of the State?

(b)

The name of the roads, district-wise?

Shri  Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) replied :-

12.(a)

Six numbers roads.

(b)

I. Garo Hills District.

(i) Dimapara - Ruga Road

(ii) Mahendraganj - Rongpapang Road

(iii) Damilgiri- Melim - Boldamgiri Road.

II. Jowai District 

(i) Nartiang- Jonglwit- Barato Road

(ii) Sutanga - Saipung Road.

(iii) Wah Kmai- Um to Rangat-via -Musniang Road

III Khasi Hills District :

There are no roads entrusted to Khasi Hills District Councils.

Shri H. H. Hadem :- are those roads still under construction?

Shri Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) :- Yes.

Shri H. Hadem :- Is it not a fact that these roads have been handed over to the State Government by the District Council?

Shri  Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) :- Yes, these have been handed over.

Shri H. Hadem :- Then Mr. Speaker, Sir, who are doing the construction- whether the State Government or the District Council ?

Mr. Speaker :- It is implied. The Public Works Department is doing the construction.

Shri H. Hadem :- Regarding Khasi Hills District Council why they have entrusted the construction with the State Government?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- They do not have any agency for doing this.

Shri B.B. Shallam :- Is is a fact that a revised estimate has been submitted to the State Government regarding the Sutnga-Saipung Road?

Shri  Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) :-  Yes

Shri B.B. Shallam :- Is it a fact that till today this revised estimate has not been sanctioned by the State Government.

Mr. Speaker :- This is a supplementary question to the supplementary question.

(Loud Laughter)

Erection of Monument in memory of the Freedom Fighters

Shri Grohonsing Sangma asked :

13. Will the Minister-in-charge of P.W.D. be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether any provision has been earmarked for erection of Monument in memory of the Freedom Fighters near G.D.C.I.B. at Rongrengiri?

(b)

Whether Government propose to start the erection work during the current financial year 1973-74?

Shri Grohonsing Marak (Minister, of State, P.W.D.) replied

13. (a)

No provision for the purpose exists in the P.W.D. budget during 1973-74.

(b)& (c)

Does nor arise in view of reply to (a) above.

Construction of the Tikrikilla Police Outpost

Shri Manindra Rava asked :

14. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether acquisition of land has been completed for construction of the Tikrikilla Police Outpost?

(b)

If not, the reasons thereof?

(c)

Whether action has been taken for construction of the same?

(d)

If so, when the work be started?

Shri Williamson. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied :

14.(a)

Yes

(b)

Does not arise.

(c)&(d)

Plan and Estimate for construction for construction of Tikrikilla Outpost are being prepared.

Women Police Force

Shri Mandindra Rava  asked :

15. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether recruitment of Women Police Force has been completed?

(b)

If so, the number of persons recruited for the same may be stated?

(c)

If not, the reason thereof?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) replied

15(a) 

Yes.

(b)

8 (eight) consisting of

(i)

Sub-Inspector

.....

....

One

(ii)

Assistant Sub-Inspector

...

...

One

(iii)

Head Constables

...

...

Two

(iv)

Constables

...

...

 Four

(c)

Does not arise.

Shri M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we know form the Chief Minister as to what uniform these ladies would wear, in all categories.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- It is better if the hon. Member waits for these people till they come back from training. However, the usual dress given to the Police is bush shirts, slacks and cap.

Shri Pritington Sangma :- Whether these women police would be posted at Tura.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  Naturally they will be posted at Tura also.

Annual collections of Amusement Tax

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw asked

16. Will the Minister -in-charge of Finance  be pleased to state -

(a)

The annual collections of amusement tax from each Cinema Hall in Shillong during the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73?

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance ) replied :

16. (a)

A statement is placed on the Table of the House.

Shri M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what is the grand total for these three years ?

Mr. Speaker :- Prof. Majaw, I think it is not a very necessary. We are only wasting our time. The copies of the statement have been placed on the table of the House. If you are interested, you may get it from the table of the House.

Prof. M. Majaw :- Then it will not be a supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

Board of Secondary Education

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

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

(a)

Whether Board of Secondary Education starts functioning ?

(b)

If so, the names of the members of the Board ?

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

17. (a)

No, Sir.

(b)

Does not arise.

Agriculture Grants given to Mawthengkut Constituency

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw asked :

18. Will the Minister-in-charge of Agriculture be pleased to state 

(a)

Whether any Agricultural grants for Irrigation on other agricultural purpose, where distributed by the Agricultural Department to applicants residing within the area of the Mawthengkut Constituency during the period from March to May, 1973?

(b)

If so, (i) details of these grants, (ii) the names of the grantees, there addresses and (iii) the amounts granted in each case to such persons.

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied

18. (a)

Yes.

(b)

The list is placed on the Table of the House.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Here also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the list has been placed on the Table of the House, we would like to know the total amount?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- As a matter of fact when this information was placed on the Table of the House we the questioner should come early and go through the papers. That will help him to prepare for supplementary questions.

Shri Maham Singh :- With regard to unstarred question No.18 is it a fact that many of the grants were distributed without application?

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- It is not a fact, Mr. Speaker, Sir,

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, is it a fact that most  of the applications were not properly scrutinized before distribution of the grants?

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- No, Mr. Speaker, Sir, The grants were even after verification of the applications and also after measurement of the work done.

Shri Maham Singh :- Is it a fact that in other constituencies no grants were yet given in between March to May, 1973

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- It is not a fact, Mr. Speaker, Sir, The hon. Member is putting supplementary questions to supplementary questions.

Shri H. Hade :- It amounts to cross examination, Sir.

Didrum Irrigation Project

Shri Sibendra Narayan Koch asked :

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

(a)

Whether Didrum Irrigation Project has been already been taken up by the Government?

(b)

If so, whether District Agricultural Department has approved the said project?

(c)

If the answer to (b) is in the affirmative, when the work will be started?

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied

19. (a)

Yes.

(b)

Yes.

(c)

After technical scrutiny is over.

Construction of the "Sabary Stream Bundh

Shri Manindra Rava asked :"

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

(a)

Whether it is a fact that construction of the "Sabary Stream Bundh" at Nagargaon has been inclujded in the list of schemes by the Government?

(b)

If so, when will the work be started?

(c)

Whether it is a fact that the construction of the bundh has been kept pending for four years?

(d)

Whether any Minister has paid visit to the site in the year 1972.?

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied

20.(a)

Yes

(b)

After technical scrutiny is over.

(c)

No. (It is fact that construction of the bundh has been kept pending for the last four years as District Agricultural Officer, Garo Hills, has submitted plan and estimate only very recently).

(d)

No

Shri H. Hadem :- Sir, the reply to 20(c) is 'No" But under brackets it is stated that  "it is a fact that construction of the bundh has been kept pending for the last four years as District Agricultural Officer Garo Hills, has submitted plan and estimate only very recently". May we know, Sir, under whose Government this District Agricultural Officer is serving?

Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- The position is that these papers were there in the district office and the Government have no information about them. Later on we find that there are papers which were received very recently from the report of the B.D.O. Therefore, we have to bring the full information to the House that there are papers in the district office which were submitted to the Government only recently.

Afforestation and Terracing in Khasi Hills

Shri Dlosingh Lyngdoh asked :

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

(a)

Whether Government is considering to take necessary steps for reforestation in Khasi Hills District?

(b)

If so, what are the conditions proposed to be agreed upon between the Government and the land owners?

(c)

Whether Government intend to stop the wanton destruction of forests by the local and District Council authorities is this District?

(d)

If so, how and when?

(e)

The number of acreage and the amount of money spent by the Government in the last three years under the following heads :-

(i) Reforestation.

(ii) Terracing.

(f)

Whether it is a fact that the landless and non-cultivators of Diengiei area and Bhoi area of Mylliem and Bhoi Development blocks respectively are getting grants for terracing from the Government?

(g)

What are the names, ranks and numbers of officers who were in-charge of the above areas?

(h)

Whether Government proposes to send high ranking officers for enquiry into the areas referred to in question (f) on public demand?

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Soil Conservation) replied :

21. (a)

Yes, subject to availability of und and land.

(b)

The condition proposed to be executed between the Government on the one hand and the land owners on the other is now being prepared.

(c)

Wanton destruction of forests, if any, by the local people and Wanton destruction of forests by the District Council

(d)

Management of forests other than Government Reserved Force is are under the control of the District Council. Any step to be taken in scientific management of the forest wealth shall have to be done in consultation with the District Council Authorities. Steps have already been taken along these lines with the District Council.

(e)

(i) Afforestation : 576.76 has afforested and maintained at the cost of Rs.2,05,118,29 during the last three years.

(ii) Terracing : 1404.31 has been terraced at the cost of Rs.11,11,040.41 during the last three years.

(f)

Government is not aware. All applications for terracing were duly recommended by the Local Field Management Committees and Block Development Officers. Field investigation of the applications by the departmental staff is made in the presence of the applications and local authorities of the areas.

(g)

North Soil Conservation Range, Nongpoh

Sl. No.

Rank of the Officer.

No. of the Officer

Name of the Officer

Remarks

1.

S.C. Ranger

1

Shri H. D. Rothuama 

He was in-charge of the Range

2.

Range Assistant

1

Shri Budheswar Lahon

3.

S.C. Demonstrator (Sr.)

1

Shri Devendra Nath Deka

4.

S.C. Demonstrator (Jr.)

2

Shri Sainborlang Kharkongor.

5.

Do

Shri Jongpong Ao.

6.

S.C. Field Worker

9

Shri Narendra Nath Haloi

7.

Do

Shri Sripasti Kando

8.

Do

Shri Dhaniram Sonar

9.

Do

Shri Robest

10.

Do

Shri Tarabahadur Soner

11.

Do

Shri Linkleson Sones

12.

Do

Shri Tishon Roy

13.

Do

Shri Orios Rani

14.

Do

Shri G.C., Nath.

(g) Sumer Soil Conservation Beat

1.

S.C. Ranger

1

Shri N. N Areng

He was in-charge of the Beat

2.

S.G. Field Worker

6 Nos

Shri Siren Majaw

3.

Do

Shri Lerpin Wahlang

4.

Do

Shri Mintowell Kharpuli

5

Do

Shri Kandarpo Mikir

6

Do

Shri Sherbahadur Chetri

7.

Do

Shri Ron Majaw

(h)

In  case of specific complaints Senior Officers are sent for enquiries.

Allotment of Trucks for Carrying Border Products

Shri H. Enowell Pohshna asked :

22. Will the Minister-in-charge of Agriculture be pleased to state. 

(a)

The number of trucks allotted for the carriage of the border Products in the State of Meghalaya ?

(b)

The number allotted to each District.

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture)  asked :

22. (a)

10 (ten) Nos.

No. of Trucks.

(b)

Khasi Hills

...

...

...

5 (five)

Jaintia Hills

...

...

...

3 (three)

Garo Hills

...

...

...

2 (two)

Total

...

10 Trucks.

Allotment and distribution of Sugar

Shri Lewis Bareh asked :

23.

Will the Minister-in-charge of Supply  be pleased to state  the quantities of sugar allotted for Meghalaya the District-wise distribution.

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

23.

From January to April 338 metric tonnes monthly.

From May to July 400 metric tonnes monthly and distributed as follows :-

 

Khasi Hills

...

...

...

216 M.T.

Garo Hills

...

...

...

126 M.T.

Jaintia Hills

...

...

...

58 M.T.

Shri Lewis Bareh :- Whether Government is aware of the fact that the quota of Sugar allotted for Jaintia Hills is not adequate to meet the demand?

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, Jaintia Hills gets more than Khasi Hills and so is the case with Garo Hills.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- What is the per capita quota of sugar per week?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, on the basis of per capita quota we should have got about 700 tonnes as was requested. But we could not get this, on the basis of one tones as was requested. But we could not get this, on the basis of one Kg. per week which was the originally suggested amount. It was cut down to 338 tonnes. Subsequently, on a lot of representations from out Government, the Government of India had increased the quota to 400 tonnes. So, we have to distribute whatever we have received to the population as a whole.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Is Government taking steps to have it further increased?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- We have continued taking steps, but the sugar position has not yet been eased

Shri B.B. Shallam :- May we know the reasons why the decrease of quota takes place?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- Because production of sugar is not adequate and particularly last year there was drought condition.

Shri Maham Singh :- May we know why we get less than any other State quota per head?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- I am not sure sure that we get less than other States and this information is to be given by the Minister of Agriculture, New Delhi. but I am not sure that we get less.

Shri B.B. Shallam :- Sir, the reply to my supplementary question was because of less production. Whether the Government is aware that there is plenty of sugar in the open market which is sold at a very high price of Rs.4.00 per kg.

Mr. Speaker :- That is the concern of the Government of India which this Government is not responsible.

High rise of prices in the State

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked  :

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

(a)

Whether Government is aware of the high rise of prices in the State?

(b)

If so, whether Government proposes to fix the price for all essential commodities in the State?

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

24. (a)

Yes.

(b)

No.

Shri M.N. Majaw :- May we know why the Government does not propose to fix the price of essential commodities in the State?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, the essential commodities are not produced in our State, they are produced all over the country and they are brought to our State on trade account and on Government account depending on the commodity. Fixing of the price of essential commodities has been done on an all India basis by the Government of India basis and this small Government is not competent to fix the price.

Mr. Speaker :- It is not a small Government

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- It is a small State compared to the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker :- May I point out to the Hon'ble Minister whether the size of the State is small or big , yet it exercises all the powers on the subjects under the State List. But as the Minister has explained, so far as the control of essential commodities is concerned, it has been done by the Government of India, since this State does not produce all the essential commodities.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Is Government aware of the fact that the continuance of monopoly in the G.S. Road has encouraged the rise in price because traders have to take recourse to black-marketing ?

Mr. Speaker :- That is argumentative.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Is Government aware of the fact the continuance of monopoly affects the price?

Mr. Speaker :- That is a new question.

Agricultural loans to Cultivators

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

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

(a)

Whether the Government has granted Agricultural loans to the agriculturist in the rural areas?

(b)

If so, the names of the loans may be furnished?

(c)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that there are large number of Agriculturists who would like to enjoy the benefit of agricultural loans?

(d)

Whether Government proposes to increase the fund under "Agricultural loans"?

(e)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the present rules and regulations for applying agricultural loans are too  technically complicated?

(f)

Will the Government simplify the rules and procedures for the application of Agricultural Loans?

(g)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the present method of granting small subsidies is not so helpful to the real and needy cultivators?

(h)

Whether Government propose to taken an alternative step of helping the deserving cultivators?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied :

25 (a)

Yes.

(b)

Rehabilitation Loan, Seed Loans, Advances to cultivators and Land Improvement Loan.

(c)

Yes.

(d)

No, in view of the fact agricultural loan will be available from Banks.

(e)

No.

(f)

Does not arise.

(g)

Yes.

(h)

It is proposed to have departmental constructions that would help a group of farmers and not only individuals.

Grant for Mawthengkut Constituency given by Nongstoin Development Block

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw asked :

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

(a)

Whether any grants were distributed by the Nongstoin Development Block to any villagers or villages within the Mawthengkut Constituency during the period from March to May 1973?

(b)

If so (i) what were the names of these grants, (ii) the names of the villagers and villages and (iii) the amounts given out in each case?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) replied :

26. (a)

Yes.

(b)

The particulars are laid on the Table of the House.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the amount on this head was given to this constituency is about one lakhs of rupees. May we know why the Mawthengkut Constituency has received special treatment during this period  March to May, 1973?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) :- Sir, we have not give special treatment. The same allotment has been given to all the Blocks i.e. 2 lakhs for each Block a year.

Shri Maham Singh :- Is there any other Constituency which had been given so much amount this period?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) :- Sir, this is the Nongstoin Development block. The amount is not particularly meant for Mawthengkut Constituency ; it is meant for the entire Development Block of Nongstoin.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- I put the question on the Mawthengkut Constituency and the Hon'ble  Minister has been good enough to reply to the Mawthengkut Constituency.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have heard that Rs.200,000 has been given to the Mawthengkut Constituency whether that money had been approved by the B.D.C. for sanction?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) :- Usually, according tot he procedure the B.D.C. has to approved the scheme.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Whether that particular scheme that had been placed on the Table of the House had been approved by the B.D.C.?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, unless it is approved by the B.D.C. how can the B.D.C. implement the scheme?

Mr. Speaker :- In other words the B.D.C. has to approve the scheme.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- When was the sitting of the B.D.C.?

Mr. Speaker :- That is a new question.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is the practice of the Government to distribute grants in the month of March and May or is it specially done for this year?

Mr. Speaker :- May I point out to both the Minister and to Prof. Majaw that the question here is only regarding the area within the Mawthengkut Constituency but the reply as has been given by the Minister seems to concern the whole Nongstoin Block I hope in future the Government also must take interest to reply to the question as asked by the hon. Members. In so far as the interest of the hon. Members is concerned, you must remember that financial year of the Government is from April to March and March is always the year ending and it is true that in this particular month, most of the Government money was sanctioned.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am also a Member of the B.D.C.

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Community Development) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, he has already asked three questions.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- But I have not got clarification from the Minister who presumed that it might have been passed by the B.D.C. but as a Member, I found that it was not placed in the B.D.C's meting.

Mr. Speaker :- In spite of the fact that your points are very valid yet you have crossed three questions. You can ask some of your friends to ask this question.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- When were these schemes  that had been listed and placed on the Table of this House approved by the B.D.C.?

Mr. Speaker :- That is a new long Unstarred question which the Government cannot give replies here in this House.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Who distributed these grants as per list on the Table of this House?

Mr. Speaker :- It must be the B.D.O. But Mr. Lyngdoh according to rules you cannot ask more than three supplementary questions.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- It seems Mr. Speaker, Sir, this particular Constituency has got no representative during this time, so everybody is interested.

Mr. Speaker :- I think this House will very much welcome if the Member from Mawthengkut Constituency will ask more questions.

        Let us pass on to unstarred question No.27,28,29.

Sutnga Government M.E. School Building.

Shri Onwardleys Well Nongtdu asked :

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

(a)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the Government M.E. School building at Sutnga has collapsed?

(b)

Whether Government is aware of the fact that the School had to be held in a private building for that past few months?

(c)

If so, when will the Government propose to start repair or reconstruction of the building?

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of States In-charge Education) replied :

27. (a)

No, Sir.

But information has been received that the School building is in tottering condition.

(b)

Yes, Sir.

(c)

Plan and estimates for reconstruction have been prepared The P.W.D. will undertake the work for reconstruction a soon as the land is formally handed over to the P.W.D. by the District Council.

Payment of compensation for construction of Rymbai Bataw-Borghat Road

Shri Lewis Bareh asked :

28. Will the Minister-in-charge of P.W.D. (R&B) be pleased to state -

(a)

Whether the land compensation was ready for payment to the land owners as a result of construction of Rymbai-Bataw-Borghat Road?

(b)

If not, when the matter be taken up?

(c)

Will the Minister be pleased to provide the list of all land owners on the above road with the proposed amount estimated to each?

Shri Grohonsing Marak (Minister of State, P.W.D. (R&B) replied :

(a)

No.

(b)

The matter has since been taken up by the Civil Authorities and is expected to be ready within a short-time.

(c)

As physical verification is still in progress and land acquisition papers are still under preparation, the list cannot be provided now.

Tender called for construction of J.J.M. Road

Shri Lewis Bareh asked :

29. Will the Minister-in-charge of be P.W.D. (R&B) pleased to state -

(a)

Whether it is a fact that tenders for S.R. & A.R. on the J.J.M. Road was called for?

(b)

If so, the number of groups divided for the work?

(c)

The estimated amount allotted to each group?

(d)

The number of contractors submitted tenders with their respective quotation of rates?

Shri Grohonsing A. Marak (Minister of State, P.W.D. R&B) replied :

29.(a)

Yes.

(b)

3(three)

(c)

(i) Rs.2,000

(ii) Rs.1,600

(iii) Rs.5,000

(b)

(i) For group No. (i) 7 Nos. of contractors submitted tenders.  6(six) out of the 7 (seven) contractors submitted quotation 10 per cent below the schedule of rates and 1 (one) contractor submitted 3 per cent below the scheduled rates.

(ii) For group No. (ii) 2(two) Nos. of tenders were received and the quotation were 10 percent below the scheduled rates.

(iii) For group No. (iii) 2 (two) tenders were received and the quotation were Rs.16 per M.3 and Rs.17 per M3.


Calling Attention :

Shri Lewis Bareh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, at what rate the work was allotted and to whom it was allotted?

Mr. Speaker :- Who prevented you from asking this along with the main Question? So that Supplementary Question is redundant. We must remember that in asking supplementary questions the hon. Members should bear in mind one thing that is to get some more clarification on the question already asked and not to add more new questions.

        Now, let us pass on to item No.2 in today's list of business. Mr. D.D. Lapang, to call the attention of the Chief Minister under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in this Assembly.

*Shri D.D. Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Chief Minister under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of this Assembly to a news item published in the Implanter, dated the 7th June, 1973 under the caption "Khasi Girls Sold For Prostitution" Mr. Speaker, Sir, I most humbly request you kindly to allow me to speak  a few words without wasting much of the time. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this news item has cast a very bad reflection on the Khasi Community in particular and to the State in general which pains me very much. A few weeks ago, one Khasi girl managed to escape from one place in the border of Bhutan and help of one Secretary, Mr. Ranad from Laban who told men that there are about 15 brothels in the place and there are as many as 16 girls which means that 90 per cent of them were from Shillong who sold these girls to the unknown persons for an unknown destination.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Lapang, please do not add new information to what was stated in the newspaper. Let the Chief Minister reply and you can seek further clarification afterwards.

Shri D.D. Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in addition, I would also like to refer to the memorandum submitted by the Students 'Union of Shillong a copy of which have been circulated to every Member of the House. The memorandum reads like this "it is really shocking to learn that some mis-creates had been treading the local girls for over a period  two years with impunity and that no action has been taken by the State Government and the Police Department to look into this matter which has deeply lowered the prestige and dignity of the community as a whole.

Mr. Speaker :- All of us have received a copy of that letter.

Shri D.D. Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is my sincere expectation that the assurance of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and of the Government will pay something in this regard they will see that effective taps are taken by appointing a Special Police Officer for this purpose. I think the Government should implement the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 in the part of the country.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the problem of Khasi girls being sold for prostitution has been exercising the mind of the Government. In March, 1973 a joint raid was held at Darranga Mela by the Khasi Hills Police and the Kamrup Police and 30 girls were recovered and brought to Shillong and they were forwarded to the Court with a view to restoring them to their lawful guardians, but it is sad to say that no one liked to own them. The girls were subsequently bailed out and it is understood that they have found their way back to Darranga Mela. The Police have taken up cases against persons who are exploiting girls under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and the following are the details of the cases taken up and investigated.

Year

No. of cases

Nos. of girls recovered and arrested

Accused persons

1971

...

8

5

4 (Male)

1972

...

7

12

11(Male)

1973 

Up-to-date

7

20

8 (Male)

        The Community wise break up and the age groups of the women and girls recovered and arrested in the above noted cases are as follows :-

1971

Khasis- 4

age group between 19 to 22 years

Bengali-1

age about 20 years.

1972

Khasis-8 

age group 18/19 years - 1

 "      "       20/23 years - 3

 "       "       28/32 Year - 4

Bengali-2

age about 20 years - 1

"       "      28 years - 1

Nepali-I

age about 32 years

Bhutanese-1

age about 35 years.

1973

Khasi - 17

age group 18/19 years -1

"       "       20/23Years -11

"       "       25/30 years - 4

Bengali-3.

age group 20/23 years - 2

age about 28 years - 1.

        All these cases are under trial except those of 1972 which could not be prosecuted for want to evidence. Several raids were conducted in Shillong itself at different place and 44 girls were arrested, (Khasis-39, Bengali-2, Nepali-2 and Mizo-1) but no prosecution could be launched for want of evidence to prove that some persons were living solely or partly on the professional earnings of these unfortunate girls. 

        Information has been received that certain persons in Shillong and elsewhere are procuring girls be enticing them away with false promises of lucrative employment, etc, and taking them out of the State. Enquiries have been instituted to trace out these persons, but the same have to be planned carefully as action by the Meghalaya Police, Kamrup Police and Bhutan Police has to be co-ordinate.

        In this connection, it may be mentioned that the State Government appointed a Social Defence Committee vide Government letter No.POL.89/72/45, dated 25th June, 1972 with the Minister incharge of Education and Social Welfare as Chairman with 3 official and 8 non-official members as follows :-

Official Members :-  

1.

Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills Shillong.

2.

Superintendent of Police, Khasi Hills, Shillong.

3.

Assistant Inspector General of Police SR/CID. Meghalaya Shillong as the Secretary.

Non-Official Members :- 

1.

Shri Maham Singh M.L.A.

2.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta.  M.L.A.

3.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh  M.L.A.

4.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah. M.L.A.

5.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw.  M.L.A.

6.

Prof. Alexander Warjri,  M.L.A.

7.

Miss K. Kharsati.

8.

Mrs. I Simon.

        The aims and objects of this Committee are :- (1) to examine the root causes leading to Immoral Traffic in women and girls in Khasi Hills and other evils of like nature, (2) to suggest concrete measures with a view to eradicate such social evils, (3) any other matters connected with such anti social activities.

        The Committee met twice and another meeting fixed on 22nd November, 1972 December could not be held as nobody attended the same except the Chairman and the Secretary. The Committee had examined several aspects to suppress the Immoral Traffic in women and girls and have sought certain information form all States in India about the preventive measures and other measures taken by them to combat the evil.

        It has been the experience of the Police that cases could not be prosecuted for want of evidence form the Public who may be aware of the existence of premises in which prostitution is carried on, or of persons who are carrying on such illegal traffic in women and girls.

        It has also been noticed that whenever the Police succeed in re-covering girls from the premises used for prostitution and from Darranga Mela, they have drifted back to the profession as they were not accepted in the Society and they have no other means of livelihood. Unless a comprehensive  scheme for rehabilitation of these unfortunate women and girls can be taken up by establishing Vocational Training Centres, Rehabilitations Homes under sound management with at view to train them in useful vocations so that they can become independent, any amount of action taken by Police will not help in their rehabilitation.

        It is heartening to know that recently meeting of Headmen of Shillong was held at Khasi National Durbar Hall on 11th July, 1973 with the Syiem of Mylliem in the Chair and the meeting has offered full co-operation to the Police authorities in eradicating this evil from the society and the 'Shillong Social and moral Defence Organisations' has been formed with Shri Francis Syiem as President, Shri E. Pariat as Vice-President, Shri D.D. Lapang, M.L.A. as General Secretary Shri A.R. Bamon as Assistant Secretary and all Headmen as Executive Members.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of information, at the very beginning that committee has been formed, But what I thought is that one or two hon. Members who are supposed to know the legal aspects of in find it difficult how we can plug the lacunae. I do not know what progress has been made by the Government I think certainly this matter may be considered by the Law Department and more should be done and I wonder if the law Department and more should be done and I wonder if the law Department should enquire into this and find out the lacunae and how we can plug all these lacunae.

Mr. Speaker :- This suggestion, you may supply to the Committee so that the Government could take up.

        Now, let us pass on to item No.3. Mr. Grosswell Mylliemngap and Mr. Dlosingh Lyngdoh to call the attention of the Chief Minister under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. According to the usual practice, the Minister should have laid one copy of his statement on the Table of the House and he should have supplied two copies to the members concerned. Since the Chief Minister has not been able to spare two copies to the hon. Members concerned, he make a statement now.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the game of archery is a game of skill and the traditional  sport of the Khasi people. According to the provisions of the Meghalaya (Prevention of Gambling) Act, 197- it is an offence to carrying gambling on the result of the archery game. Gambling is an offence but the game of archery itself is not an offence and, as such , the game is conducted daily as a game of skill in Shillong town at Polo Ground and also at various places in Khasi Hills and some parts of Jaintia Hills. After the enactment of the Meghalaya (Prevention of Gambling) Act, 1970. Police had taken steps to detect cases of gambling on archery, In 1972, 242 cases were  detected in 1973 up to the middle of July,192 cases have been detected. This will show that the Police are active and are making determined effort to stop gambling connected with archery.

        Police cannot interfere with and stop the game itself from being conducted but are deployed to ensure that no sale of tickets or other forms of betting take place while the game is being carried on. Police have arrested and prosecuted persons found selling tickets and have searched premises known to sell or promote betting tickets. It is, however, recognised that is no possible to root out gambling on archery completely in view of the inherent human tendency for gambling and the long tradition of archery in the State. Police have been instructed to be more vigilant and effective to prevent and detect offences under under the Meghalaya (Prevention of Gambling) Act. I would request the hon. members of the House to cooperate with the Police in this regard and bring to their notice any cases involving gambling on archery of which they have knowledge.

Shri G. Mylliemngap :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of information out of these detected cases how many have been convicted?

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Mylliemngap I must inform you that according to rule, only one Calling Attention notice, is allowed and on the fast day of course we may include more. You cannot ask any further clarification on the subsequent Calling Attention notice. It is true as stated by Mr. Mylliemngap and also the Chief Minister that everybody including the members of the public should co-operate with the guardian of the law. It is also true that the guardian of the law should not encourage gambling on this particular game of skill.


Privilege Motion

        Before we pass on to Item No.4, I may inform the House that I have received a notice from Prof. Majaw who intends to move a motion of the breach of privilege against the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Khasi Weekly, "U PEITNGOR"  for the news item published on 13th July, 1973 under the caption "Kumno shaphang ki Kuli". May I ask Prof. Majaw to make his submission before the House.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Parliamentary Affairs) :- We have just received the notice.

Mr. Speaker :- Let me inform the House that in so far as the privilege matter is concerned a notice submitted by hon. Members 15 minutes before the sitting of the House is regular, but within 15 minutes it is really difficult  on the part of my Secretariat to supply copies to all the members and the Government. I think the House will appreciate the position if the hon. Member will clarify the issue and give the exact Khasi translation of news item.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is actually a breach of privilege of the House. But are we to accept the objection made by the Minister just now that this privilege motion should not be allowed simply because it is suddenly raised on the floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker :- I have already allowed.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- So Mr. Speaker, Sir, this privilege motion that I am bringing is with regard to the issue of "U PEINTNGOR"  what is called in English "Watcher of the 13thh July, 1973, on the first page under the heading "Kumno shaphang ki Kuli" roughly translated "What about bullets"?

        This news item is more in the form of a commentary of the editor than in the form of a news item which tends to prejudice the Privilege Committee of the House which is already seized of the matter. Mr. Speaker, Sir, when the matter is pending before Committee set up by the Assembly for consideration and report, it would certainly not be proper for anybody to raise the matter as that would prejudice the findings of the Privilege Committee. The manner in which the news item is based and the commentary made by the editor would certainly prejudice the finding of the Privilege Committee. I have given a free translation of various words, which is as follows :-

        "What about the bullets during the last Session of the Assembly? We have received many queries from the reader regarding the position of the bullets exhibited by Prof. Majaw against the law within the Assembly He has no power or right even to touch this subject. The Government leave the people in the dark regarding this matter. It is not presumably for any one to hold this thing in violation of the Act. If the Government allow any person to violate the law within the Government then that is giving way to evils. These are the views of the readers.,"

        For this reason I have given a fairly free translation of it. What I would like to suggest Mr. Speaker, Sir, is that this news item is aimed at prejudicing the mind of the members of the Privilege Committee, and as such I submit that there is a breach of Privilege.

Shri D.D. Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is a fact that the Editor is responsible for what is written in the paper and in this particular case it offends the hon. Member and the Editor of the paper who happens to be a member of the Legislative Assembly who consider himself responsible for the article as pointed out by the hon. Member. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are two issues. The first issue is that exhibition of bullets is altogether illegal and it is up to the Government to look into it according to the law prevailing in this part of the Country No.2. This matter also has gone to the Privilege Committee. The publication of the article as mentioned by the hon. Members is not with any intention to influence the Privilege Committee. I think the Government or the members of the Privilege Committee were wrongly dragged by the hon. Members Mr. M.N. Majaw. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, the publication has got no bad intention behind it. If  at all Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member considers that the publication of the article by my colleague will under-mine or rather influence the minds of the Privilege Committee Members, I would extend my apology.

Mr. Speaker :- The issue before the House is whether the publication of this particular news item constitutes a breach of privilege or not, as clearly stated by the Mover of the Motion. To write anything on the subject matter which is still under examination of the Privilege Committee appear to be a breach of privilege because it might prejudice the minds of the Members of the Privilege Committees. But there is another issue involved in this case. That issue viz., the legality or otherwise of the possession of live bullet without a valid licence outside the precinct of the House. That is to be decided by the Government and the Court of law or any competent authority. It is not to be decided by this House. What the Privilege Committee is presently engaged with is to find out whether the hon. Member has any right to exhibit the bullets inside the House. That is, exactly the issue which the Privilege Committee is trying to examine. However, in so far as this writing is concerned, form what I have read, it is only the opinion of the Editor asking the Government whether they have taken any legal action against the person who was in possession of the bullets. It is true, however, the were it the intention of the Editor to refer to the bullets which were exhibited inside the House, as contended by the hon. Mover, that would have really prejudiced the Members of the Committee.

        But nevertheless I do not see that there is any prima facie case against the editor in view of the fact that he himself tendered unqualified apology in the House itself. The practice in any Legislature in the country is that whenever Editor or any paper tenders an apology, it must be accepted by the House. So the matter may be dropped today.

        Let us pass on to item No.4 in today's list of business.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister, State of Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Board of School Education (amendment) Bill 1973, be taken into consideration

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved and now  I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Board of School Education (Amendment) Bill, 1973 be passed.

(The Motion, was carried by voice vote)

        Now the Bill be taken into consideration. But since there is no amendment to the Bill, the Minister of State, incharge of Education my move his next motion.

 Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister, State of Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Board of School Education (Amendment) Bill, 1973 be passed.

(The Motion was carried by voice vote)

        Let us now pass on to item No.5 in today's

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this Corporation, as we find form the Director's report, is a joint venture of Assam and Meghalaya States. We find also from the report that the Government of Meghalaya has contributed more than the Government of Assam.

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

        It is written in the report Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that during the year under report a sum of Rs.1 lakhs was received from the Government of Assam and and other sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the Government of Meghalaya on 30th March, 1972. So, Mr. Deputy  Speaker, Sir, we find that a substantial investment had been made by the Government of Meghalaya in this Corporation but we are very sorry to find that the Government of Meghalaya is totally unrepresentative in the Board of Directors as well as in the management of the Corporation. I do not see even a single Director from the Government of Meghalaya. Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir,  the other day it was said that our Government often howls but no one listens. It seems to me that in this case they did not even howl and instead they ran and did themselves. In the report we also find another reference to this. Although it is written that the Government of Meghalaya was represented in the Board of Directors by two of its nominees, such appointment was not ratified by the Board. So, the Board, never included any of the persons from Meghalaya to be represented in the Board of Directors. We find also that most of the works that are being done by this Corporation are within the State of Meghalaya, e.g., coal-mining at Nangalbibra. Then there is another project that is being taken up inside Meghalaya. but we find that the investment made in this Corporation is for benefit to the Company which is situated at Gauhati. We know from the report that this Company located at Gauhati is Assam Bricks and Ceramics (Private) Limited. My point in taking up this discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that if we do not have any hand what so ever in the management and control of this Corporation......

(interruption)

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in order to save the time of the Hon. Member I would like to make a clarification on this. There are three Directors in this Corporation representing the Government of Meghalaya. But in this particular annual report it did not appear as sit related to the year 1971-72.

Shri Maham Singh :- So, at present we have got some Directors.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Three Directors. What are the names please?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- The are Mr. D.S. Khongdup, Mr. S.L. Khosla and Mr. S. Lyngdoh.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, actually what I was wanting to say is that if we do not have any say in the affairs of this Corporation, it will be better for us to have our own Corporation.

        I think the Minister-in-charge for the clarification he has made and with these few words, I resume my seat.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy  Speaker, Sir, while taking  part in the discussion on this very important subject, that is, Assam and Meghalaya Mineral Development Corporation, I fully agree with the views expressed by Hon. Member who first initiated the discussion. Although the Minister has said that we have got some Directors in this Corporation, I do not see any reasons why we should not go for having our own separate Corporation, specially when this Corporation has been started only recently. The joining of Meghalaya Government with Assam in this Corporation appears to be only in name just for the sake of  propaganda or publicity. Even in the first part of the Director's Report I find that it affects or does not give correct identity of the important places where minerals like limestone, coal, etc., have been discovered in our District. The very word "Lumshlong", I do not know whether it identified "Lumshnong". It is not a pleasant thing that even the very names of villages have not been given correctly to give proper identification of the places.

        Therefore, while subscribing to the views of the Hon. member who have just spoken, I would strongly stress and urge the Government to have our own Corporation in order that our mineral resources can be studied and surveyed in a proper manner so that the benefits derived do not go to the hands of other Government. With these few words, I once again stress that it is high time for us to have our own Mineral Development Corporation.    

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take part in this report on Mineral Development Corporation Limited. In this connection, Sir, I support the views made by the Hon. members form Mawprem and I also support the idea as expressed by Hon. Member from Nongtalang that we should have our own State Mineral Development Corporation. From this 2 page report of the Director, we have found that the future prospects of Mineral Development Corporation, as is evident from the 4th paragraph of the first page of the report which says that "your Corporation is also preparing to open quarries at Hahim in Kamrup District for extraction of Feldspar and Quartz". Again Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the first paragraph of the next page, it has been stated that a private party, viz., M/s Assam Bricks and Ceramics (Private) Limited, submitted a proposal of share participation by your Corporation to the mechanised Bricks plant to be established by them at Gauhati.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, any way our mineral resources have not yet been surveyed properly. But so far we learn, we know that our State is very rich in minerals as the nature has been kind to us. Here we know the future prospects of the Corporation which is now a joint venture between the two States i.e., Assam and Meghalaya this kind of mineral which has been proposed here is in abundance in our State but the factory is proposed to be opened in other places outside the the State, one in Hahim for the extraction of feldspar and quartz and the other is Bricks and Ceramics Gauhati. This is the proposal only, Sir, which means establishment of the two factories outside the State. There is no proposal at all to set up such a Mineral Development Corporation in our State. We have also discussed the policy of the Government regarding the rising of prices of all commodities, this is so because we do not produce these goods ourselves. So also here, Sir, if our minerals are taken away from there for supply, to the factories to be established in other parts outside the State, it would not only amount to depriving employment to our people be also the price of the finished goods will be high when they will be sold back here. So, Sir, this is my observation regarding development of industries. We can develop industries and set up factories in a better manner if we will have our own Mineral Development Corporation. More industries will be developed and established here in the State with our own mineral resources. I know, Sir, that there are rich deposits of quartz in parts of our State. We should not support establishment of industries outside the State, with the supply of materials and mineral resources from our State. Rather industries should be developed and established in our own State  with our available supply of mineral resources for the development of the State. For  ceramics we have plenty in Cherrapunjee and also there are large deposits of ceramics in Garo Hills. Why these should be taken away outside the State? Why should not we take this opportunity of establishing our factories in our own State instead of supplying the required materials outside the State? So, with these few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly emphasise that we should have our own Mineral Development Corporation. for development and establishment of industries with out available minerals.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I could like to give my support to the views of the hon. Member who have advocated separation of this Corporation so that Meghalaya will be able to have its own Corporation and not to get mixed up with Assam. In the first page of the Director's report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are told how coal was brought from Nangalbibra Coal Mine and supply to M/s Meghalaya Potteries Private Ltd. and M/s Assam State Electricity Board in the year 1972. Now, they say that they have entered into contract with the two companies, M/S Meghalaya Potteries Private Ltd. and the Assam State Electricity Board and the quantity to be supplied has been given in the report. At that time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if my information is correct, Meghalaya did not have a share in the Assam and Meghalaya Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., which has just come towards the end. Now out of this how much would be a share, and subsequently of Assam and how much of Meghalaya. As the hon. Member from Pariong has rightly pointed out, that vast mineral resources in Meghalaya warrant the setting up of a Corporation only for Meghalaya. Assam has a negligible amount of minerals. When we fought for a separate Hill State, we fought on the argument of exploitation, on certain aspects of exploitation by the Government of Assam. But after getting a a separate State we go back and allow the exploitation to continue. I will substantiate Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, by going to the last but one page of the report where the Government of Assam. has equity shares of 1,681 and the Government of Meghalaya 200 equity shares. So in sharing out of the profits of this Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., the profit will be shared on the proportion of 8:1 Almost Assam will get eight times the amount that we will be getting although the raw materials, I think, are eight hundred times more than that of Assam. It is an inverse proportion or the inverse ratio of that profit that Assam will be getting.

        While we have a huge deposit of raw materials much greater in proportion even to the extent of 80%, I find that Assam will get a much larger share of the profit which has been derived from different mining operations in our State mainly. I do not want to take up the time of the House because this report is also very brief, it pertains to the period of 1 years ago. But this is a serious matter to be considered whether we will continue to allow Assam with a relatively smaller deposit of raw materials - to have a share much greater than what  is due to it. Of course, they reply can be given that it depends upon the amount of money that is invested. Since Assam invested a bigger amount of money it has a right naturally to claim a greater share of the profits, our investment being smaller. But even so, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the fact is that Assam's share is 8 times greater than the share of Meghalaya and that is how the dividends will be distributed. But the raw materials in our State are far more than the raw materials in Assam and I really feel that we should break away from Assam since we fought for a total separation form them. But we cannot do anything about those Boards or Corporations which have already existed before our State of Meghalaya came into being like the A.S.E.B. the Assam State Ware Housing Corporation, etc. After separation political administrative separation - we should not go back to Assam and try to eke out a small existence while a great share goes to Assam.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have gone through the balance sheet of the Corporation. Now it appears that the share capital is Rs.1 crore and the subscribed capital Rs.18,81,000. Now, of this subscribed capital, it is obvious that the share subscribed by the Government of Meghalaya is only as shown in the equity shares. Now the idea of having a corporation is based on one or two grounds. In the first place, it is that the venture of the business for which it is meant to be done should be streamlined to do away with red-tapism on any difficulty encountered.  If the Government have to do it, the first reason is that there is no private enterprise big or adequate enough to undertake the business. Now, in this case, if I refer to this I find that all along the Assam and Meghalaya Mineral Development Corporation which means in effect that, although Assam had contributed largely to the share capital or to the capital of this Corporation, the actual work done is much more in Meghalaya which shows form the way in which exploitation of coal mines at Nangalbibra is being carried on. So, if we take it from that  point of view it is a useful business enterprise. But it does raise a fundamental principle whether it is right as a matter of policy for the Government of Meghalaya to go for this combined operation or we should have our own corporation. I feel that it would be better, as a matter of policy, for any corporation to be in Meghalaya in future. It is good, not that we do not have enough time but as it is good as a matter of policy in regard to the exploitation where we have raw materials in plenty. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this venture itself although form the business point of view. I would say that it is a good investment when we have contributed only Rs.2 lakhs i.e. 1/8 of the Share Capital, but as a matter of future policy, I would agree that we should have our own corporation. The other point which has struck me also is about the Board of Directors; that out of 7 Directors we are having only 3. Of course we do not know who is the Chairman. Of course, the Chairman will be changed from year to year and one from Assam and one from Meghalaya; at least, the appointment should be by rotation. In this way, there will be, let us say, a balance. Now, if we have only 3 out of 7 Directors then whatever decision will be taken by the 3 Directors will be overruled by the other 4. The other point which I would like to bring up here is again on a matter of principle. It is my experience that in a corporation if we depute only the officials it may not be a very good thing. I would suggest that persons who have certain background of running an enterprise should be associated  with the Corporation. We cannot allow only the officials as there is  always the tendency to resort to officialdom or bureaucratization which has come into a great deal of criticism throughout India. I feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in the constitution of the Board of Directors this aspects  of having a non-official member in the Board should be taken into consideration. Now the other point is with regard to the actual working of the Corporation. In the first para, according to that report, it has been noted that M/s Meghalaya Potteries (P) Ltd. has already entered into an agreement with the Corporation by which Corporation has to supply few thousand tonnes, each year, of coal to M/s Meghalaya Potteries (P) Ltd. During the first year this supply of coal could not be taken up because of the bad condition of road. I had expected that when the working is done not by the Government but by the Corporation they have a lot of problems in their working. This could have been anticipated. So, one year is already a loss to us - from the 1st of January, 1972 to 31st December, 1972. Of course, I would like to know what is happening in 1973, for the last six months or so, whether the supply will be resumed. The other point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, which I would like to bring here is that this Corporation is not only to look after the acceleration or promotion of industries in the State but my primary concern is the realisation that our State is rich in mineral resources. I also know the difficulties faced by the Government in the so-called exploitation of the mineral resources. I would suggest that apart from the exploitation of the deposits, it will be a good thing survey of the various mineral resources. It may not be very useful financial but, in the long run, it will help the Corporation itself and will also help the Government in the exploitation of our mineral resources in the State because I am aware of one fact that the Corporation could, on its own, get experts from all over the country while it is very difficult fo the Government to do it and it has come to my information also that if the Corporation applies its mind  in that direction it would be very useful venture. Some times ago, we have heard about the existence of gold also in the Khasi Hills. I do not know whether this is actually so. It might have come out in the newspapers. Of course, it is matter for the Government to find out and, of course, there are other minerals. As suggested by the hon. Member from Pariong, there is a mica in the State. The Corporation may look into this aspect also. I think I am not allergic to the idea of the joint venture but, in principle, I feel that tit would be a good thing to have our own separate Mineral Development Corporation.

*Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while taking part in the discussion, I would like to get some enlightenment on some important matters that have been included in the report as well as in the auditors report. Sir, as already stated by the previous speakers we will find in the last line of paragraph 2 of the report, it was stated, that M/s Meghalaya Potteries Pvt. Ltd. could not take the required quantity of coal during the year under report due to bad condition of road. Sir, in this business concern as already stated, we already had a loss because we cannot supply the full quantity required by this private company. So, Sir, we would like to know whether steps have been taken. I would also like to know Sir, the steps taken on the reported condition, on the road because without a good road this business concern is incomplete. What action has been taken by the Board of Directors to this effect. Secondly, as already stated by the hon. Member form Nongtalang, we have found  now and then that the names of the villages have been mis-spelt. We have found in paragraph of the report, the name Lumshnong was spelt Lumshlong and we have come across and spelling errors also. Sir, of the villages in my constituency. The name of one village has been spelt Pasi instead of Pasi and the word Pasi according to our dialect in Jaintia Hills is a very sad word. We do not understand why these names have been all in the correct names and we can easily conclude that   is not in the interest of the locality also. In the last para, I would like some clarification on the added note given by the Audito5rs, in last but one line. I would rather welcome a comprehensive report to be presented to the House rather Thana concise one. In the Auditors. note it was stated that the closing we want to know why it was based on that proposition. And then, the Government of Meghalaya was represented in the Board of Directors by two  of its nominees, but such appointment was not ratified by the Board. That also we want to know why it was not ratified by the Board. Then, the number of employees who are or were in receipt of  emoluments aggregating to Rs.2,000 or more per mensem was nil. That also we Minister-in-charge when giving the reply would be pleased to give us clarification so that we shall not be left in the dark. With these few words Sir, I resume my seat.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad that a number of Members of the House have taken interest in the Mineral Development Corporation. As I have earlier intervened, this is a report of 1971-72 which is at the turn of the year when Meghalaya came into being as a full-fledged state. It was constituted as we all know, on the 21st January and this Corporation was already in existence when Meghalaya came into being. The first step therefore that we had to  take was to put some Members on the Board, to take an interest in the Corporation and request that the name be changed so that it was a joint corporation. The fact is that we had come to some tentative decision regarding the use of mineral resources in our state. In the first instance I would like to correct the impression that has been given by one of the members about the corporation doing detailed survey and taking some Surveys of mineral development which is not the function of the Corporation. It is the function of the Geological Survey of India, the Minister Resources. Department of the Government of Meghalaya. The Corporation has been set to utilise the mineral sand sell these minerals for industrial or any other purposes. So it is not, therefore, surveyed although it may have survey workers of its own within certain fields that are allowed for this work. But the main survey has to be done by the Government of India as well as the Department of the State the second thing is that we have decided as far as mineral base project and  industries are concerned when the interests of other states are not involved as far as possible is that we shall set up projects either by Meghalaya Development Corporation by itself or in collaboration with other or by any private enterprises from our own State. This Corporation of Assam and Meghalaya Mineral  Development Corporation will take up most projects which will be of metal advantage between Assam and Meghalaya.

        For instance, there is a considerable quantity of coal available in our State which needs to be exploited adequately and sold to other parts of the country mostly in Assam. It will be considered, therefore, of advantage to have a joint Corporation, where the consumers are one State and the producer is another State. We shall of course be trying to set up industries in our State for utilising some of our minerals, but at the same time we are also trying to find markets in Assam and other places for our minerals. It is for this reason it is felt that at this stage it would be of mutual advantage to have a joint Corporation where the interests of both States are served. So far as investment is concerned, for information of the Members, this Corporation was set up in 1964 and obviously the major part of investment has been made by the Assam Government. We have only the total investment of about 3.13 lakhs till the end of 1972-73 and the Assam Government has invested 20.44 lakhs. Obviously this major part of investment has been made before Meghalaya representing this State in the Board of Directors. The Hon. Member from Jaiaw has referred to the need for putting non-official  members in the Board of Directors. The Government has not objection to this but I am referring to reverse tendencies which we had forwarded to the Government of India, other reverse tendencies of bureaucratization in putting in  a non-official member and I would be failing in my duties if I d no not point out these reverse tendencies which have come about in the last few years. To do away with this trend, the definite point is to put non-official members on the Board of Directors to be brought in from the private sector experts, in public sector projects. So far as the Government is concerned, we have already appointed in the Meghalaya Minister Development Corporation 2 or 3 Directors who are non-officials and we will continue to keep this in mind. The hon. Member has mentioned about the sentence which as purely a clarification why the total of Meghalaya Potteries Ltd., is inadequate in that particular year because of bad condition of roads which has been remarked as if it is the Corporation which is responsible. The fact is that before Meghalaya came into existence, the Assam Public Works Department was maintaining the roads and after that the Meghalaya Public Department is responsible for roads in the whole of Meghalaya and therefore the Meghalaya Mineral Development Corporation is not responsible for the bad condition of the roads. However this condition of roads was brought to the notice of the Meghalaya Public Works Department and the Department of Public Works has taken keen interest to improve and develop these roads and we hope that before long we will have excellent roads not only in this particular place but also in other parts of the State and we will have no difficulty whatsoever to bring this coal from the place of mining. For the information of the Members of this august House, the present members other Board of Directors are 8. Out of which 3 representing the Government of Meghalaya and one is the Managing Director, and 4 from Government of Assam. The Chairman is normally the Chairman of the Board and is Shri B.W. Roy. The Director of Geology and Mining of the Assam Government is the Managing Director. Now Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the various remarks of the members, most of whom indicated their minds that we should have our own Mineral Development Corporation, in this connection, I may point out while obviously recognizing the fact that it is true that who invest  more will also get more, but up till now the Corporation has not been able to can profit and at this stage those who invest more will suffer more losses. The situation in which there is expectation of profit is in future. As you know we try to see our way to invest more when the position improves However, the Corporation is maintaining some understanding with one or two large projects in Assam which require coal like the Ashok Paper Mill at Jogigopa. We have also to supply coal to the proposed Thermal Power Station at Bonggaigaon. These are reasons why we think that it is of advantage to have joint Corporation between the two Government But we are also considering the question of setting up  large Thermal Power Station here in our own State. The Projects Report is being prepared to set the said Project within Garo Hills District itself in which case there is adequate sale coal if the coal is basis of development we are not yet ready to decide because as it is now we find it advantageous to have a joint Corporation. We are not dogmatic about it but we will review the situation form time to time. We will keep in mind the various suggestions of the members when we come to any decision on this particular matter. I would also like to remained the Hon. Member from Mynso and from Nongtalang regarding misspelling which might be due to misprinting which are the bane of our existence and we have to continue and try to correct misprinting and I am sure that it is not the intention to divert the original spelling but perhaps it is due to purely misprinting of  Lumshnong. We shall inform the Director of the Corporation to be more careful in future with spelling and to see that spellings are corrected  before they are finally issued for publication. I will give only this particular information as I said earlier. So far there has not been profit could not be made to the extent it was expected. Of course, it is not only in case of Meghalaya power. Because the amount of power which was original the estimated to require 20,000 tonnes of coal per annum but then the requirement was estimated at 4 to 5,000 tonnes per annum. So until other negotiations are completed we cannot be too sure of the economic viability of the coal mine at Nangalbibra. Until larger development takes place such as paper mills, thermal station, etc., we should not expect profits to much  extent at the beginning. Now there is some industrialisation in Assam where this Corporation has made some investment and some raw materials go from out State. That is the reason are to bring some materials from other parts of the country and this is one of the Corporation's looking into it. Any way, all those points raised by many Hon. Members be kept in mind by Government from time to time.

Mr.  Deputy Speaker  :- Item No.6 Discussion, if any, on Annual Financial Statement for the year 1973-74 of the Assam State Electricity Board.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have got here a detailed statement of 165 pages. Of course it is not a new subject. We have had prolonged debate on this subject during many sessions. Sometimes debates on this subject could not be finished in one session and had to be carried over to another session. But since the subject is very important, I think it would not overtax the patience of this House even it there is some repetition. Here again it is an example of collaboration between Assam and Meghalaya. The Assam State Electricity Board, as we have been told in the first page, was set up in June, 1958 vide Government of Assam notification. Now Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, since a long time in 1958 when this dam was constructed on the river Umiam at Barapani submerging vast area of paddy fields, I still remember it was promised  that power would be supplied at 8 n.p. per unit there. It was  a great promise and with this promise they could persuade the people to give their vast paddy field. But what we see today; power is supplied at 40 n.p. per unit there whereas we in Shillong pay 29 or 31 paise per unit. This Assam State Electricity Board which is a Public Sector Undertaking aimed a doing good to the people, promised to supply power at 8 n.p. per unit for the people there, now they are charging 40 n.p per unit. But it must be considered against its background. I do not want to think for a moment that this financial statement is an isolated statement having no relation with the past. This statement is the outcome since 1958 and this Board which has been receiving countless character certificates from the various Accountant General character certificates to the effect that this Board cannot repay its loans. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you know, whether it is in a business matter or in private matter, if a person cannot repay his loans, it is very difficult for him to get further loans. This is very true in case of Government undertakings also. The loans which have been accumulating with interest has come to a colossal figures. The carried over loss in 1972 was Rs.21,87,56,000 and with interest it was come to Rs.26,76,72,000. Moreover, the power depression has come to the tune of Rs.3,82,00,000 However, the Government always speaks in terms higher rate  for power supply. On the one hand we have lost our paddy field which could have produced more food for our State, for this town were rice is being sold at Rs.2.00 per kg. and on the other we have to pay a higher rate for power consumption. Even to day we assembled here in this House to set up another dam in some areas where there is a vast paddy field. Of course, we thank the Government that has quickly changed the ideas of setting a dam in this area where the people are strongly objecting to the damming of the paddy fields. We also thank the Government for not going against the wishes of the people. But it shows the intention of the Assam State Electricity Board is to set aside agricultural interest in order to provide electricity. But in most cases, we do not receive or if we do receive at all, it will be on a much higher rate. From the Government point of view and from the point of view of the State, according to the provision of the North Eastern Areas Re-organisation Act, this State Corporation that is known as the Warehousing Corporation in the State was  born exactly two years after the inauguration of the State of Meghalaya,  that is in 1974. In 1974 therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Assam State Electricity Board is to bear 140 crores of rupees and that I like hanging a Democle's word and this will become the liability of the State.  But this liability we have to share according to the provision of the North Eastern Areas Re-organisation Act. We cannot for a moment say that the crime and the sin committed in the past where the succeeding generation has no share to it. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, the provision of the Act is very clear, and according to the provision the asset and liability should be borne by both the Government and if the two Government could not decide upon the sharing then the Central Government by order shall determine what will be the share of liability and assets. Now, we cannot answer for the sin committed by others. If the weaknesses or lapses had been there with the Assam State Electricity Board before the State of Meghalaya came into being it will be unanswerable that you have to be punished  for having a share with this colossal amount of money of 140 crores. But even I crore is a huge amount Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, and certainly it will be 1 crore. In the meantime, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the board has offered extension of it activities in Meghalaya by doing its best to find avenues for loans from other States. If my memory serves me right an amount of Rs.87,00,000 has so far been given to the Assam State Electricity Board and it is a matter of great regret that this Rs.87,00,000 was lost in the depth of ocean of this Assam State Electricity Board. Here it may be pointed out that the Assam State Electricity Board has defaulted not only the capital but even the interest on loan from the Government of India and even it has failed to repay the interest of the Life Insurance Corporation. It even failed to pay the interest of this new State, the baby, infant State of Meghalaya. If it cannot return more interest only loan within these 25 years of its existence how can we expect it do  return all loans within these two or more years that we have come into existence. But the Assam State Electricity Board will be worn out and we do not know who will succeed this board. I remember we have speculated in this House during the last Budget Session that the Government will invest more money and that we have to get loans from some sources and to hand over this money to the Assam State Electricity Board, which has not cleared all interest which has been accumulating year after year with depression and arrears and compound interest.

        Now, if we look at pages 7 and 8 of this Report Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, will see the Assam Plans and the Meghalaya Plans which were made available to this august body and I think this august body will forgive an ailing child for failure in repayment of loans and interest. If the Board has shown any sign of rectifying the matter, I donot see any reasons why we cannot bring electricity for the benefit of our people while we are trying to set up another project at Kyrdemkulai. Other projects at page 8 of the report will be set up and now survey and investigation by the department are in progress in the Kopili, Umiam, Kynshi and the Upper Khri rivers in Meghalaya which have been under the Assam Plan. Well Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the electricity form the new power generation stations we hope we will be able to feed many villages in the rural areas. But unfortunately the power will be utilised for the Assam's Plan as clearly stated in page 8, paragraph 12 that the power from the Board is to cater to the needs of the entire North Easter Region and the North Eastern Region has to formulate certain scheme on original basis, etc. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is what was stated in this Report that the new projects of Kopili, Umiam, Kynshi and Khri, all rivers in Meghalaya, would be develop to distribute power in the North Eastern Region and would be heavily in favour of Assam or of the plains. But the point, I would like to stress here is because most of the energy which is being generated because their development of power transmission is in progress. Inversely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us look at Meghalaya Plan. We have stated that Meghalaya is transmitting to 4,400 villages. If I am not mistaken this is to be done  on the basis of the figure presented in this report. Here 4,400 villages in Meghalaya are at the bottom of this paragraph in which electrification is in progress. Out of these villages, 7 villages have been electrified during 1972-73 Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I submit that if in one year 7 villages are to be electrified, it will take more than 600 years to electivity 4,400 villages.

*Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister Power etc) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker Sir, for clarification to the hon. member on that particular point, I may inform the House that these are specific schemes which come under the Rural Electrification Corporation, and it should not be confused with the electrification of all the villages of the State. But we have certain villages under this scheme which are eligible for loan form the Rural Electrification Corporation 32 villages have been provided under the scheme and out of these village come under the Rural Electrification Corporation which will not give money for the electrification of the whole village of the State.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Hon'ble Minister for his clarification but there is no denying the fact that electrification in our State, in the Hills, is very meagre and low as compared to electrification that has been done in the plains. First there was the Umtru Project where the  power has been almost supplied  to the whole of Assam. Of course, the blame is not with this Government as it was not in existence before the damming of the river. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it seems that the Board has taken out all electricity from the hills and has enriched and fed other State from the Barapani Project and the Kyrdemkulai Project that were stationed in the Bhoi Area, yet the Bhoi area at large is badly electrified. People have died falling into the river from high bridges, people have been eaten by wild animals and poisonous snakes because the villages they are inhabiting have not been electrified. As such the Bhoi area being the origin of power generation in the State, should get proper attention to gear up economic development of the area before electricity is taken out for supply to some other States in the plains. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we shall see that the Kopili, Kanshi, Kyrdemkulai, and Khri projects which are yet to be taken up, should not fall under the Assam Plan. I also fear Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, lest all this electricity will go down to areas not within Meghalaya. Therefore, I submit Sir, that in view of the colossal wastage of public funds, in view of the hopeless troubles that this State Electricity Board has fallen into an in view of the report of the Sister State that has set up the Enquiry Committee to enquire into the Assam State Electricity Board and in view of the many damaging report from the Accountant General and in view of the fact that were are still preparing to give loans, may I submit Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is certainly high time to set up our own State Electricity Board. What exactly is the power of administrative control that can exercise upon this opportunity, I think it is only after plans are executed in our State. And then there is responsible to both the States and I am sure he will listen more attentively to the Assam State than to our State. Our control over the Assam State Electricity Board is almost in proportion to the size of Meghalaya as compared to Assam or if we have got a clear picture of the North Easter Region, we will see that it is in proportion to the entire North Easter areas to be covered up by this board whereas our control over it, over this board, is very limited. We have responsibilities, over crores of rupees and we have to bear the expenses of sharing the liabilities besides loans that we are to pay. So, why cannot we collect money and set up a Board of our own in our State. We can set up our own Board with a small amount of money, one crore or so and then I submit very strongly that the Government should consider this matter and set up a Board of our own and stop giving loans to Assam.

*Shri D.D. Lapang :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while making some observation in this report, I want to deal with only one point and that is the Rural Electrification Schemes. Now if we look at the end of page 6 of  the report we will find there the number of Districts which will be electrified by this scheme. In Assam there are as many as 6 Districts while the number of villages to be electrified in these Districts varies from 64 to 130. This is the case in Assam while in Meghalaya we can see that we have only one District namely Khasi Hills District and that the that number of villages to be electrified is 32 as stated by the Minister himself. Here it is also pointed out that in 1972-73 only 7 villages, as already stated by the hon. Member are to be electrified. So, we cannot understand why for Garo and Jaintia no villages have been included in this scheme. Even in Khasi Hills District, the number of villages is very small. The number is only 32 which is far below the expected target as compared to other parts of the State. And at the end of page 7 we will see that by the end of 1972, according to this report, as many as 858 villages are to be electrified and as many as 143 pump sets will be installed. But we will see that in Meghalaya only 87 villages and no such pump sets, are to be installed. Again under the Five Year Plan, a provision is made for electrification under this Rural Electrification Scheme. So in Assam, as many as 5,700 villages plus 15,000 pump sets will be installed for electrification of the rural areas, whereas in our Meghalaya State, only 1,800 villages and 1000 pump sets are scheduled to be set up. This is seen form the actual figures given here. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government of Assam may defend themselves by saying that Assam is a bigger State having 6 Districts whereas Meghalaya has got only 3 Districts and so we must get less advantage of the scheme. We do not want to accept that challenge. But we are to realise the fact that we should have equal status equal rights and equal opportunity in this respect. So I would like to request the Government through you, Sir, to kindly look into the matter and see that since power is being generated from our State of Meghalaya, we should get more power for our rural areas. So as a special consideration, our rural people should be given all facilities to enable them at least to derive the benefit of electrification scheme. We have lost our rivers, we have lost our paddy fields and we have lost our beautiful hills. So Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would request the Government through you, ,Sir to see that we do not lose at least the benefit of this scheme and see that all these facilities are enjoyed by our people in the State.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, to discuss this big volume of the report of the Assam State Electricity Board within a few hours would be very very difficult for us. In Assam, they have a discussion on this report for about 5 days. So why not special allotment of days be made for discussion of this very important matter that affects the economy and financial position of our State in some other sessions. Any way Sir, we are very grateful to the Minister-in-charge of electricity for giving us this report and I think his name will ever be remembered in the annals of the history of Assam and Meghalaya because with the creation of the State of Meghalaya we never though that we shall be liable for all these assets and liabilities that are very big and are also detrimental to the financial position of our State. I think the Government knows what is the proportion, what is the ratio, what is the share that we are to participate in both the assets and liabilities and who are the persons entrusted with the work of preparing such schemes and implementing them. Who are responsible for the collection of revenue and who keep the Accounts of the A.S.E.B.? They are not the people of this State. They are not the officials of this State, but they are taken from the other States and most of them have been also pointed by the Assam State Electricity Board. It is not that we are prejudiced that our interest will be affected because this Assam State Electricity Board has been joined by Meghalaya only recently but it is natural for the weakness of humanity and as such is is natural that some inclination will be there even in the calculation of the accounts. The members who has just spoken came from the area where the power of Electricity Board originates but other special consideration have been made to the people of the Bhoi area for sacrificing the land, for sacrificing the area for the opening and implementing of the scheme for the Bhoi area and also for the entire Districts of Khasi and Jaintia Hills. If we go from Shillong to Badarpur, we will see one National Highway and another grand Electric Highway, if we calculate the area how many square miles, square Kms. our people have lost it will be tremendous not to say that the board has already got the permission to cut down big trees. But the way of paying compensation is at the free will of the Board offices. It was stated that the Government are giving full consideration to our people but what is that special consideration they have given for those people who have lost their lands. The members who initiated the discussion have stated about the rate per unit. In the town they are paying 29 paise per unit but in the villages they are paying 40 paise. Right from here to Jowai and from there to Gauhati many villages have not been electrified and from the statement here under the Rural Electrification Scheme sanctioned by the N.E.C. the number of villages in Assam which are to be benefited comes to the maximum of 587 where as in Khasi Hills in Meghalaya is is only 32. Sir, I do not want to go into the details as that will not only take more time of the House. I am sorry that I have to point out all these things to the Government and to the minister-incharge who are not responsible for all these but in view of the fact that our own Government have agreed to a joint responsibility I have to do it. Therefore, Sir, my suggestion here is that we should calculate the assets and liabilities that our State will have to bear? We should do it early, we should do it every year otherwise if accumulation year after year continues, I am afraid the whole finance of this State will be consumed by this Electricity Board.

Shri D.N. Joshi :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, while participating on this subject of the Assam State Electricity Board for which very little time is allotted to me I want to make only a few observations. Now I find that there is a very little time left, only fifteen minutes for the House to adjourn. It is very unfortunate that after achieving a State of our own we are to discuss about the Assam State Electricity Board. It should have been more proper if we should have discussed about the Meghalaya State Electricity Board. So it is still more unfortunate on the part of the Government that up till now even after a lapse of three years they have not been able to constitute a State Electricity Board for this State of ours. Everything is left at the mercy of this Assam State Electricity Board here is Shillong. In this Scheme we find mention is made regarding Gauhati, Tezpur and other places but nothing has been stated about Shillong. A number of times I have had occasions to request this Government to take over the Shillong Hydro Electric Company, Limited, to nationalise it but up till now no tangible steps have been taken towards that end. This Shillong Hydro Electric Company, Limited has its head office in Calcutta......

Shri S.D.D Nichols Roy (Minister,  Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are discussing about the Assam State Electricity Board in this House. May I request the hon. Member to stick to the particular subject which we are discussing now.

Shri D.N. Joshi :- So the State Electricity board should have its own power for the electrification of the town here in Shillong being the capital of Meghalaya. I do not understand why the State Electricity Board is not taking up electrification of a few towns of our State. So I would like to request the Government through you, Sir, that the early they take over the Electrification Scheme of Shillong under this Assam State Electricity Board the better for us. Let us have our own Meghalaya State Electricity Board as soon as possible and also nationalise. the agency which is responsible for the supply of power to Shillong. The early it is done, the better for our State.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair).

Mr. Speaker :- The Minister will reply in the next session..

Shri H. Hadem :- As pointed out by the Hon'ble Speaker, there is not much time. So I do not want also to take much time. I would like to thank the board for taking steps for electrification of the Rural Areas. But while I thank the Board I would like to make some observations.


MOTION

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Hadem, may I request you to participate in the next Session because I have received notice from the Chief Minister of one important Motion which from the point of view of the Government is very very essential.

Shri H. Hadem :- So Sir, may I take it that I will get a chance to participate in the next Session.

Mr. Speaker :- Yes, you will be the first Member to speak in the next Session.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I clarify a few points to the hon. Member before the will take part in the discussion in the next Session. I will just give a brief reply to one or two points before the Chief Minister moves the Motion. I will take only three minutes.

Mr. Speaker :- If you take only three minutes.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, there has been some misunderstanding, that is why, I want to clarify about the Rural Electrification problem. It has been clearly stated in page six - List of Non-Plan Scheme financed by R.E.C. practically it is found that none of our villages come under the criterion set up by the R.E.C. for eligibility of loan. Somehow or other we got them to agree to some village namely thirty-two for this Scheme. We have suggested now that they should revise their criterion but up till now they have not yet revised the Scheme. They have suggested that the State Government should subsidies this Scheme and this is under examinations. That is why we find  these six districts in Assam and 587 village, whereas only thirty-two villages are in Khasi Hills and the rest of the villages not eligible because of the returns of allotment to the R.E.C. Scheme. So, Members should not be misled by this particular item and should not thi8nk that Meghalaya has been neglected.

        Secondly, on the complaint about the rates of tariff, I would like to say that Assam which included Meghalaya, is one of the States in the country in which the rates are lowered and I will be happy to give, if any hon. Member is interested the list of the comparative rates available in other parts of the country.

        Lastly, regarding Shillong, the hon. Member from Cantonment has said that nothing has been done so far. Here, I would say that it is still under the Hydro Electric Company and if it is to be taken over from them, I am afraid, the consumers may perhaps have to pay forty paise per unit instead of twenty-nine paise. So, these are the two aspects of the matter for which it has not been taken over in spite of the decision by the Government of Assam. It  has not been done also because there was no money available with the Assam State Electricity Board. Again, if it is taken over, there may be complaints that crores of rupees are being spent on this particular project. These are the three points which I want to make clear.

Mr. Speaker :- May I now request the Chief Minister to move his Motion.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that leave be granted by this House that the proceedings of the Assembly connected with the exhibition of live bullets in the House by Prof. Majaw be made available to the Government for utilisation in the case registered against the said hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Mr. Maham Singh.

Shri Maham Singh :- I think, Mr. Martin Narayan Majaw wants to speak first.

Mr. Speaker :- The Motion moved is that the proceedings of the Assembly connected with the exhibition of live bullets in the House by Prof. Majaw be made available to the Government for utilisation in the case registered against the said hon. Member.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the first place it does not come to my knowledge that the case has been registered and in the second place, according to the provisions of the Constitution, whatever is a subject matter here in this House cannot be utilised in a case outside the House.

Mr. Speaker :- It cannot be utilised. But if the House grants leave that it may be utilised, then it may be done so. This House is the highest authority.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I stand to oppose the Motion. Will you please give us the time to explain why the Motion is to be opposed?

Mr. Speaker :- I think this is a very important matter. Let us continue till 12 noon (voices - Yes, Yes) I will give you ten minutes.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Thank you, In the first place, the primary thing to be judged in matters of this sort is not the act but its intention. I will point out how even in any case of physical death the law makes a distinction between man-slaughter and murder. Murder is premeditated with the intention whereas man-slaughter is a case of unpremeditated act and a man is not judged to have committed a murder but a man-slaughter. The law distinguishes the intention. But in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I am to  judge aright, the intention of the Ruling Party is to support the intention of the Leader of the House. I think this is to enable his own Government to take action against a Member for what has happened in the House. If the action that has taken place in the House warrants such a Motion being passed, then I will also approve of such a Motion. But I submit that the action that took place in the House was done in the exercise of a Member's right. This will be clear when we read together or study together the circumstances that accompanied that act. Here, I would like to refresh the memories of my friends. This was not an act which was premeditated. In the premises, on a point of entering the House, as I stated earlier, I was presented with these bullets. Who presented them to me I have already stated in the complaint with the Police. What action has been taken by the Police, of course, is not known to me. On having received them, since I do not have the licence to possess them and the House was then sitting and since the highest authority in this Assembly and premises of this House is the Speaker I took the first opportunity as the proceedings will show, for handing them over to the Speaker, and at that very moment Mr. Deputy Speaker, was in the Chair. Shortly after that, however, Mr. Speaker, came in. As I had announced, just while entering the House when I was handing them over to the Speaker, he was very kind to tell me to hand them over to the Police immediately with the rising of the House. On a point of information of the Government that there had been raid on a  particular house in Police Bazar three weeks earlier and to our knowledge no subsequent  action has been taken although bullets of this kind have been found and the photographs have been taken.

Mr. Speaker :- Where?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Three weeks earlier.

Mr. Speaker :- Where? In that very house?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Yes, at Thana Road in Police Bazar. From the information received earlier, prior to entering the House, we were apprehensive lest these are the actions of a group of persons trying to sabotage law and order or security of the State. I know that the first lot of bullets were unearthed and fifteen bullets that were buried had been unearthed in the meanwhile. That was according to our information, of course subject to correction.

Mr. Speaker :- Prof. Majaw, you need not substantiate the circumstances leading to the discovery of bullets. But you may confine your argument against the Motion. You had fully explain ed them in the last session.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the only intention I had in the circumstances was that, since I was to speak and I could not leave the proceedings and go out to hand them over to somebody else and since it is a matter concerning the security of the State. I did what I thought was best.

Mr. Speaker :- Do you means to say that the right to speak is better choice than to recognise the fact that you did not have the right to possess them?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- I do not think the two are in conflict Mr. Speaker, Sir, because the earliest opportunity that was taken on entering the House was offer and had over them to the Speaker. These are two points to be considered in the consideration of this motion today. When you did first order me to hand these over to the police, I offered them to the two highest police officers, within the premises of the House and they flatly refused to receive them, although this was an order of the Speaker. These are circumstances that must be considered in weighing this particular motion and whether the proceedings of this House shall be made available to the Government outside the House.

Mr. Speaker :- Let me explain the position very clearly. There were a number of cases when the Government took advantage of utilising the proceedings of the House. Some in the court of law and in some case to the Tribunals also. But I quite realise the constitutional right of this House that I am nobody to give authority to the Government to hand over the proceeding of the House to be utilised by the Government. That is why the Chief Minister had moved leave of the House. If the House grants leave, I have not other alternative, but if the House refuses to grant the leave, then of course, I cannot take action against the will of the House.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- It is very clear Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether this motion should be approved and supported or not. The motion asked for the proceedings of the House to be made available to the Government. If these proceedings are to be made available to the Government. If these proceedings are to be made available to the Government it would prejudice another matter which has come before the Privileges Committee of this House.

Mr. Speaker :- I think these are two different cases altogether and I had given my ruling in the earlier case which you moved this morning that in so far as these matters are concerned whether you have the right to possess the bullets outside the House. This is a matter to be decided by the court of law. But the matter falling within the Privileges Committee, that is, whether you have the right to exhibit these bullets separate issues.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I humbly submit that there is a connection. Because of course having received the proceedings of this House, the law in its own way takes advance action against a member. Since the members constituting the Privilege Committee are human beings and are also influenced by various considerations it is very likely in human nature for them to be prejudiced. If in the meantime the law will take advance action against a member as a result of the proceedings of the House. Now I also have a constitutional right and we as members of the House have the constitutional right of what we think is right.

Mr. Speaker :- I will continue to safeguard your right so long as I am in the Chair.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Sir, We have our constitutional right in the exercise of what we think our duty to draw the attention of the Government to a serious lapse in the Police administration. If the Government want to  take revenge and are vindictive by moving this motion in order to make available the proceedings for the purpose of taking vengeance upon the member, I oppose this motion, Mr. Speaker, Sir, Government should have been grateful for a member who has pointed out these lapses, but instead it is a case of vindictiveness on the on the member. This I feel, is not necessary at all. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is a Privileges Committee and if the Privileges Committee has finished its work, then we may decide whether these proceedings should be submitted to the Government or not.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I fee that so far as the State is concerned, this House is the highest authority and I feel that whatever happens in this House is at present being considered and is going to be tried by the Committee of Privileges. Mr. Speaker, Sir, when we consider the matter pending before a Privilege Committee we find that the Privilege Committee is more or less a trying Court and we may say that it is also the highest Court in the State. It is also a fundamental right of every accused person that he should not tried by another Court of law for the same offence that has been committed by him. Mr. Speaker, Sir, if we consider the functions of the Privilege Committee we find that it is more or less a Court trying a certain particulars offence that has been committed either by a member of this house or by another person who is not a member of this House.

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, we find that in Rule 158 with regard to the breach of privilege it is just a regular complaint. A breach of privilege either of a member of of the House of a Committee thereof, may, with the consent of the Speaker be brought to the notice of the House.

        (i) by a complaint from a member

        (ii) by a petition ; or

        (iii) by a report from a Committee

        Provided that if the breach is committed in actual view of the house the House may take action without complaint.

        Mr. Speaker Sir, this is also a procedure in the Court of Law. It is the same procedure when actually and offence has been committed by any one, in that case the process of law is started by a complaint or by a petition before a Court of Law. Then again in Rule 159 - a notice must be given by the complaint that every accused has the right to defend himself. A member wishing to make a complaint of a breach of privilege shall give notice in wiring 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. Then again in Rules 160 and 161 condition for the admissibility of a question of privilege and presentation of complaint. It is of course for the Speaker, either to given his consent or not. If the Speaker, gives his consent under rule 158, the member making the complaint shall, after questions and before the list of business is entered upon, read his complaint and may make a short statement relevant thereto. If the complaint is founded upon document, it shall be read by the member complaining or, if so directed by the Speaker, by the Secretary. The Speaker, after hearing any other member if necessary, shall decide whether the complaint is in order or not.

Mr. Speaker :- As I have already observed, there are two separate issues. What the hon. Member did outside the House is outside the competence of this House. But what the hon. Member spoke and what he exhibited in the House is within the competence of this House. And as I have already stated what I have referred to the Privilege Committee last time, is only a matter whether a member of this House has any right to violate the law and exhibit the bullets inside the House. Whether it is right or not and now the Leader of the House is his motion has requested this House to grant leave so that the proceedings of this House regarding this matter can be utilised by the Government. That is a matter, whether this house will grant leave or not, these are the technicalities of the whole situation.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of information, may I point out that even a verandah of this House is also a part of the House and having received the bullets at the door of the House, it is part of the House and it is not outside the House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, 

Mr. Speaker :- There lies the whole crux of the problems. How could an outsider come within the precincts of the House with bullets? It appears Prof. Majaw, that apart from you, a member of this House, somebody else also is involved. This is a new issue. I think the name of that particular person was not disclosed to us last time.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was trying to show that a Privilege Committee is also a court of law. It has got also the power to punish by reprimand or even imprisonment. But then so far as the precincts of this House are concerned whatever happened inside the House whether that would form a subject-matter of a trial in other courts. That is the real issue. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the whole proceedings on everything that has real issue. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the whole proceedings on everything that has happened in the precincts of the Housed are before the Privileges Committee. Now the Privileges Committee is considering all these questions, all these statements that have been made by the hon. Members in this House, and is also considering the suggestions made by all other Members in regard to this matter. The actual occurrence of al these are matters which are being considered by the Privileges Committee and I feel, Mr. Speaker, Sir, there cannot be two trials with regard to the same matter. There cannot be any trial in a court of law and also a trial by the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Speaker :- I have ruled out Mr. Maham Singh, that there are two separate issues. The case is the same but what happened inside the House and outside the House are two separate issues.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- What is 'outside the House' Mr. Speaker, Sir?

Mr. Speaker :- I have already defined the precincts of the House. Please go through my direction. 

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I may conclude that so far as the proceedings, of the House are concerned with regard to this particular matter, I consider it is part and parcel of the occurrence that took place before the Privileges Committee. It cannot be a subject matter which can be taken into consideration by another court of law, they can take cognizance only of something that happened outside the House. Another case can be registered with respect to the offence that has been committed out side the precincts of this House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is my submission and I feel that the proceedings of this House with regard to this particular matter cannot be made available for being utilised by any court of law when the member has already been tried by the Privileges Committee.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the very outset I would  like to say that we on this side of the House take strong exception to the insinuation made by the hon. Member from Mawhati when he said that it would come as no surprise that the Government was taking or wreaking vengeance. The question of wreaking vengeance does not arise, the Government has no intention of wreaking vengeance. It is only with the intention to seek the leave of the House to utilise the proceedings of the Assembly. The second point, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to make is this that the the statement made by the hon. Member from Mawhati and the arguments put forward by him in an attempt to oppose the leave that is sought would give one the impression that in his opinion the House should decide to either grant or refuse the leave on grounds of what the court of law may or may not decide on the case. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the point at issue is this. The point at issue is that the Government considers it necessary to be in possession of the leave of the House to utilise the proceedings of the Assembly in the interest of justice. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is the Government's considered opinion that the proceedings of the House would help the court to arrive at a correct decision. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I beg to differ with the hon. Member from Mawprem when he contended that the present case is before two courts of law. The Committee of Privileges is certainly not a court of law, it has no jurisdiction over any criminal case. The object and the functions of the Committee of Privileges are only to ensure that the privileges of each and every Member of this House or of Legislature in any country where democracy is in vogue are safeguarded. I cannot call my fellow Members names ; that would be committing are only to safeguard the privileges of the Members of the House and certainly not to try criminal cases or civil cases.

Mr. Speaker :- To call fellow Members by name, is not a breach of privileges. It is discourtesy.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education) :- Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. that leave of the House be granted to the Government to utilise the proceedings if and when necessary. Thank you, Sir.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- On a point of information Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Constitution, under Article 194, clearly states that "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings" and so, these proceedings, I submit, should not be given to the court.

Mr. Speaker :- As I said, I have no authority to grant, to approve or to disapprove. I said it is up to the House. The hon. Member was very correct when he said that he is not liable for punishment in a court of law for anything acted or spoken inside the House. That is quite true and I am going to say that the supremacy of the Legislature in this matter is guaranteed. But according to this motion, the Chief Minister wanted the proceedings of this House connected with the matter, to be utilised in the case not for anything acted or spoken  here, because that is a matter to be considered by the Privileges Committee and not by a court of law. But I  do not know the intention of the Government. It is up to the Chief Minister to give a reply.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Before the Chief Minister  replied I want a clarification. If my information is not wrong you have received a letter from the Government asking for the proceedings. That letter, Sir, was with regard to the complaint that I made against somebody else. But the motion brought by the Chief Minister today is with regard to the case filed against me in a letter to the Speaker. So, in connection with the complaint made by the hon. Member against the ...

Mr. Speaker :- Prof. Majaw, I had received requests on a number of occasions from the Government's side, of course verbally, that I should give them permission that the proceedings of the House be made available to the Government.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- For what Mr. Speaker, Sir?

Mr. Speaker :- How do I know for what? But I have said that I have no authority. The proceedings can be used for any purpose only with the leave of the House and not with my permission.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker Sir, on what we have already discussed just now, I would like to make only two observations. Firstly, that proceedings that happened within the House, secondly during the question hour it was answered by the Government that advocates have been appointed and one of the hon. Members happens to be a Government Advocate.

Mr. Speaker :- There is no Government Advocate here.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Sir, you have allowed this morning one Member who happens to be an Editor of a news paper to express his views in his capacity as Member-cum-Editor and I would like this to be taken into consideration.

Shri Maham Singh :- I have not given my view in that capacity. I am giving them as a Member only.

Mr. Speaker :- This House does not recognise you as Government Advocate, and I do not know whether this house needs a clarification on this matter. If at all it may be sought from the Advocate General. It is up to the leader of the House to say that.

Mr. Maham Singh :- Before, I make a reply as has been suggested by you, Mr. Speaker ,Sir,....

Mr. Speaker :- I did not suggest, I think it was Mr. Hadem ...

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that as this matter is actually very important and involves also a great deal of legal interpretations, may we also seek clarification form the Advocate General?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- As I have explained that necessity of taking the leave of the House to take the proceedings of the Assembly in connection with the exhibition of the live bullets by the hon. Member from Mawhati has been taken over by my colleague, Mr. Pugh. Therefore I do not have  much more to say about it. Now I must make it very clear as has been ruled out by you, that the case that has gone to the Privileges Committee is quite different from the case which is in the court of law. So it will not be correct to say that the same gentleman is being tried for the same offence by two separate courts as interpreted by the hon. Member from Mawprem. At the same time, the observations and contention of the hon. member from Mawhati, I think, can be put forward by him in defence before the court of law. He has tried to argue and try to differentiate between the intention and the actual exhibition of live bullets. The intention behind the exhibition of bullets can be taken up separately by the Privileges Committee. Now what was the intention of putting these bullets outside the House, that can be explained before the court of law. Therefore, it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the same gentleman has not been made to be tried by two courts for the same offence. I would therefore make it very clear that when this resolution has been tabled by me, it is not to find fault with the hon. Member concerned. the prosecution should not be understood as finding fault with the gentleman or the accused person, but prosecution means to find the truth and...    

Mr. Speaker :- So that justice is done?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Yes, so that justice is done. Therefore, it is in one way to help the hon. Member himself. I do not see why there should be objection. In fact, I would expect the hon. Member to move for leave of the House to get the relevant portion of the proceedings for the defence of his case. Therefore it is not correct to say that the Government is vindictive. The Government is trying to get the relevant proceedings not to find fault with the gentleman concerned. Therefore it is considered that it would be good a thing in the interest of justice and in the interest of the person concerned that the relevant portions of the proceedings connected with this particular exhibition of bullets inside the House be made available to the Government. With these few words, I would appeal to the House to grant leave to make these relevant portions of the proceedings of the Assembly available in connection with this matter. 

Shri S.N. Koch :- On a point of clarification. Whether these proceedings which have been started in the court of law are for exhibition of bullets inside the House or for collecting somewhere outside the House. That is the case which is still pending in the court of law.

Mr. Speaker :- Indeed the court of law cannot try the hon. Member for exhibiting the live bullets here.

        What the Leader of the House has asked for leave of the House to use the proceedings as evidence, if I read to correctly , in the court of law. Of course if leave of the House is granted, they can be used. The proceedings of many State Legislatures have been used with leave of the House.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- May we get a clarification whether the motion which has been moved is for use of the proceedings of the House in the court of  law as can be understood from the Chief Minister that the case has been registered.

Mr. Speaker :- I think the case is registered with the police.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- What number? The motion states in connection with the case which has been registered.

Mr. Speaker :- That you can ask when you face the defence in the court of law.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Since the matter has come up before the House, it becomes the property of the House. So we should know that very case is pending in the court of law.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch, please sit down. The time is up. Shall we dispose of this case now? do I have the leave of the House, that we extend the sitting of the House till this matter is disposed of?

(Voices - Yes,...yes)

Shri S.N. Koch  :- My first clarification whether there is any case be instituted in connection with this exhibition of the bullets or in connection with the police case against the hon. Member. What is the venue of the occurrence, whether it is within the House or whether it is outside the House?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have made it very of clear that the case which has been registered is not with regard to what has happened inside the House. It is in respect of some of some offence which has been committed outside the House and is before the Police.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in that case, may we know exactly from the Chief Minister where is the link between the proceedings of the House and the case supposed to have been registered for any action outside the House.

Mr. Speaker :- The link is that whatever you have spoken here is the case and whatever other members spoke outside the house is not the case.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, how can the proceedings of the House I mean for speaking inside the House, be the subject matter in the court of law ? According to Article 194 of the Constitution of India, or speaking ............ (interrupted).

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Well, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Article that has been referred to by the hon. Member provides that a Member cannot be challenged for what he has said inside the House. The court of law is l\not going to challenge what has been said by the hon. Member inside the House. The offence, however here is quite different and it is in connection with possession of the live bullets outside the precincts of the House. The court of law is not going to take cognizance of what he has said inside the House or challenge the authority or right of the hon. Member.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it refers to an action outside the House. But as I said before and now also, the complaint to the Police relates to what has happened inside the House because verandah is also within the precincts of the House.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, it is his own contention which he has to prove before the court of law.

Mr. Speaker :- Think we have diverted our attention to many other issues. I have made that point very clear that whatever happened here inside the precincts of the House, not only here in the precincts of the House, but whatever has been spoken inside the precincts of the House cannot be taken as an offence by the court of law. That is why each and everyone of you are mixing up whether it is a breach of privilege which should be taken up by the Privileges Committee, whether there is a breach of privilege or not and in the matter whether it is outside the House, whether it is a criminal act or not. These are two separate issues and if the court of law will punish you for what you have spoken here will punish any other members for what he did here. But whether there is a link or not it is up to the Government and the hon. Member concerned if whatever he had spoken will serve the cause of justice inside the House or it will be against the cause of justice. That is the issue.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the clarification that I wanted to have is what is the venue and place of occurrence because we are going to decide this important issue.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch, I think the law knows very well whatever happened outside the House will finally be taken up by the court of law and Government cannot reply here, I mean advocated in defence.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the question here is that the Government is asking for the proceedings of the House for utilisation in the investigation or in the court of l aw to do justice to what happen here or what has happened some where. But the Government has been asking for the proceedings of the House to utilise them in the court of law.

Mr. Speaker :- Only that part of the proceedings which is connected.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- That is why Mr. Speaker, Sir, according to Article 194 the case is not linked up. there is no connection with what the hon. Member spoke with exhibition of the live bullets.

Mr. Speaker :- Do you think that whatever you can speak here and outside the House is also the same thing?

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- So it is not at all necessary for Government to ask for the proceedings of the House for investigation into the case pending in the court of law because there is no connection. So far you have ruled out that anything happened here cannot be taken up by the court of law the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- I do not say that it could not be not taken as evidence But it could not be taken as an offence by the court of law.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, well you have given ruling and I am also observing it. The court of law will not be challenged of what had been spoken by the hon. Member from Mawhati.

Mr. Speaker :- It will take into.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Yes, you see the members right will be cor4rectly and properly safeguarded, as he has read out, that no members of the Legislature of the State shall be liable for taking proceedings in the court of law in respect of anything said or done by him inside  the House, his speeches inside the House  are not going to be challenged. But according to the Police an offence was committed outside the precincts of the House and the case has been registered. We are not competent to discuss in the House what has happened outside that  House and what action is to be taken for the administration of justice. But we are only seeking the permission of the House to take the relevant proceedings of the House in connection with the exhibition of the live bullets inside the House which may help the court of law to give a current verdict and not to find fault with the hon. Member or to challenge what has been done or said inside the House. I am very clear about it and I would request the House to kindly grant the leave.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, let us realise that this matter is very very important and I also realise that the only proper prospective of the whole issue is that we should recognise the fact that the  Leader of the House has sought permission of this august body to utilise the relevant proceedings in connection with a case registered against certain person on the matter that has happened outside the precincts of the House. I think this is the prospective. Now in the  first instance, as responsible members of this House, we have the responsibility to our own rights and that rights have to be safeguarded at all costs and I am very happy that you, yourself have made it clear that these rights enjoined by the Constitution have to be safeguarded at all costs. In so far as the subject matter of the proceedings in connection with the exhibition of live bullets is concern ed, this matter is pending before the Privilege Committee and also no court of law can take action or initiate offence on the subject matter we are speaking  here or we did here. It is very very clear. But here is a case in which a person has committed certain offence in the precincts of the House and the Government only seeks the assistance of the House, which is of an incidental nature, to get whatever evidence in the interest of justice to help in the case. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, personally, I feel that as Members of the House we are responsible to see that justice is done and this case has nothing to do with what we have said here or what we have done within the precincts of the House. I do not see any difficulty in handing over the proceedings as evidence which is also of an incidental nature in the interest of justice. Therefore, I feel that we should not fear, let us be courageous and let us have a precedent there in the interest not fear, let us be courageous and let us have a a precedent here in the interest of justice. We should not fight shy of. There may be similar precedents in other House of the country. So we should not be afraid of doing justice. 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- It is not a question of fear or fight shy of. It is a question or right of the Members. So the question of fear and courage does not rise.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is matter which took place within the precincts of the House and how a case can be registered against a Member outside the House?

Mr. Speaker :- It is a matter of bringing some live bullets. But whether it constitutes a breach of privilege or not, it is within the competence of the Privileges Committee. But whether it is illegal on the part of the hon. Member outside the house is a question to be decided by the Court of law.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not subscribe to this view. The only point is that here the Government is interested in the House instituting a case against an hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch you are too much carried by emotion. The Chief Minister has already indicated that the are not interested nor this House is interested in any particular case but we should remember that each and everyone should be interested in the cause of justice and secondly we must remember to exercise our authority.

Shri S.N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the established law of the land does not say that for the cause of justice extraneous considerations should be allowed. But here, whether the Court of law wanted or not the Government is interested in this House convicting an hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker :- Nobody is interested to convict an hon. Member.

Shri S.N. Koch :- We do not know the intention of the Chief Minister,  We do not know his mind.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Koch, you have nor right to insinuate against anybody.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Government has filed a case against me and here the Leader of the house is also the Head of the Go0veremnt. Therefore, it is likely that he would be interested.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- I have already clarified the position. A case been filed against the Government and now the court will try the Government.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, would you please read the motion again?

Mr. Speaker :- The motion is  that leave be granted by this House to the effect that the proceedings of the Assembly relating to the matter connected with the exhibition of five live bullets, in the House by Prof. M.N. Majaw be made available to the Government.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Here it has been said that the Government will utilise for the purpose.

Shri Maham Singh :- We do not know what is the case and how these proceedings are relevant to this case. Also we do not know whether it is a case under Arms Act or it is a civil case. We do not know the nature of the case that has been instituted against an hon. Member and how far these proceedings are relevant. Nothing has been said. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel we should consider these proceedings of the House as our privilege which should not be allowed to be exposed elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker :- Please explain to this House the difference between "a case has been registered in the court of law" and a "a case has been filled in the court of law "

Shri Maham Singh :- A case registered against an hon. Member in the court is not know to us. Whether it is under the Arms Act or not is not known to us. How far these proceedings and papers are relevant to that case is not know to us  at all. So we cannot agree Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the proceedings of this House should be given for any case that was registered against any member without seeking how far these papers are relevant to that case.

Shri B.B. Shallam :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification, I may say that almost all the speeches that have been made here inside this House are outside the purview of any court of law.

Mr. Speaker :- What do you mean by outside the purview of the court of law?

Shri B.B. Shallam :- My point is this, suppose.

Mr. Speaker :- There is no supposition here.

Shri B.B. Shallam :- I would like to point out here that in 1964 when there was Police firing in Shillong, the Assam Assembly supplied the proceedings to the Judicial Inquiry Commission.

Mr. Speaker :- Let me explain to you the difference. In so far as the Shillong Police firing Judicial Inquiry Commission was concerned, the Government wrote to the Speaker to supply the speech of one particularly Member and the Speaker did give the permission. But here it is a case where Government wants not only the speeches of the hon. Member but also those speeches of other Members connected with the case and that is the reason why I did not give the permission with the case and that is the reason why I did not give the permission myself. It is within the competence of the whole House and not within my personal competence.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Whatever may be the position I still maintain the motion is motivated. The Leader of the House has already very frankly admitted in the motion that the proceedings would be utilised in the case registered against me. Therefore, I still impute that it is the ulterior motive of the Government.

Mr. Speaker :- So, it appears that the House cannot come to any unanimous decision and I have to put the motion before the House. The question is that.... (interruption).

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- We will walk out Mr. Speaker, Sir, We all are opposed to this motion.

Mr. Speaker :- The question is that leave be granted by this House to the effect that the proceedings of this Assembly relating to the matter connected with the exhibition of live bullets in the House  be made available to Government for utilisation in the case registered against the said hon. Member.

(The motion is carried by voice votes)


PROROGATION

        Since there is no other business in the House for today, I may read out the Prorogation Order by the Governor.

RAJ BHAVAN

SHILLONG

The 25th July, 1973.

ORDER

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) (a) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India, I Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya hereby prorogue the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, at the conclusion of its sitting on the 27th July, 1973.

Sd/-

(BRAJ KUMAR NEHRU)

Governor of Meghalaya.

        The House then stands prorogued.

R.T. RYMBAI.

Dated Shillong

Secretary

The 27th July, 1973

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

*****