Proceedings of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly held on Friday, the 13th December, 1974 in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong.

********

        The Hon'ble Speaker in the Chair.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

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

Starred Q. 1 : - (Not put, Member being absent).

Starred Q. 2 :- (Not put, Member being absent).

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(To which replies were laid on the Table)

Number of Meghalaya State Transport Buses

Shri. Rowell Lyngdoh asked :-

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

(a) The number of Meghalaya State Transport Buses so far received or purchased by Government ?

(b) The names of routes where these are placed ?

(c) It is a fact that schemes for placing the State Transport Buses on Shillong - Mawkyrwat Route has since been completed ?

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

2.    (a) - 20 Nos. of Buses received out of 47 Chassis purchased.

(b)- 

(1) Shillong - Cherra - Shella Route.

(2) Shillong - Mawsynram - Lawbah Route.

(3) Shillong - Nonstoin Route.

(4) Shillong - Jowai - Nartiang Route.

(5) Shillong - Tura Route.

(6) Tura - Dalu - Baghmara Route (under suspension).

(7) Tura Town Services.

        (c) - Being finalised for implementation.


Visit of the Chief Athletic Coach, National Institute of Sports

Shri. Stanlington David Khongwir asked :-

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

(a) Whether Shri. C.M. Muthiah, Chief Athletic Coach, National Institute of Sports, visited Shillong in October this year.

(b) In so, did Government discuss with him about the establishment of a Coaching Centre for Meghalaya ?

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

3.    (a) - Yes, Sir.

       (b) - Yes, Sir.       


Major Irrigation Projects in the State.

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :

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

(a) How many major irrigation projects have been surveyed by the Agriculture Engineering Wing as on the 31st October

(b) Whether any of the irrigation projects have been finalised for implementation ?

(c) Whether any irrigation project is proposed to be taken up during the next financial year in the Ri-Bhoi Administration Unit ?

(d) When does Government propose to fill up the post of Superintending Engineer in the Agriculture Engineering Wing to speed up the irrigation projects in the State ?

Shri. Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied :

4.    (a) - The Agriculture Department does not take up major irrigation projects.

       (b) & (c) - Do not arise.

       (d) - The post is likely to be filled up shortly.


Registration numbers of vehicles plying in Shillong

Shri. Stanlington David Khongwir asked :-

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

(a) Whether the Government is aware that there are vehicles plying in Shillong whose registration numbers are written in letters other than in the English alphabet ?

(b) If so, what steps Government propose to take against those vehicles ?

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

5.    (a) - Yes, there are a few vehicles.

       (b) - Enforcement is being tightened up.


Persons detained under the MISA

Shri. Stalington David Khongwir asked :-

6.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a) The total number of persons (District-wise detained under the MISA during the year 1974)

(b) The number of persons whose detention orders have been revoked by the Government ?

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

6.

(a)-

Khasi Hills

...

...

26

Garo Hills

...

...

Nil

Jaintia Hills

...

...

Nil.

(b) -

Twenty three.


Services of the Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh asked :-

7.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -        

(a) Whether it is a fact that Shri. T.S. Krishnamurthi, the present Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya, retired from Government service on 1st July, 1971, as Secretary to the Governor of Assam ?

(b) Whether it is also a fact that the Government of Assam re-employed him for one year only after which no more extension was granted to him ?

(c) Whether it is a fact that after his re-employment as Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya Shri. Krishnamurthi, handed over charge of the office of the Military Secretary to the Governor of Assam to the then A.D.C. to the Governor of Assam ?

(d) Whether Shri. Krishnamurthi is functioning as Military Secretary to Governor of Meghalaya as well ?

(e) If so, who appointed him to his post ?

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

7.    (a) - Yes.

        (b) - No, Shri. T.S. Krishnamurthi, was first re-employed by the Government of Assam for a period of one year with effect from 1st July, 1971. Thereafter, the period of his re-employment under the Government of Assam was extended upto 4th October, 1972.

        (c) - Yes.

        (d) - Yes, with effect from 10th December, 1973.

        (e) - The Governor.


Relaxation of the provisions of Rules 2 and 13 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

8.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state whether it is a fact that the Government of India have relaxed the provisions of Rules 2 and 13 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, to enable Government servants and their departments dependent to start business centres cattle farms and other business enterprises ?

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

8.-    No.


Appointment of Superintendent of the office of the Military Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh asked :-

9.    Will the Minister-in-charge be pleased to state -

(a) Whether Shri. B.C. Phukan, an U.D. Assistant from the Assam Governor's Secretariat has been appointed as the Superintendent in the office of the Military Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya ?

(b) If so, who has appointed him to this post ?

(c) Whether it is a fact that this promotion is not yet due to him being the junior most U.D. Assistant ?

(d) Whether the post was advertised ?

(e) Whether there are other senior U.D. Assistants and Assistants Superintendents in the Meghalaya Secretariat who are eligible for promotion as Superintendent in the Governor's Secretariat ?

(f) The names and home addresses of the members of staff in the Governor's Secretariat who were appointed after the creation of Meghalaya ?

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

9.    (a) - Yes.

        (b) - The Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya with the approval of the Governor.

        (c) - No.

        (d) - No. The post can be filled up by promotion from amongst the U.D. Assistants.

        (e) - The Governor's Secretariat and the office of the Military Secretary to the Governor of Meghalaya do not form part of the Meghalaya Secretariat.

        (f) - Shri. S.R. Barman, officiating U.D. Assistant, Governor's Secretariat, Meghalaya, Village and P.O. Keheru - Khana (via Dhekiajuli) District Darrang, Assam. (This excludes persons serving in the Governor's Household staff as distinct from the Governor's Secretariat).


Post held by State Civil Service Officers

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

10.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a) The post of Head of Departments at present held by Officers belonging to the State Civil Service ?

(b) The post of Head of Department which are earmarked for State Services Officers ?

(c) Whether more posts of Heads of Departments will be allotted to State Services Officers ?

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

10.    (a) - Commissioner of Excise and Taxes who also exercises the functions of the Superintendent of Stamps and those of the Inspector General of Registration.

        (b) and (c) - At present the posts of Heads of Departments manned by officers other than the All India Service Officers and State Civil Service Officers are :-

(1) Chief Engineer, P.W.D.

(2) Chief Public Health Engineer.

(3) Director of Agriculture.

(4) Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary.

(5) Director of Public Instruction.

(6) Director of Health Services.

(7) Director of Information and Public Relations and Director of Tourism.

(8) Director Mineral Resources.

(9) Town Planer - cum - Director of Housing.

(10) Advocate General.

        The question of keeping some more posts of Heads of Departments for the officers of the State Civil Service is now under examination in connection with the constitution of the proposed Meghalaya Civil Service. As regards keeping such posts for officers of other State Services, the matter would be considered as and when the respective State Services are constituted.


Application for Industrial loan

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

11.    Will the Industries Minister be pleased to state -

(a) The number of applications for Industrial loan received from 1970 to 1974 which are pending in the office of the Assistant Director of Industries, Khasi Hills, Shillong ?

(b) Whether Government proposes to consider the pending cases in the near future ?

(c) If so, when ?

(d) How many of the said applicants are tribals and non-tribals ?

Shri. Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister-in-charge of Industries) replied :-

11.    (a) - Thirty-eight cases.

        (b) - Yes.

        (c) - As soon as reports in respect of mortgage, etc. are received from appropriate authority.

        (d) - All are tribals.


Pharmacist Training School at Tura

Shri. Samaremdra Sangma asked :-

12.    Will the Minister-in-charge of Health and Medical be pleased to state :-

(a) The action so far taken by the Government to start one Pharmacist Training School at Tura, Garo Hills.

(b) When it is expected to start functioning ?

Shri. Sandford. K. Marak (Minister-in-charge of Health) replied :-

12.   (a)  A Special Officer has been appointed for the purpose.

        (b) - When the Special Officer joins the post.


Tourism Fair at Shillong, 1974

Shri. Rowell Lyngdoh asked :-

13.    Will the Minister-in-charge of Tourism be pleased to state -

(a) The total expenditure incurred for holding the Tourism Fair at Shillong during October, 1974 ?

(b) The total receipts from that fair ?

(c) The number of Tourists who visited Meghalaya during the current year ?

(d) The number of tourists who visited Meghalaya from the date of holding the tourism fair till date ?

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

13.   (a) - The total expenditure for fair is Rs.81,062.00 approximate.

        (b) - Rs.11,052.00

        (c) - Rs.10,178 (Registered in Tourism Department).

        (d) - Rs.2,719.


Jam Session held in Pinewood Hotel, Shillong

Shri. Francis K. Mawlot asked :-

14.    Will the Minister-in-charge of Tourism be pleased to state -

(a) Whether any Jam Session was held in the Pinewood Hotel, Shillong on the 5th October, 1974 ?

(b) If so, who organised the Session ?

(c) The net profit which accrued to the Hotel as a result of holding this Jam Session ?

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

14.   (a) - Yes.

        (b) - One local group (Super Sound Factory).

        (c) - Rs.625.45p.


Number of I.A.S. Officers

Shri. DLOSING LYNGDOH asked :-

15.    Will the Minister be pleased to state :

(a) The number of I.A.S. Officers in Meghalaya from -

(1) Assam - Meghalaya Joint Cadre.

(2) Other States and Union Territories.

(b) The total number of I.A.S.

Officers appointed as I.A.S.

Cadre Posts and non. I.A.S. Cadre Posts separately ?

(c) Is it a fact that the number of I.A.S. Officers in Meghalaya as per population ratio is highest among the North Eastern States ?

(d) Whether there is any proposal to have a separate Cadre of All India Services for Meghalaya ?

Shri. WILLIAMSON A. SANGMA (Chief Minister) replied :

15.   (a) - (1) 25.

        (a) - (2) 2.

(b)

(1) - Cadre Post 22.

(2) Ex-Cadre Posts 3

(3) Temporary Posts 2

(c)     - No.

(d)    - No.


Deputation of Candidates for Pharmacist Training

Shri. SAMARENDRA SANGMA asked :-

16.    Will the Minister-in-charge of Health and Medical be pleased to state -

(a) Whether candidates from Meghalaya were deputed outside the State for Pharmacist Training during the year 1973-74 district-wise /

(b) If so whether such candidates were given any financial assistance by the Government ? (Particulars of such financial assistance may kindly be furnished).

Shri. SANDFORD K. MARAK (Minister-in-charge of Health) replied :-

16.   (a) - No.

        (b) - Does not arise.


Price of Milk in Shillong

Shri. DLOSING LYNGDOH asked :

17.    Will the Minister, Veterinary be pleased to state -

(a) Whether Government is aware that the price of milk in Shillong suddenly rose from Re.1.25 to Rs.2.00 per litre due to the coming up of the new modern cattle farm at Mawroh near Shillong ?

(b) Is it a fact that the price of milk supplied by the Government is cheaper than the milk supplied by the Mawroh Cattle farm and other producers ?

(c) Whether Government propose to take steps to ensure supply of good quality milk from Government farm in Shillong and to check the quality of competent authority regularly ?

(d) The total cost of imported cows at present in the Mawroh farm and the number thereof ?

(e) Whether it is a fact that the imported cows at Mawroh farm are much better than those supplied by the S.F.D.A. and the Mawryngkneng Farm cosy ?

(f) The number of Government employees working in the Mawroh Cattle farm now ?

(g) Who is the owner of the Mawroh Cattle farm near Shillong ?

(h) Whether Government propose to give loans and grants to the Mawroh Cattle farm this year also ?

Shri. Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary) replied :-

17.   (a) - Government is not aware.

        (b) - The price of milk supplied by the Government is Re.1.60 per litre at Shillong.

        (c) - Government is supplying good quality milk in Shillong including that of the Government farm at Upper Shillong. Constant checking of Government milk is carried on to ensure quality.

        (d) - The Government does not have an farm called Mawroh Farm.

        (e) - The Government is not aware of the fact.

        (f) - Does not arise.

        (g) - The Government has no knowledge.

        (h) - Does not arise.


Opening of Public Works Department Divisions

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

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

(a) How many Public Works Department Divisions the Government propose to open in the next financial year in the State ?

(b) Is it a fact that the Government propose to open one Public Works Department Division in the Ri Bhoi Administrative Unit with headquarters at Umsning in the next financial year ?

(c) If so, whether the Government propose to name the new Public Works Department Division as the "Ri Bhoi Public Works Department Division".

Shri. Darwin D Pugh (Minister of State, P.W.D.) replied :-

18.   (a) A proposal to create a few more Public Works Department Division is under active consideration of the Government.

        (b) & (c) - In view of (a) above, question (b) and (c) do not arise.


Campaign / Raid against hoarding

Shri. Stanlington David Khongwir asked :-

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

(a) Whether the Supply authority in the Khasi Hills District had, at any time during the last three months, conducted any campaign / raid against hoarding ?

(b) If so, the result may be stated.

(c) The manner in which kerosene to consumer is being distributed ?

(d) How many distributing Centres have been established in Greater Shillong ?

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

19.    (a) - Yes.

        (b) - A quantity of 318 bags of cement was dehoarded and two persons were arrested under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The accused persons were convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs.500 each.

        (c) - At present kerosene oil is distributed to the consumers of this District taking into consideration the demand of Greater Shillong area and rural area respectively. 65 per cent of the total receipt of kerosene oil is distributed to the consumer in Greater Shillong area. 30 per cent to the rural areas and 5 percent is reserved as discretionary quota.

        (d) - So far there are six distributing Centres in the Greater Shillong area, namely, M/s. Assam Auto Agency, Jowai Road, M/s. Madan Mohon and Co., Garikhana, M/s L.K. Oil Agency, Upper Nongthymmai and M/s. Assam Auto Agency, Alu-Godown.


Black marketing of Cinema tickets in Shillong

Shri. Winstone Syiemiong asked :

20.    Will the Minister-in-charge of Revenue, Taxes, etc., be pleased to state -

(a) Whether Government is aware that black marketing of cinema tickets is rampant in Shillong ?

(b) If so, what action has the Government taken in this regard ?

Shri. Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance etc.) :- replied

20.   (a) - Yes.

        (b) - Section 5 A of the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax Act, as amended in 1973 prohibits re-sale of Cinema tickets for profits. This Act also provides for imposition of penalties on the culprits. Police authorities have been alerted in this matter.


Loan / Relief to cultivators under the Ri-Bhoi Administration

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

21.    Will the Minister, Revenue be pleased to state -

(a) The amount of money Government had given as rehabilitation loan and cultivation relief to the Cultivators under the Ri Bhoi Administration during 1972-73, 1973-74 year -wise, as general relief and relief for crop damages wrought by storm and hail storm ?

(b) The names of the recipients, village-wise and the amount each one of them received ?

(c) The authority / persons who distributed the amount ?

(d) The authority / person who identified the recipients ?

Shri. Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister-in-charge of Revenue) replied :-

21.    (a) - Ri Bhoi Administrative Unit was inaugurated only on 18th April, 1974. An amount of Rs.2,000 in 1972-73 and another amount of Rs.18,200 in 1973-74 were given as rehabilitation loan to different persons of this area prior to its inauguration as Administrative Unit.

        (b) - As per list of recipients placed on the Table of the house.

        (c) - The Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills.

        (d) - The Block Development Officers, Bhoi Areas Development Block.


Registered Societies in the District of Khasi Hills

Shri. Winstone Syiemiong asked :

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

(a) The names of all the Registered Societies in the District of Khasi Hills ?

(b) The name of the officer bearers and the total number of the members in each of the above societies ?

(c) The names of the societies which were granted loans, etc. during 1973-74 and the amounts thereof ?

(d) Whether recoveries have been made in full from these Societies ?

Shri. Edwingson Bareh (Minister-in-charge of Co-operation) replied :-

22.   (a) - The names of the Registered Co-operative Societies in the Khasi Hills District is placed on the Table of the House.

        (b) - The office bearers of the Co-operative Societies are elected in the general meeting and such meetings are convened at different times throughout the year. The enrolment of members in the Co-operative Societies is also a continuous process throughout the year. The up-to-date and accurate position and information of the office bearers and the total membership are not readily available.

        (c) - The list of names of the societies which were granted loan during 1973 - 74 is placed on the Table of the House.

        (d) - Out of 21 societies granted loan during 1973 - 74 only one society has repaid the loan in full. The loans is respect of 14 other societies have not become due for repayment.


Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

23.    Will the Co-operation Minister be pleased to state -

(a) Whether it is a fact that at present the Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank is the Chief financing agency to the tribal cultivators through the various Co-operative Societies ?

(b) Whether the Government is aware that the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank deducts 10 per cent harvesting charge 3 percent thrift deposit and Rs.50 as share money from every loan of Rs.500 ?

(c) Whether the Government is aware that a cultivator gets only about Rs.385 out of every loan of Rs.1,000 after several deductions while he is to pay back the whole amount with 12 percent interest within 9 months ?

(d) If so, whether the Government propose to find out ways and means to rectify this at at early date ?

(e) What is the amount of annual grants given by the State Government to the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. during the last 3 years ?

(f) The number of Khasis, Garos, Jaintias and other non-tribals employed by the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank in the State as on 31st October 1974 ?

(g) Whether it is a fact that during the last few months several officers were entrusted with the collection campaign along with the Apex Bank officials ?

(h) The amount collected by the departmental officers in the last 6 months on behalf of the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank, the Hills Corporation and the Sub-Area Marketing Co-operative, Societies district-wise ?

(i) The percentage as share of the Government for collection of the money by the departmental officers through the collection campaign during the last six months.

(j) Who bears the T.A.D.A. and other expenses of the departmental officers entrusted with collection campaign along with the Apex Bank officials ?

Shri. Edwingson Bareh (Minister-in-charge of Co-operation) replied :-

23.   (a) - Yes.

        (b) - For a long of Rs.500 a member is required to contribute 12 percent, i.e., Rs.60 as share money to the society before he obtains the loan.

        Three percent, i.e., Rs.15 as thrift deposit at a time of disbursement of the loan.

        The harvesting charge is released during harvesting of crop.

        (c) - It is not a fact.

        For a loan of Rs.1,000.00 a member cultivator is required to contribute as under before he obtains the loan :

(i) 12 percent of Rs.1,000.00 as Share Money to the Society - Rs.120.00

(ii) 3 percent of Rs.1,000.00 as thrift deposit to the Society is deducted at the time of disbursement of loan - Rs.30.00.

        (d) - Does not arise.

        (e) - The amount of annual grants, etc., is given below year-wise :-

1971-72

...

...

...

...

Rs.2,58,950.00

1972-73

...

...

...

...

Rs.2,61,550.00

1973-74

...

...

...

...

Rs.4,16,000.00

TOTAL

Rs.9,36,500.00

        (f) -

Khasis 

63 Nos.

Jaintia

Garos

21 "

Non-Tribals

56 "

        (g) - Yes.

        (h) - Recoveries are generally made through the Collection Teams and no separate account is maintained officer-wise. During the Collection Drive period from 3rd week of November till 10th of December, 1974 a total amount of Rs.47,000.00 has been realised. A sum of Rs.82,675.53  has been deposited by the Societies themselves to the respective loan accounts during the same period on being approached by the Team. The Team has not affected any recovery on behalf of Assam Hills Development Corporation Ltd. and Sub-Area Marketing Co-Operative Societies.

        (i) - Does not arise.

        (j) - The Government.


Allotment of paddy seeds for Umsohlait

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

24.    Will the Agriculture Minister be pleased to state-

        (a) Whether it is a fact that on the 9th May, 1974, 20th May 1974, 28th May, 1974, 6th June, 1974, Government allotted about 4,095 quintals of paddy seeds to the Village Secretary of Umsohlait within Ri Bhoi, through one Agricultural Extension Officer at Subsidised rate of Rs.80.00 per quintal for distribution amongst the villagers of Umsohliat ?

        (b) When was the sale proceeds credited to the State Treasury ?

        (c) What was the actual Government rate of paddy seeds per quintal as on 31st May, 1974 ?

        (d) The name of the Agricultural Extension officer who made the above transaction and where is he posted now?

        (e) The reason for distributing paddy seeds at Umsohlait and subsidised rate ?

        (f) The quantity of paddy seeds distributed annually free and at subsidies rate to the cultivators in the State, district-wise since 1970 onwards ?

        (g) Whether Government propose to render relief to the flood and hailstones affected people of Bhoi Lymbong - Iapngar in Ri Bhoi ?

        (h) If so, the nature and extent of such relief and when ?


Shri. Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied :

24.    (a) - Only 13.60 quintals of Jaya variety paddy seeds were distributed through the village Secretary, Umsohlait to the villagers of that area. This seeds was made available on 18th June, 1974. The rate is Rs.67.00 per quintal and not Rs.80.00 per quintal. Another 2 quintals were distributed direct in the same village on 9th May, 1974.

        The total quantity distributed in the Bhoi block is 48.95 quintals.

        (b) - The sale proceeds deposited to State Treasury on 13th May, 1974 is Rs.1,323.00. A balance of Rs.2,227.00 is being deposited after collection. 

        (c) - Rate per quintal for IR - 8 and Jaya paddy was Rs.67.00 per quintal and for Monohar Sali - Rs.72.00 per quintal.

        (d) - The name of the Agricultural Extension Officer handling the seeds is Shri. Obelinel Sohkhlet and he is still continuing in the Bhoi Block.

        (e) These are high yielding varieties of paddy seeds. These are distributed at subsidised rate based on demand in all areas of the State where such varieties can be successfully grown. So there is no bar to distribute it in Umsohlait area. These seeds were not meant for relief work.

        (f) - The quantity distributed free for demonstration and at subsidised rate for extension of improved varieties in different Districts are as follows :-

Khasi Hills

Jaintia Hills

Garo Hills

Free Subsidised

Free Subsidised

Free Subsidised

1970-71

81.27

...

...

...

179 qtls.

335 qtls. 

1971-72

68.21

45.00

5.28qtls

...

89   "

470 "

1972-73

182.14

2.00

23.16 "

1.00 qtls

65  "

387 "

1973-74

145.85

66.52

4.00 "

94.00 "

105 "

294 "

1974-75(till 40.40 date)

362.07

...

...

55 "

182 "

        (g) - There are reports of some damage of crops due to natural calamities in the Bhoi Lymbong - Iapngar area in the Ri Bhoi. But there was no time to replant Paddy after the farmers themselves. However, the Government proposes to provide seeds, etc., at subsidies rate during the coming planting season. No report of damage for hail-storm from that area has been received.

        (h) - The Government purposes to provide seeds of Potato, Paddy, Maize, Soyabean, Tapioca cuttings, etc. at 50 percent subsidised rate. The requirements are being assessed and it is felt that this need of the affected people would be suitably met.


Finalisation of division of assets and liabilities between Assam and Meghalaya

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

25.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to ate -

(a) When will the division of assets and liabilities between Assam and Meghalaya be finalised ?

(b) Whether it is a fact that there had been slow progress in working out the division of assets and liabilities ?

(c) Whether Government proposes to post more officials to the Department dealing with the division to expedite the work ?

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

25.   (a) and (b) - No definite time limit can be laid down for finalisation of the division of assets and liabilities between Assam and Meghalaya in view of the fact that the progress of the work does not depend on Meghalaya Government alone but on mutual agreement between the two Governments who discuss such matters in the meetings of the Joint Committee consisting of representative of both Governments.

        (c) - No, in view of reply to (a) and (b) above.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, with reference to Unstarred Question No.25 (a), may we know how far have the two Governments progressed in this matter ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the matter of finalisation of agreement under Section 64 of the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 was discussed. It was felt that in respect of the period of service rendered by a person absorbed by Meghalaya from Assam between the appointed day and the actual date of absorption, a specific agreement can be entered into between the two State Governments declaring such period as service rendered under the Government of Meghalaya for all purposes as mentioned under Section 66 (2) including pensionary liabilities. In the matter of pension payable to employees who have served under the Meghalaya Government on deputation and who have already retired, it was agreed that the agreement under Section 64 will be entered into with retrospective effect either from the appointed day or the actual date on which his employees joined Meghalaya which ever is later so that full pensionary liability can be met by the Government of Meghalaya in these cases.

        In respect of pensionary liability for persons who joined the Autonomous State of Meghalaya and retired before 21st January, 1972, when the full-fledged state came into being, it was agreed that the matter will be further examined by the Government of Meghalaya and their suggestion considered in the next meeting.

        In regard to the adjustment of pensionary liability as on 1st April, 1970, including pension due but not sanctioned owing to an employee being on refused leave preparatory to retirement or otherwise, the Financial Commissioner, Assam suggested that the liability could be apportioned between the two State Governments on the population basis irrespective of the Treasury from which the pension is drawn. Adjustment of the liability between the two State Governments can be done by the Accountant General at the end of the year. The Financial Commissioner, Meghalaya agreed to have the matter examined further for discussion in the next meeting.

Division of Stores :- In regard to division of stores relating to Secretariat and offices of the Heads of Departments under paragraph 2 (ii) of the Third Schedule of the 1969 Act and paragraph 3 (iii) of the Sixth Schedule of the 1971 Act, the representatives of Meghalaya explained that as the work-load and consequently the stores, of these offices were in some cases directly proportionate the number of District or field offices of various departments, the principle of division of the store on population ratio alone would not be quite correct. Therefore, they emphasised that a formula should be evolved taking both population ratio and the District ratio into account for the purpose of division of stores of Secretariat and Heads of Departments. This will require detailed study of individual departments and Heads Offices. As, however, such detailed study will entail serious delay, they suggested  that the ration may be arrived at on the basis of 50 per cent population ratio and 50per cent District ratio. The Financial Commissioner, Assam agreed to examine the suggestion. In this connection the Meghalaya representatives mentioned that in the case of the following stores inventory has not been furnished so far and requested that these may be furnished now.

(i) Pool cars and cars of Ministers as on 2.4.70 and value thereof

        It was pointed out by the representatives of Assam that some cars have been bought before 2nd April, 1970 and given to the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. It was agreed that appropriate adjustment would be made for the cars so allotted to Meghalaya.

(ii) Stock of books in the Secretariat Library and the Law Department's Library

        It was contended on behalf of Assam that Law Library was not a Library in the strict sense of the word and was not divisible. The matter will be gone into the two State Government separately and if necessary the decision of the Government of India obtained.

        So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will appreciate if the hon. Members realise the technical aspects of the matters which are being processed. Therefore, it is not possible for me to say as to what extent progress has been made in this matter because the work has not bee completed, it is continuous and it will take time.

Prof M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether this division of assets and liabilities also applies to the State Electricity Board ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Power) :- Well, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this matter is regarding a separate body and it is dealt separately at a separate level.


Registered Contractors within Mawsynram Public Works Department Division

Shri. Winstone Syiemiong asked :

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

(a) The names and number of the different categories of registered Contractors within the Mawsynram P.W.D. Division ?

(b) The names of all the Contractors who were allotted works in 1973-74 (to-date) in this Division and the tender value of each work ?

Shri. Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, P.W.D.)  replied

26.    (a) and (b) - The list of names and numbers of different categories of registered Contractors and the names of all the Contractors who were allotted works in 1973-74 (to-date) and the tender value of each work is placed on the Table of the House.


Employment of Foreign Nationals

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

27.    Will the Minister be pleased to state -

(a) Whether Foreign Nationals are under the employ of any business establishment in Meghalaya ?

(b) If so, what are the business concerns and their owners ?

(c) Whether prior intimation is to be given to the Policy authority while offering any employment to foreign nationals?

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

27.   (a) - Yes.

        (b) - The business concerns and number of Foreign Nationals employed are indicated below -

1.

New India Restaurant, Police, Bazar, Shillong

... 2 (Bangladesh).

2.

Khasi and Jaintia Presbyterian Hospital, Shillong.

...2 (Bangladesh).

3.

Shillong Club, Shillong ... ...

... 1 (Bangladesh)

4.

Pinewood Hotel, Shillong ... ...

... 1 (Bangladesh)

5.

Shillong Tailoring, Shillong ... ...

... 1 (Bangladesh)

5.

Automobile Workshop, Shillong ... ...

... 1 (Pakistan).

        (c) - Employment of foreigners would require permission in writing of the Civil authority in the following undertakings -

(1) any undertaking for the supply to Government or to the public of light, petroleum, power or water; or

(2) an other undertaking which may be specified by the Central Government in this behalf.

        In the cases mentioned at (b), above permission is not necessary.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a few days ago we were informed that there were no Bangladesh Nationals in the State of Meghalaya. So may we remind the Government of Meghalaya whether they are in a position to reiterate the answer in reply to unstarred question 27. It is clear and definitely known to this House that there were no Bangladesh Nationals in the State and in view of that definite assertion by the Government perhaps it is a printing mistake to this answer. The Hon'ble Minister is her reply informed us that there were no Bangladesh Nationals in the State and the proceedings of the House may be consulted.

Mr. Speaker :- Prof. Majaw, your contention now does not come in the question and on any case if you are not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister, then you can take recourse to any other form.

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Sir, the clarification I was giving was the question of infiltrators not on the question of Bangladesh nationals who came with passports. It was reported that there are some people who came without passports and that these were pushed back. But there were Bangladesh nationals were travel with documents and there was no question about them.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- But over the radio even it was announced by the Government of Meghalaya that there were no Bangladesh nationals.

Mr. Speaker :- If you are not satisfied with the reply you can take some other course.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- May we know the names, please ?

Mr. Speaker :- Practically speaking in an unstarred question there is no scope to ask for the details of statistical nature. Unstarred question No.28.


Weekly Quota of Rice

Shri. Kisto M. Roy Marbaniang asked :-

28.    Will the Minister of Supply be pleased to state -

(a) The weekly quota of rice per head per week given to Cherrapunji and Shella centres ?

(b) The weekly quota of rice per week given to Mawsynram and Balat centres ?

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

28.   (a) - The weekly quota of rice given to Cherrapunji and Shella Centres is kg. per adult and half of that to a minor.

        (b) - The weekly quota of rice given to Mawsynram and Balat Centres is 500 grams per adult and half between Cherrapunji and Shella centres and Balat centre ?

Mr. Speaker :- What is the cause of the difference in the allotment ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- The D.C. had given to the border areas double the quota of rice given to the upland areas because they do not grow much paddy in those areas unlike the upland areas which had produced a certain quantity of paddy last year.

Shri. K.M. Roy Marbaniang :- Since when this discrimination in the allotment of rice has been made ?

Mr. Speaker :- You can put the question: why does the Government follow the policy of discrimination n the matter?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Supply) :- I require notice for that question.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Has any ration card been introduced for distribution of this rice ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- Only in the Shillong region.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Is Government thinking of introducing ratio card system in those areas ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Supply) :- Not at the this time, Sir.


Office working hours

Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh asked :-

29.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a) Is it a fact that the working hours in the Government offices are applicable to all officials gazetted and non-gazetted alike ?

(b) Whether it is a fact that most of the Senior officers leave office in the afternoon for lunch outside the office ?

(c) If so, the total loss in working hours and mainly per officer per month ?

(d) If the answer to (b) above be in the affirmative, whether Government proposes to grant such facilities to the non-gazetted and grade IV employees also ?

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

        (a) - Yes.

        (b), (c) and (d)  No. Separate orders in this regard have been passed by the Government of Meghalaya.

        This Government propose to ascertain the practice being followed by other State Government and the Government of India in this regard for issue of suitable instruction by this Government.

Shri. Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the main question was whether it is a fact that most of the senior officers leave office in the afternoon for lunch outside the office and the answer given in (b), (c) & (d) was "No Separate orders in this regard have been passed by the Government of Meghalaya." We want a definite answer either Yes' or 'No'. But the answer given here is not relevant.

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Unfortunately, the reply given was 'No'. It seems there is a printing mistake as the full stop is missing after the work 'No'.

Shri. W. Syiemiong :- When were these orders passed and given effect to ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Sir, according to the season we always change the working hours. The latest order was passed with effect from 27th January 1974 fixing the office hours from 10 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. in summer and from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in winter. In view of this changing of office hours, separate orders are issued.

Mr. Speaker :- But the question is about the lunch hour ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- In fact, there is no definite orders for the lunch break.

Shri. S.D. Khongwir :- May we understand that there is no full stop after the word "No". In the reply to (b), (c) and (d).

Mr. Speaker :- There should be a full stop.

Shri. Rowell Lyngdoh :- In the reply, it is stated that "this Government propose to ascertain the practice being followed by other State Government. Why after a lapse of three years, after the coming into being of the State of Meghalaya the Government has not ascertain from other State Governments, and why in the meantime, the Government could not issue its own orders.

Mr. Speaker :- The question was why officers leave office for lunch outside which means that some hours have been lost. But to ask for the total number of hours lost, I do not think the Chief Minister will be able to reply.

Shri. S.D. Khongwir :- What is the actual practice being followed as of today ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- The practice differs from individual. Some people come to office after early lunch and some come to office without having their lunch. So, it is difficult to calculate the time. But I cannot agree that because some officers go for lunch, some hours are wasted. Some officers work late and sometimes some officers attend office earlier than office hours.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Whether working hours are fixed for the officers ?

Mr. Speaker :- Working hours per day.

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- The working hours are fixed according to the season. The hon. Member is aware that the working hours are fixed from 10 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. in summer and from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in winter.

Mr. Speaker :- But the question asked by some hon. Members is that senior officers go for lunch. How do they make up for the lost hours ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- I have already replied that I cannot give a definite reply in respect of each and every individual officers. But the practice is this. Sometimes the officers come to office earlier than office hour and sometimes they stay late in the officer. Therefore, the time taken by them for lunch break is made-up.

Shri. Maham Singh :- My question is how many hours are allowed for the officers to go for lunch ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- There is no such lunch break.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Whether the Government is thinking of fixing a time for lunch break for the officers ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- At present there is not intention on the part of the Government. But this aspect of the matter may be taken into consideration.

Shri. W. Syiemiong :- From the reply of the Chief Minister, it seems the officers are allowed to have a lunch break !

Mr. Speaker :- But that is an assumption.

Shri. W. Syiemiong :- Can we allow that practice to go against the rules which do not allow anybody to leave office from 10 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. when there is no specific order allowing the lunch break and no specific order preventing the lunch break ?

Shri. Maham Singh :- What is the difficulty of the Government following its own practice instead of following the practice obtaining in other State Governments ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- I have already replied to that.

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, the Chief Minister need not reply because the question comes in the form of a suggestion. The suggestion is that the Government should not follow whatever other State Government are doing but they should follow their own practice.

Shri. Upstar Kharbuli :- Does Government give any over-time allowance to those officers who remain in office after office hours ?

Mr. Speaker :- Is there any extra allowance for the officers remaining beyond office hours ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- No because of their sense of duty, they stay late in office voluntarily.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass to Unstarred Question No.30.


Appointment of Trade Advisor of Meghalaya in Calcutta

Shri. Stalington D. Khongwir asked :-

30.    Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

(a) The date when the Trade Advisor of Meghalaya in Calcutta was appointed ?

(b) Whether the post was advertised ?

(c) If so, how many candidates applied for the post ?

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

30.    (a) - 8th November, 1974.

        (b) - The post was not advertised in view of the fact that the post of Trade Advisory, Calcutta, was not created, but it was simply a question of re-designation of the post of Officer on Special Duty, Meghalaya, Calcutta.

        (c) - Does not arise, in view of (b) above.

Shri. S.D. Khongwir :- Who was the officer appointed as Special Officer on 8th November, 1974 ?

Shri. S.D. Khongwir :- Was the post advertised ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- The question whether the post was advertised or not does not arise, because the officer was upgraded from a lower post and he was already in the Meghalaya cadre.

Mr. Speaker :- Was the Officer given any allowance on his redesignation ?

Shri. M.N. Majaw :- The question, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is whether any special allowance or additional remuneration was attached to the designation of the post ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- The question, Mr. Speaker, Sir, requires notice.

Shri. Maham Singh :- To what cadre the officer belongs ?

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- He belongs to the A.C.S. cadre.

Mr. Speaker :- Now as usual, I am going to report to the House that out of four starred questions sent to the Government, two have been replied to which is 50 percent; and out of the 56 unstarred question that we sent to the Government, 33 were replied  to, which is 53.60 percent. As the Chief Minister has already assured, we expect that better performance from the Government in the next session.


Election to the Legislature Committee

        Let us pass on to the next item. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 242 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly, I am to inform the House that six valid nominations were received in favour of the following 5 members to constitute the Committee on Public Accounts for the term beginning from 7th January, 1975 :-

    1.    Md. Akrammozzaman.

    2.    Shri. G. Mylliemngap.

    3.    Shri. Onward Leyswell Nongtdu.

    4.    Shri. Salseng Marak.

    5.    Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh.

        Since the number of nominations is equal to the number of seats to be filled, all the 5 (five) members are declared elected to the Committee on Public Accounts.

        Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 198 of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly, I appoint Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh as the Chairman of the Committee.

        Now we come to (b).

        Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 244 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly, I am to inform the House that 9 (nine) valid nominations were received in favour of the following 7 (seven) members to constitute the Committee on Estimates for the term beginning from 7th January, 1975 :-

    1.    Shri. Peter Garnett Marbaniang.

    2.    Shri. Dlosing Lyngdoh.

    3.    Shri. Plansing Marak.

    4.    Shri. Humphrey Hadem.

    5.    Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw.

    6.    Shri. Upstar Kharbuli.

    7.    Shri. H. Enowell Pohshna.

        Since the number of nominations is equal to the number of seats to be filled, all the 7 (seven) members are declared elected to the Committee on Estimates.

        Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rules 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly, I appoint Prof. Peter Garnett Marbaniang as the Chairman of the Committee.


Calling Attention

        Let us pass on to item No.3. Calling Attention given notice by Shri. W. Syiemiong.

Shri. W. Syiemiong :- 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 in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly to a news-item published in the Hindustan Standard of December 6, 1974 under the caption 'Mahadeb Mukherjee arrested'.


THE MEGHALAYA TRANSFER OF LAND (REGULATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1972

        In this connection Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to add only one thing and that is, to seek clarification from the Government whether in the arrest of Mr. Mukherjee, the Meghalaya Police have also co-operated or no co-operation was given by them and only the Police Officers of West Bengal and Assam had their hand in the arrest of Mr. Mukherjee. We may be therefore informed in this regard.

Mr. Speaker :- Chief Minister, will you please give the clarification.

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on fifth December, 1974, some Police Officers from Calcutta accompanied by a Police party from Gauhati, came to Shillong. They had brought with them one arrested person named Sanjay Bhattacharjee suspected to be a C.P.M.L. follower. The Police Officers from West Bengal and Assam contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Shillong. They stated that one leading member of the C.P.M.L. from Calcutta who was wanted in a number of cases registered in West Bengal, was hiding at Shillong. On receipt of this information the Deputy Superintendent of Police Special Branch along with the police party from Shillong Police station, accompanied by officers from the other two States went to Laban and surrounded the house of one Paresh Das which was pointed out by Sanjay Bhattacharjee and arrested one Mahadev Mukherjee who was identified by the West Bengal Police as wanted by them. The arrested person has been taken over by the West Bengal Police in connection with cases pending against him in West Bengal.

        It is learnt that some Naxalties arrested in West Bengal on various offences had escaped from Jail custody in Calcutta and some of them have reportedly taken shelter at neighbouring States. Hence, a party of the Calcutta Special Branch Police came to Gauhati in pursuit of some of these persons and on 4th December, 1974 evening Sanjay Bhattacharjee, who was one of the wanted persons, was arrested, at Maligaon. During interrogation it was learnt from him that Mahadev Mukherjee, who is a wanted C.P.M.L. leader was hiding at Shillong. Apparently Mahadev Mukherjee had come to Shillong for a few days back on getting scent of the arrival of the West Bengal Police party at Gauhati in search of him. It may be mentioned that prior to the arrival of the joint Party from West Bengal and Assam no prior information was given to Shillong Police regarding the location of Mahadev Mukherjee. It is learnt that Mahadev Mukherjee came to Shillong accompanied by Sanjay Bhattacharjee and stayed in his House at Umpling for about 4 days and after that shifted to the house of Paresh Das of Laban. Further enquiry to locate any other such extremist elements and their associates in Meghalaya is in progress. Paresh Das who was harbouring Mahadev Mukherjee has been arrested and further interrogation is also in progress.


The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us now pass on to item No.4. I call upon the Minister-in-charge of Revenue to move the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue, etc.) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 as passed by the House on the 3rd July, 1972 and returned by the Governor be taken into consideration on the lines suggested by the Governor.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I now put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 as passed by the House on the 3rd of July, 1972 and returned by the Governor under the 1st Proviso of Article 200 of the Constitution be taken into consideration on the lines suggested by the Governor (After a pause). The motion is carried.

Shri. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to participate at this stage and raise a discussion on the reconsideration of this amendment ?

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, no motion will be tenable. It will be tenable only when the Government amendments are lost or when the House disagree with the amendment.

Shri. M.N. Majaw :- Then, may I move a motion on the relevant portions under Rule 102. Mr. Speaker, Sir, ?

Mr. Speaker :- But you may refer to Rule 104.

Shri. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, then may I point out that Rule 104 refers to the Member-in-charge or Minister-in-charge who is moving the Amendment Bill. But, I may be allowed to move a motion under Rule 102 which applied to any Member in the House.

Mr. Speaker :- But Rules 102 and 104 must be taken into consideration jointly. Here is a case of an amendment moved by the Government. It is only when this amendment moved by the Minister-in-charge is lost or when the House disagrees, then you can move any other amendment, otherwise not.

Shri. M.N. Majaw :- Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, then in that case I may be allowed to raise a discussion.

Mr. Speaker :- I will allow some Members to make some observations.

*Shri. M.N. Majaw :- Thank you, Sir, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to part out that for more than 14 or 15 years-almost 20 years we have been struggling for a separate State. And, after we had achieved this State through a great deal of trouble and suffering, we had thought that the State would embrace all its legal functions and legal jurisdictions and extend to all the persons in the State. Along with the long journey towards State-hood, we had  a temporary State - an Autonomous State and in that Autonomous State, it was of course, stated in the Assam Re-organisation Act that  there shall be formed within the State of Assam, an Autonomous State to be known as Meghalaya which shall comprise of the following areas now the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills District as described in Sub-paragraph 2 of Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. That was the purpose during the days of the Autonomous State. But, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in 1972 when the new State came into being as full-fledged State, those areas which had escaped the jurisdiction of the Autonomous State came immediately under the jurisdiction of the new State - the full-fledged State of Meghalaya. Now, in 1971, the Provisional Assembly of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya passed this Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation ) Act and the extent of that Regulation was only to the areas comprising within the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. And that Regulation on the powers of the District Council on the transfer of land. That really occasioned or brought about or caused the necessity for such legislation. But on the 3rd of July, 1972, this august body, passed the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment), Bill where all these areas which had escaped or which were outside the purview of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya were now brought or made subject to the new body. In other words, that this Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 would cover the entire State of Meghalaya. The Amendment Bill as moved by the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge said that this Act may be called the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1972. I am reading from Clause I and Sub-Clause (ii) which says, "it extends to the State of Meghalaya, and it shall come into force at once".

        Now, there was some discussion on it, and amendments were moved but ultimately, this supreme august House passed the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill on the 3rd July, 1972. All of us were exercising our prerogative as representatives of the people  and also as the finest example of the working of democracy. And, in accordance with the provision with the Constitution, the Bill went to the Governor for his assent, and now under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has sent back this Bill passed by this House with a letter from the Governor recommending a change. The change recommended by the Governor, if I am to quote these words here, "with the request that the House will re-consider the Bill with a view to restrict its scope to the transfer of land in the Tribal Areas specified in Part II of the Table appended to Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. In other words, it is suggested by the Governor that this Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 should not apply to 3 wards of the areas of Shillong, viz. the European Ward, Police Bazar Ward and Jailroad Ward. These areas are excluded by Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of Indian. Now, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the exclusion is not almost exactly the same as the Wards were left out under the Bill originally passed in 1971.

Mr. Speaker :- Is it not a fact that exclusion does not apply only to the three Wards but to the areas under Shillong Municipality ?

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- But it includes those areas which formerly formed part of the former State of Mylliem.

Mr. Speaker :- But Paragraph 20 has also been amended.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir, now the exclusion is not exactly the same as the inclusion in the preamble of he Act, But I would like to point out here that exclusion is being made almost abrogating the purpose of this State Assembly. We as responsible M.L.As. discussed this threadbare when we passed the Amendment Act in 1972 and we all agreed to it and it was passed, we are participated in the passing of this Regulation Bill in 1972.

Mr. Speaker :- Not all, at least one side of the House walked out.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Those who opposed did participate. Mr. Speaker, Sir, and that the Bill was passed not merely by one section of the House. So I do insist that this was the Bill passed by the House and it became the property of the House, of course, the Governor is exercising his prerogative in sending it back to us for reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker :- I think he is exercising his discretion and not prorogation.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- He used it under Article 200 of the Constitution and he sent it back to us. But may I point out Mr. Speaker, Sir, that there are great dangers inherent in the proposal. The very purpose of this will be, for the first time, to set up a division in our State excluding the particular parts from the State and that practicability on the extend  of the Act will almost reduce this State Assembly and this State Government to the level of the District Council because we are making the extent of this Act applicable to those areas governed or ruled by the District Council. This will happen if we accept the recommendation or proposal sent to us by the Government. We are setting up this State. Mr. Speaker, Sir, primarily for our people and the vast majority of our people are tribals who fought for Hills State and it is expected that when we have achieved this State it will mean that this category will all be loyal and obedient and devoted citizens of the State wherever they may live under the Sixth Schedule areas. But, in asking for exclusion, I have fear that perhaps the exclusion is motivated and that the exclusion is asked for by certain community in order to escape themselves from tribal laws. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that those owners in Khasi Hills and other areas within this very District are parts of the Khasi Hills District and even to-day, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the so-called European areas the Government still pays a very nominal land revenue to the land owners that is, to the Kharkongor Clan and Nongkhlaw clan etc., to recognise the ownership of the land and the persons living within these areas, though they may be under the European Ward, are also subject to the State and subject to the laws made by this State Assembly. If we are to sit here as representatives of the people, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have great doubt whether his proposal will ultimately result in the creation of something like Chandigarh or some form of a City State under the Centre. Who knows there may be a time when there will be demand for total exclusion of those areas from the State of Meghalaya. May I remind, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that those people who wish to be excluded from the judicial purview of the State lived in the land where it was brought with the blood of our people who have fought in ancient time, whether these persons now are prepared to pay the same price for the ownership and occupation of this land as our people did in ancient days. There are parts which are at once striking the very purpose and foundation of State. We set up a homogenous State for our people but we are allowing these persons to occupy these these areas. Will it, in any way affect drastically, if this Law which was passed on the 3rd of July, 1972, is applicable to those people who are living there ? Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the owners are originally the Khasis, the hill tribes but the occupants are not. Some are recent entrants into our State,  some are migrant families in the wake of trouble in our joining areas, some of them are vagabonds, but there are very few local tribal occupants of these areas and naturally, the applicability of this Law which will affect drastically and transfer of land particularly, from the tribal to non-tribal will not get in a great measure, affect the lives of non-tribals who form the majority in those areas. If they have to transfer land to tribals or non-tribals, they have to apply for permission. But in most cases they will transfer land  to non-tribals but transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals will rarely occur because the movement in this direction is different. Since the days when the capital of Assam went down, there is a move far Khasi tribals to purchase land in these areas. For example,  in Lachumiere, where there was previously only one family, today there are five or six Khasi tribal families which are known to be living in Lachumiere, and in such case, this law does not apply because this land was handed over from non-tribals, to tribals and even if this law is applied to these areas proposed to be excluded, it will not drastically affect the lives of these people. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are three categories in these areas. There are destitute beggars who have no land of their own then there are those who have recently come and lived as tenant non-tribals and do not have any land. So this particular Act does not affect their living. Thirdly, there are non-tribal owners those whom I have already referred to as non-tribals who wish to sell or buy lands from tribals or non-tribals who wish to sell or buy lands from tribals or non-tribals and in either case this law will not affect them very much. Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I point out that I am surprised that the Government has come forward with this proposal and that the Government have accepted in its heart for recommendation sent to us by the Governor and even come forward with the amendment Bill and the purpose of that amendment Bill on the 3rd of July, 1972 was to extend the applicability of this Act to the entire State of Meghalaya. Now this same Government came back to us with the proposal that we should do away with what was passed on the 3rd July, 1972. In other words, in my opinion, this State is no longer in Autonomous State. It cannot be treated on the level of the District Council. Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is a very dangerous proposal. I would certainly and truly urge upon this House to agree to the recommendations proposed by the Government.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, with just a few words, I would like to support the observations made by my colleague from Mawhati that the message of the Governor on the Regulation that has been unanimously passed by this House is a request and a kind of suggestion. The idea of this Regulation is for restriction ......

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Lyngdoh and Prof. Majaw, I will not allow anybody to refer to whatever the Governor has suggested. I have been informed that whatever the Governor suggested, we are only discussing this amendment. You must also remember that the Amendment is also more or less or a technical nature rather than substantial.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Yes, Sir, the amendment is proposed to be a technical one which has been referred to certain provision in the Constitution of India. But Sir, the Regulation that has been passed in this House is the Regulation which the State has got jurisdiction and it was extended to the whole jurisdiction of this State. The Regulation that have been passed is not a Regulation which has been made for the District Council it will be extended only to the areas which have been under the jurisdiction of the District Council.

Mr. Speaker :- In other words, Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule refers to the powers of the District Council.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- That is what I mean Sir. In the Reorganisation Act, this State has those concurrent subjects which the District Councils also can be make laws. No doubt Sir, this Assembly can make laws. No doubt, Sir, this Assembly can make laws and entrust those laws to the District Council to implement. May, I remind the House that the objective of this Regulation is to see that transfer of land, to restrict to check, either such transfer will be for the benefit of the State or not.  So Sir, as most members have said we have got a full-fledged State and this State has got full jurisdiction over the areas which are not under the Khasi Hills District Council which is entirely under the State. According to the Reorganisation Act, this area proposed to be dropped  from this Regulation is within the jurisdiction of the State. So Sir this law which has been passed by the House has got proper administrative jurisdiction in connection with land in the whole of State. I do not see, Sir, that this proposed Amendment can be entertained by this House because we are not going to make a law for the District Council. But it is law entirely at the hands of the State. Another thing, Sir, if this Regulation that has been passed by the House is meant to empower the District Council with the administrative power then of of course, the objects and reasons should have made very clearly while introducing this Regulation but there was nothing. But in fact, this law is meant for the whole state which has been extended to the whole State of Meghalaya. So Sir, I am afraid that with this new idea this proposed. Amendment will be again interpreted that this state has been degraded to a sub-state. Sir, I am afraid that the local bodies will claim their localities to be out of the jurisdiction of the laws of their State. In Meghalaya, we have Syiems, Lyngdohs, Sirdars, Nokmas, Dolois etc. we  have District Councils, and so many authorities. So Sir, in future such law can be passed but will again be interpreted that those laws will not be within the jurisdiction of the State or under the jurisdiction of the District Councils and so on and so forth. So this State will be minmised and will be brought to the standard of not only as suggested by the hon. Member from Mawhati but to the standard as said by the Chief Minister. It will rather again be a sub State.

Mr. Speaker :-  Your view is that land belongs to the Sate. But Prof. Majaw who initiated the discussion said that land is governed by the State under the administration.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Of course if somebody occupies. I myself have got a piece of land in Nongstoin area. It is my private property. In fact, it is within this State. Land is a State subject. So this Regulation of land will govern my property. So also that plot of land in Shillong I do not see any reason why the provision which was made should be again amended by this Assembly. If we allow this because of the non-tribals interests, some other parts somewhere, the non-tribal will demand and declare that this or that area will not be under the jurisdiction of this State Then our State will be divided and sub-divided. Therefore Sir, if at all we give certain autonomy or certain independent status to these localities, Meghalaya State will be nowhere. So the tribal areas only will be governed by this Regulation. And any land which has been acquired by Government will be inhabited by non-tribals and thereby they will demand that their area will not be within the jurisdiction of Meghalaya Law and regulation.

        In future this land will now be under the regulation like Barapani where land has been acquired by the State Electricity Board or places like New Colony, Umpling and other parts in the State. As for example, villages in Balat area, although it falls under Nongstoin Sub-Division, the Goanbura, Headmen and other inhabitants there are non tribals. Technically these areas as per provision of the Constitution but if we make these regulations only applicable for the tribal areas, then these areas are not tribal areas which are now under the occupation of non-tribals. So Sir, these regulations should be for the entire State and I do not see any reason why this Amendment be entertained.

*Shri. S.D. Khongwir :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am one with the hon. Member who has spoken just now. There is only one point on which I would like to seek clarification of the Minister concerned. According to the message from the Governor this House has been requested to reconsider the Bill with a view to restrict its scope to the transfer of land in the Tribal Areas specified in Part II of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, Sir, may I refresh our memories by quoting Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which says that tribal areas specified in Part I tribal areas respectively within the State of Assam and Meghalaya and Union Territory of Mizoram and Part II which relates to the State of Meghalaya. I have seen there are three different Districts of United Khasi Hills, District, Jowai District and Garo Hills District. Sir, so far as my information goes, in the State of Meghalaya we have only three Districts, i.e., Khasi Hills District, Jowai District and Garo Hills District.

Mr. Speaker :- Amendments were taken up when these Districts were autonomous Khasi Hills District, Autonomous Jowai District and Autonomous Garo Hills District. Of course, now the name has been changed. Now they are Civil Districts.

*Shri. Francis K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also like to participate in this discussion on the motion moved by the hon. Member from Mawhati. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with the formation of the Meghalaya Autonomous State at the very outset, the Shillong Municipal and Cantonment areas were excluded from some regulations. But in 1972, i.e. 3rd July, 1972 the Hon'ble Minister-in-charge had brought this Amendment to Clause 5 of the North-Eastern Re-organisation Act, 1971 under which all the territories comprising Cantonment and Shillong Municipality formed part of the Autonomous State. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the 3rd July, 1972, the Minister-in-charge had given the object and reasons where it has been stated that the object of the Bill is primarily to extend the Act to the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong. Other amendments seek to bring preciseness and to provide for restriction on sale of land by the courts or any other authority and also for restoration of land to the original transferor or his successor. Mr. Speaker, Sir, on 3rd July, 1972 we felt very much relieved when the Government came forward with the Amendment to include areas under Shillong Municipal Board and Cantonment under the jurisdiction of the State Land Regulation. Now Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry to say that if we agree to the Amendment as proposed by the Government now, it will lead to creation of new pockets in the State. In fact, towns are growing by and large everywhere in the State. Towns are growing at Simsangiri, Nongstoin, Tura Bazar, etc. Towns are growing in other places from time to time. Automatically it will become a civilised pocket and in that civilised pocket, Government will say we cannot do anything without the establishment of the municipality and so by and by, we will be losing. If we take one pocket now and one pocket tomorrow, time will come that we will have only land, we do not have any compact area. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that I am hesitant or rather I do not agree with this proposed Amendment and I would urge upon the Government to take it again for re-consideration as to whether he should consider this matter just now or we should seek public opinion before we pass it.

*Shri. Upstar Kharbuli :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what I could understand about this matter, is that prior to our having our autonomous State the regulation of land transfer was the subject matter of the District Council at that time. It is a fact that the District Council did not have any jurisdiction over those areas here under the Shillong Municipality. Even then, in the entire Shillong Municipality, as it is at present, only those areas which were known as European Ward, Police Bazar and the Jail Road Wards were excluded from the jurisdiction of the District Council. So Sir, what I could understand is that the Government is very anxious to bring some sort of uniformity in the land regulation for the transfer of land throughout the State and it was with that understanding that last time when the Government came up with the Bill proposed to be amended, we as the House, were agreeable to the Bill. So, I feel, as has already been expressed by our friend from this side of the House, that if we go back and amend this Bill, now, it will mean that our sitting in considering this Bill was of no use but simply a waste of time. Therefore, I do not see any difference whatsoever, whether the Bill as proposed to be amended now, will add any further benefit what we have enjoyed before the Autonomous State hood came into being. So Sir, with these few observations, I feel that the Government should rather express its regret that we cannot accept this proposed amendment.

Shri. Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have only a few things to submit at this stage. Sir, the concept of creating this State of ours, right from the beginning, was to create a State.

Mr. Speaker :- It is better to come to the technicality of the Bill as to whether this House is competent to make these laws and to extend them to the whole State of Meghalaya or will it be more beneficial to extend only to certain areas of the State and on those other points that have already been raised by the hon. Member who initiated the discussion.

Shri. Rowell Lyngdoh :- Since the State of Meghalaya has achieved the Statehood, it is the duty of the State to enact any law, pass any bill for the interest of the state. Sir, this subject of land itself came under the jurisdiction of the State and it is a State subject. Therefore, it is the State which has to regulate laws or to adopt them for the interest of the people of the state as a whole. Moreover, Sir, during 1972 this House had brought this Amendment Bill and it was passed because there was no indifference to the wishes of the people of this State. Not only that. This House has also respected the unwritten laws of these areas and therefore, by bringing this amendment again for exclusion of certain areas, I feel it is not good and proper.

Mr. Speaker :- To exclude certain areas from the purview of the Act.

Shri. R. Lyngdoh :- Sir, this is really unfortunate. In fact, the same law should have been made applicable to the whole State. There should not be any part or area which the State could not control and if we exclude any part of this State,  then it tantamounts that this Assembly and the State itself, has got no power to legislate on certain areas. Sir, if we allow this to find a place, it will create a bad precedent for the State in future. Therefore, I would submit that this amendment which has just been brought now, should be rejected and the previous Bill as it was passed in 1972, should be sent again for assent. If we allow these areas to be excluded, a time will come that our people in certain areas will demand some sort of Union Territories outside this State of ours where another type of administration will prevail. Sir, therefore, we would submit that the Bill should be passed as it was and there should be no more amendment to it.

Mr. Speaker :- Will the Minister-in-charge of Revenue make a clarification on this ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member from Mawhati who initiated this discussion had referred to the circumstances which necessitated  in 1971 the enactment of the 1971 Land Regulation Act and these circumstances were that the Courts, the High Court at Gauhati and finally, the Supreme Court had declared that the Land Transfer Act of 1953 as passed by the District Council of U.K. & J. Hills District, was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The Regulation Act that was in force since 1953 till 1969, was suddenly at one stroke of the pen, so to say, nullified. Therefore, the protection that was being given in the District Councils Act was removed.

        Fortunately as events had shown, just at that time the Autonomous State of Meghalaya was created which was empowered to make the regulation on land transfer; and promptly the Autonomous State of Meghalaya through its Legislature enacted the 1971 Land Regulation Act which extends to the areas under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous State. There was one difference, one disadvantage between the 1953 Land Transfer Act as passed by the District Council and the 1971 Transfer of Land Regulation Act of the Autonomous State in that the 1953 Act of the District Council, covered land transfer with regard to the tribal areas of the Shillong Municipality also, where as the 1971 Act of the Autonomous State excludes the whole of the Shillong Municipality. The nine Wards of the Shillong Municipality come under the purview of the Land Transfer Act of the District Council Act of 1953, but were outside the purview of the Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1971. Again as events and circumstances quickly came about for the benefit of our tribal people, with a period of less than two years, the full-fledged State came into being and thus we are in a position to effect a complete restoration of the 1953 Land Transfer Act and the Shillong Municipality came also under the jurisdiction of the full-fledged State which came into being on the 21st January 1972 and this august House, Mr. Speaker, Sir, took the earliest opportunity to rectify or restore the Land Transfer Regulation that was in existence and operating in those areas since 1953. With that end in view the Amendment Bill for 1972 was moved and passed by this House, but there is a slight difference of course between the 1971 Regulation and the 1972 Amendment Bill in that the main purpose of the 1972 Bill is to extend the original provisions of the Act of 1971 to the Shillong Municipality. That was the real purpose. But we went further, that is, the Amendment Bill of 1972 should also include Cantonment and other three Wards of the Shillong Municipality. Now, Sir, when the Bill was passed and went to the Governor for his assent, he sent it to the President for his consideration under Article 200 of the Constitution and after quite some time the President sent his message to the Governor directing him that the jurisdiction of this Act......

Mr. Speaker :- Actually we are not directed, but it is only a suggestion from the Governor.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) :- Sir, I mean the President's message is a direction to the Governor and the Governor then sent this message and suggested to restrict the scope of this land transfer only to the original areas is where the Land Transfer Act of the District Council operated. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of the delay involved, if again this matter is to go back as it is to the Governor, the great disadvantage that the transfer of land within the nine wards of Municipality will be still going on without any regulation and also considering the fact that transfer of land within these 3 wards and Cantonment was not restricted under the District Council and there was not much of an agitation and feeling against it and that the areas are so small, after considering the pros and cons, Government feel that it is better to fall in with the message made by the Governor. The fear expressed by hon. Members that this exclusion of a small pocket map lead to further exclusion and create more pockets is the fear that has got no relevancy between the application of this Act to certain areas and the exclusion of pockets and towns in future from the State. Again the hon. Member from Mawhati has dwelled very much on persons staying in those areas that they are outside the jurisdiction of the State laws. It is not so they are all citizens  of the State subject to laws of the State. But only in matters of transfer of land in those areas that they should not necessarily be regulated or restricted. Laws of State will apply in those small areas also. Now Sir, we do have many laws in the country and also in the State which apply differently to different areas. Therefore, Sir, I feel that it is not so much a very serious matter that we have to forego the advantage of regulation as it was operated already right from 1953 to 1969. These areas were historically out right from the time of the British advent when the Syiem had seceded the areas and the British had taken away from the Syiem ..........

Mr. Speaker :- Did the Syiem secede the land ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) :- No, I mean only political jurisdiction over the lands was under British. But the land belongs to the people as Mr. Majaw and Mr. H.S. Lyngdoh have referred to those lands which the Government recognised and paid nominal rent. Therefore, Sir, that political jurisdiction was already there right from the time of the British when they came here and had established a different history legally and constitutionally and there is no harm because it would not affect very much as it has not affected us right from that time. And this little difference might have got a very small purpose for the application of the Land Regulation Act of 1971. Therefore, Sir, again I would emphasize the fact that the fear or apprehension of more pockets like this in the State is the fear which has got no relevance at all. But I can assure and guarantee that the people of the State or the Government of India will never have such ideas by creating such kinds of pockets in the State. I guarantee in the good sense of the people, in the good sense of the representatives and in the good sense of the Government of India. But if we become mad there is no guarantee at all.

Mr. Speaker :- I think the Minister should clarify also one point. As members of scheduled tribe, we are entitled to certain privileges and rights as we are tribals. But the position of Shillong was different. I think that is your intention which the House wants to get a clarification.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) :- I thought  have clarified that these areas as per provision of the Constitution are what we called normal areas. They do not fall within the purview of the Sixth Schedule and the land regulation of the District Council did not apply to these areas. Therefore, as being suggested now in the message of the Governor, the status-quo of the land regulation is to continue that the land regulation should not apply as it never applied to those small areas. Considering the pros and cons, I therefore, feel that it is better to accept the suggestion given in the message of the Governor.

Mr. Speaker :- So the discussion is closed now.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we cannot take part in this motion and as a protect against if we stage a walk out now.

        (At this stage the Opposition Members walked out)

Mr. Speaker :- Now since there is no amendment, may I ask the Minister to move that the Bill be passed ?

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Revenue) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 1972 be passed. (The motion was carried and the Bill was passed).

        Now Item No.5. Minister-in-charge of Finance.


The Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1974.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration. Now, since there is no amendment to the Bill, may I ask the Minister-in-charge of Finance to move the motion for passing.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh  (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Finance (Sales tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be passed. (The motion was carried and the Bill was passed).


THE MEGHALAYA ELECTRICITY DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1972

The Meghalaya Electricity Duty (Amendment) Bill, 1974.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.6. Minister-in-charge of Finance to move.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Electricity Duty (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Electricity Duty (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration. The motion is carried. Since there is no amendment to the Bill, the Minister to move the motion for passing.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Electricity Duty (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Not I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Electricity Duty (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be passed.

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


The Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products).
including Motor Spirits and Lubricants
Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1974.

        Item No.7 - Minister of Finance to move.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be taken into consideration.

        The motion is carried. Since there is no amendment to the Bill, may I ask the Minister to move that the Bill be passed.

Shri. B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1974 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Amendment) Bill, 1974, be passed.

        (The motion was carried and the Bill passed).


RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 
(THIRTY SIXTH AMENDMENT) BILL, 1974

Ratification of the Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Bill, 1974.

        Now let us pass on to item No.8. The Chief Minister to move.

Shri. W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this House ratifies the amendments to the Constitution of India falling within the purview of proviso to clause (2) of Article 368 thereof, proposed to be made by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Bill, 1974, as passed by the two Houses of Parliament, which seeks to give effect to the wishes of the people of Sikkim for strengthening Indo-Sikkim co-operation and inter-relationship and the short title of which has been changed into "the Constitution (Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I think the House is aware of the contents and the intention of this resolution and since the House is well aware of the whole thing. I will put the question before the House. The question is that this House ratifies the amendments to the Constitution of India falling within the purview of proviso of clause (2) of Art. 368 thereof proposed to be made by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth, Amendment) Bill, 1974, as passed by the two Houses of Parliament, which seeks to give effect to the wishes of the people of Sikkim for strengthening Indo-Sikkim co-operation and inter-relationship and the short title of which has been changed into "the Constitution (Thirty-fifth Amendment Act, 1974".

        The motion is carried.


Laying of Order

        Now let us pass on to Item No.9. The Chief Minister to lay copies of Order No.25 dated the 7th November, 1974, of the Delimitation Commission made under Section 8 of the Delimitation Act, 1972 (76 of 1972).

Shri. W.A. Sangma :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to lay copies of Order No.25, dated the 7th November, 1974, of the Delimitation Commission made under Section 8 of the Delimitation Act, 1972 (76 of 1972)


Presentation of Report

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.10. Prof. P.G. Marbaniang.

Prof. P.G. Marbaniang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the First Report of the Estimates Committee relating to the Public Health Engineering Department.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.11. Mr. Singjam Sangma.

Shri. Singjan Sangma :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Eighty Report of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint of breach of privilege by Prof. M.N. Majaw, M.L.A, against the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Implanter.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.12. Mr. Maham Singh.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Third Report of the House Committee.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.13. Mr. Maham Singh.

Shri. Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Fourth Report of the House Committee.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.14. Shri. Singjam Sangma.

Shri. Singjam Sangma :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this Assembly agrees to the extension of the time for submission of the Report of the Committee of Privileges till 15th of March, 1975, relating t the complaint of breach of privileges and contempt of the House moved on the 8th December, 1973, by Shri. Humphrey Hadem, M.L.A. against Sarbashri. U Kharbuli, M.L.A. and E.K. Mawlong, M.D.C.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Is it the sense of the House that extension of time be granted to the Committee for submission of the report

(Voices - Yes, yes)

        The Motion is carried.

        Now item No.15. Mr. Singjam Sangma.

Shri. Singjam Sangma :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this Assembly agrees to the extension of time for submission of the Report of the Committee of Privileges till 15th of March, 1975, relating to the complaint of breach of privileges moved on the 8th December, 1973, by Shri. Hoover Hynniewta, M.L.A. against Prof. G.G. Swell, M. P and Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Is it the sense of the House that extension of time be granted to the Committee for submission of its report ?

(Voices - Yes, yes)

        The motion is carried.

        Now, item No.16. - Minister-in-charge of Social Services.

Shri. Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Social Services) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to lay the list of 39 Indian Repatriates from Burma.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No.17. Prof. M.N. Majaw

Shri. Maham Singh :- With regard to Item No.16 Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we seek a clarification from the Minister ?

Shri. Maham Singh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the clarification with regard to this ............

Mr. Speaker :- It is difficult for the Government to reply to any point or make a clarification without listing it in the list of business. Now : Item No.16 has been taken up and the Minister-in-charge has been pleased to place a list on the table of the House which he has assured to do so on the previous day.

        Let us pass on to Item No.17. Prof. M.N. Majaw to move.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this House do not discuss the Annual Report 1970-71 of the Mawmluh- Cherra Cement Limited placed on the Table of the House on the 9th December, 1974 by the Minister for Industries.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and now you can initiate the discussion.

*Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are grateful to the Hon'ble Minister of Industries for having at least giving us some financial report of the functioning of the then Assam Cements Ltd., now the Mawmluh-Cherra Cements Limited, because at least it has given us the opportunity, particularly to us as Laymen, to know something about the financial functioning of this Company. But on closer inspection of this Report though nicely printed and covered we are shocked to say that at page 3 of the Report, not only Company has incurred  net loss of not less than Rs.11,93,492.65 during the year ending 30th June, 1971. The cumulative loss upto 30th June, 1971 is Rs.1,01,64,007.64. How much the loss amounts upto this day the 13th December, 1974 is really anybody's guess. Three years ago the cumulative loss is about 1 crore of rupees and the reasons given are various. The reasons affecting the profitability, as has been mentioned in earlier years, is due to the frequent breakdown of the Raw Mill Motor. It has come to our knowledge Mr. Speaker, Sir, that there  was a Chief Engineer to whom a great name has been given as Monki Roy. He was the Chief Engineer of the Factory at one time and he had advised or ordered his Mechanic Foreman to cut certain portion of the Lathe Machine of the Raw Mill Motor which was purchased from Germany. The Raw Mill Motor was cut and reduced in length and as a result it starts spinring loosely and breakdown occurred.

 (At this stage the Deputy Speaker)

 Sir, we would like to know from the Hon'ble Minister who is also in the honourable position as Chairman of the Company to inform us how much the Company lost for more repairs of this motor or how much the Company lost after the alternation of the machine has been done by the great Chief Engineer of the Company who is no longer now the Chief Engineer. When we come to page 4 of the Report, we are told that the Government of Meghalaya owns 98 percent total share in the Company both preferential and equity. But there are shares, if you look at page 6, issued and subscribed 6 percent cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares. 98 percent amounts to Rs.1 crore. Equity shares of Rs.10 each is of Rs.4,46,779. We would like to know whether these shares have not been paid and the so called arrear shares are from the Government side or from the public side. May we know whether this amount of 7,79,600.00 which has not been paid we are for shares belonging to the public or to the Government. We are told that the Government of Meghalaya owns 98 percent of total share capital in the Company.

Shri. Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the information of the hon. Member, these shares are from the public.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, now if from the public, we would like to know who are these people and how many shares each has. It is interesting to know their names. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, looking at page 6 of the Report, we find that there are secured loans to the tune of Rs.64 lakhs and the unsecured loans of Rs.59 lakhs, all making a grand total of Rs.1,25,85,421.86 of loan. In the current liabilities, we find sundry creditors; we would like to know these sundry creditors for this amount of Rs.83,50,084.46. Since the report has been placed on the Table of the House, the Government is responsible to the House regarding the function of this Company. What steps has the Government taken to clear these current liabilities, to clear the arrears of secured loans. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are some interesting items, at page 13, the Mawmluh -Cherra Cements Ltd. schedule forming part of the Balance Sheet as you may peruse Schedule (C), we find that of all loans and advances to the tune of Rs.39 lakhs. Has any of the advances been spent and how much and under what heads of account are these amounts received. Then we get the carry over of the previous year from M/S Techno Export and M/S Remaswar Dage and Co. I am told two cases are pending with the Hon'ble High Court and no decision has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court on these two cases. So that amounts to loss of liabilities of Rs.43,75,000.00 The most interesting item Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the full suspense. Under the suspense account, it is astonishing to note the amount of Rs.11,83,481.32.We are told that the Company has no definite heads of accounts but all sums have been put together as suspense accounts. We would like to know for what reasons all these amounts are kept in the suspense account of the Company and why these amounts could not be put under correct heads of accounts ? Or whether some of the money has been misappropriated or lost or kept aside unaccounted later on. We have 11 lakhs as suspense account for which no proper heads have been allotted. It is really a surprising and astonishing state of affairs. How, why and what has been kept under suspense account. We would like to know about the functioning of the company, the Government company which is not only not up to the mark bur rather far below the standard. The audit report as it appears in pages 16, 17, 18, and also 19, shows a serious picture of the state of affairs of that company. We have been told Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, and as it appears in the report, that the account of the Meghalaya Depot at Gauhati has not even verified. At no time the account of the Depot was kept under  review. The cash that is kept in the Depot does not seem to have been verified at any time during the year under review. May we know, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, what type of management the Meghalaya Government has been given to manage the affairs of this company. The account of the Mawmluh - Cherra Cement Co. at Gauhati is kept under two heads and we cannot understand how this Government cannot get the cash account at Gauhati Deport verified. We are told that the amount of provision made for Bad and Doubtful Debts appears to be very small specially when about 25 percent of the debts is outstanding for over 2 years. How and why as it appears in item No.13, like all the earlier years, no manufacturing account was attempted. That is stupendous Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. One would have thought that this Government could have attempted to dispose of manufacturing account for all these years. But in all the earlier years no manufacturing account has been attempted as it appears in  item 13 of page 17. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we do not know how this Government is functioning; we do not know how this company of the Government is functioning and it seems that the company is not functioning at all. We are very much surprised at this state of affairs. In page 10 we see much of the suspense amount; and everywhere there are mistakes, and things like that could not be dealt with. There are pending cases for reconciliation and adjustment. A huge amount of Rs. 11,620.00 being the expenses incurred by the Gauhati Depot during 1967 - 68 for which no details could be produced and therefore, as before, the amount continues to remain in suspense and has still to be adjusted. These show all the misdeeds of the company of the Government and it is not unlikely that misappropriation is rampant. The whole performance of the company is amounting to a huge suspense that is hanging and in this way the accumulative loss of the company is a very serious matter, and one cannot disagree with this. The accumulative loss is increasing and even now it has amounted to not less than a crore of rupees. I hope the Government will take the responsibility because after all it has been the mis-administration of the Company of the Government.

        There was formerly one Mr. B. Das who was Financial Adviser of the Government of Assam, but now there is one Mr. A. Biswas, a Chartered Accountant. He is permitted to roam all over the country and for his expense for this purpose he has been provided with Rs.200 as special pay. He has been attending seminars and meetings all over the country and frequently he went to Calcutta and Delhi. This Government has allowed him Rs.200 special pay per month, and besides that he is also allowed to continue his practice as Chartered Accountant. When he gets special pay, the Government should not have allowed him to continue his  private practice as Chartered Accountant I don't know whether this Minister who is the Chairman of the company would say that this the a special case, that this Mr. Biswas has been allowed to continue his practice as Chartered Accountant in spite of the fact that he is being given Rs.200 as special pay.

        I am not going to impose upon the patience of this House. There is another case. It is concerning with the Secretary of the company Mr. A.V. Raghavan. He also is to get special pay of Rs.150 per month and that was a decision of the Board. But he is not getting it now. I don't know whether he will be given and allowed to do private business. It seems the whole gamut of officials of the company are enjoying some special treatment. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is also some discontentment among the officials of the company because there are to types of scales and between these there is a big variation. This variation has made the officials discontented. The D.A. of some officials is determined according to the price index while in the case of others it is not. This shows that there are two classes of officials in the company. In this way when a discontentment is created by a wrong management you cannot expect the company to function smoothly.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of these facts, I would like to request the House to persuade the Hon'ble Minister no to be the Chairman of the Company because when the report of the company is of such bad character, it reflects this bad character upon the Minister himself and upon the House also. When a Member of this House is no less a person than a Chairman of this Board, and when this Company gets a bad report, he would prefer to disassociate himself from being a Chairman of the Company. Are we to understand that there are no other persons who could be Chairman of the Board of Directors of this Company ? Particularly when there is a sorry state of affairs of this Company why should the Minister-in-charge who is also a Member of this House bind himself  by associating with all this. It would be far better if he cuts himself from this and retains remote control of the Chairmanship of the Board of Directors. But he is also personally involved and it may be asked if the Minister has shares in the Company or not. That also would be an interesting question to ask and I wonder if the reply may be given. But our humble suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that immediate re-organisation of this  Company and its administration should be taken up and our Hon'ble Minister should no longer be Chairman of the Board of Directors.

*Shri. W.A. Syiemiong :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by the hon. Member from Mawhati. As almost everything had been spoken by the hon. Mover I shall try to confine myself only to the impression on the Auditor's Report. My first impression in looking at the Auditor's Report is, as the Member from Mawhati just said, the suspense account that has been kept in the Accounts Book of the Company. When the amount involves so much, I feel that it is not merely something to be taken slightly of but there are some causes behind this jugglery of this misaccounting, if I may say so. These are very simple matters, Sir. As a matter of fact most of the amount has been kept in the suspense account, details, of which could easily be obtained if only the Company had taken care of. We  know that in the Company there are qualified accountants and as such we cannot understand why in certain cases, details and lists like vouchers and employees - I am referring Item No.5. We can well imagine that an amount of the tune of Rs.504672.38 P which is for the interest of the employees, the accounting branch of this Company or rather this company is not careful in maintaining its account and only when the auditors have objected to this then they submitted a report hat adjustments are being made. The details are being given. In Item No.2 of page 16, we will see very large amount of Rs.1,69,845.28 P being the bills already paid to the various firms for materials purchased by this Company. It appears from the Audit Report here that the details of these Bills have not been adjusted. This is a simple matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had a little experience in accounting matters for some years, and it is not difficult if the Company takes little pain in maintaining the books properly. But here, it seems the accounts and bills of Rs.20,000 , Rs.92,000, 53,000 were just neglected. As I posed a question earlier, I doubt whether this is really a mistake. I am afraid, Sir, that this Company is incurring a loss of more than a crore of rupees, since its inception upto the year 1972 of course. So, it is a very doubtful case if we, in this State could go on financing and running the Company which incurs a loss all the time and where certain people are creating havoc to the interest of our State. Simple matters as reflected in the Audit Report in Item No.13 is that the manufacturing amount should be maintained but the reply is that the preparation of manufacturing account is not a must. I wonder, Sir, how the Company can run if there is no manufacturing account. If we do not have the account of the manufacture, of the produce, naturally, we will not know the exact position of how much we produce and spend. But from the vague reply that it is not a must. I would urge upon the Government through you, to see that this Company in future does maintain all the accounts properly so that the scope of misappropriation and loss is minimised. Thank you.

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the outset I should report that this Company was inherited by us and we took it over in 1972. We are, therefore, dealing with the accounts which were prepared by us but dealing with the period which was not the responsibility of our Government. However, since the accounts had not been prepared earlier, we undertook to prepare the accounts and to bring them upto date. When we inherited a sick Company, we were faced with one or two alternatives. It is too early to question as to how we can continue to run a Company with such losses as mentioned by the hon. Member from Nongspung. But this Company is the only one producing cement in the whole of north-eastern India, and it is in our State and it is giving employment to a large number of people of our State and therefore, we had to take it over and we had tried to set it right.

        Now, the hon. Member from Mawhati has pointed out a number of defects. These defects we have also noticed were there when we took over the Company. But the fact is that, a lot of accounting - discrepancies were there, have been discovered only when we had time to go through the works of the Company properly. When we took over, we gradually, have been setting matters right from day to day and month to month. Now the hon. Member from Mawhati had said that the bad record of the Company reflects on the Government. We cannot deny that. To run a Company which in other parts of the country would have been closed down, but we are trying to improve and gradually bring it to be a profitable concern. This is a challenge that we are facing. As Minister-in-charge of Industries, I also have had the question of how best we can see right this Company. It has been suggested that I divorce myself from the responsibility of directly getting into Directorship of the Company. As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for some time it was not even considered, but as reports came from our Directors, I felt that it was better to get into the Board and help in setting right a number of things, decisions for which have to be taken as a higher level, to help the Company. I must say that it can be proved that on subsequent reports after the Minister-in-charge of Industries became Chairman of the Company, a number of decisions have been taken and certain direct improvements have resulted. So while it would be simple to throw off the dust of our shoes and condemn the Company, it is our responsibility to clean up and improve whatever is there and one day we hope to present a good report in this House and to the State. Now there are two or three small questions raised by the hon. Member from Mawhati. No. I  - was regarding the motor. It was discovered that this motor had certain inherent defects which started revealing its defects some years back. It was sent for repair a number of times, a certain amount of money was spent, I cannot give just now the figures. But on consulting the Experts, this motor was removed and a new one was installed which is still working. The functioning of the motor was not affected in any way to the detriment of the company by cutting of the shaft as suggested by the hon. Member from Mawhati. But it came to our attention that it was due to certain inherent defects which finally resulted in a break-down of the motor and a new one had to be installed which was manufactured by a Government of India Company in our country. Regarding special pay or officers, there are two officers who are allowed private practice as it is the practice of in other Companies, as long as it does not interfere with the working of the Company, this was allowed. Regarding the shares, these are of the local tribal people who purchased the shares but did not complete the payments in time. A number of efforts have been made to recover the amounts due on these shares. Certain number of these people have promised to pay. Since a few of them have promised to complete the payment of shares, and until such time, the Board is fully seized of the matter and pursuing it. There is no question of private practice of the Secretary. His pay and special pay are fixed taking into consideration the duties comparing to other Secretaries pay in other Companies and so on. Regarding the suspense account, it is unfortunate that there is a huge amount  of suspense account. Our Company is looking into this. It was discovered why such large amount of suspense account is there because of faulty procedure in the past of not giving proper account and because at that time some other places like Gauhati, Jorhat, Tinsukia, Nonwgong there were a number of faulty procedures and many of these accounts were dealt with at that time. I have with me details of suspense accounts which can be given to the Member or placed on the Table of the house if desired. Regarding the information of the current liabilities, these are also in the same list and I will not take time to read it but it can be placed on the Table of the House if the Member requests it. The fact that this Company is going into loss, one of the most important factors is the uneconomic size of the plant. It is for that reason that the Company had decided many years back to expand the size of the plant and according to the earlier plan, it was supposed to be completed by 1970-71, but after we took over, we found many things had yet to be done and we started  doing them. The plant will be expanded and it is expected that one kiln, will be ready by the end of 1975. As for the second additional kiln this will be made ready some time towards the end of 1976. The Company has certainly taken some steps to clear the current liabilities to reduce the number of liabilities and so on. It will also improve the accounting procedure to set up proper checking on all sides and there has been gradual improvement in the last couple of years after we took over the Company. There is no difference of opinion from the Member from Nongspung who said that we should maintain proper accounts. After the appointments of some Special Officers who were specially trained in Accounts and Cost Accounting, a procedure was set up and we see that our staff can maintain accounts satisfactorily. We hope in years to come, we will give up-to-date accounts and the balance sheets will be in order. The difficulty is to prepare the balance  sheets of two or three past years. When many accounts and vouchers were not in order, it is a very difficult task to keep our current accounts plus go back to prepare proper accounts of the Company for the last three or four years. This process is going on and we hope within a year or two, the past procedure of accounting will be in order and brought up-to-date thought it will take time because after the Company have prepared the Balance Sheet the Auditor audited it, it has to go the Accountant General and after we have answered some queries from the Accountant General then only it will be presented to the shareholders. So the whole General procedure for the accounting is rather long. However, as I have said earlier, we have taken it very seriously and we are gradually improving many things which were wrongly done in the past and will set up correct procedure accounting and hope in due course, specially after the expansion is being done, we will be able to present a good report to this House and to the State.

Shri. Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- May we have the clarification whether the Chairman of this Company has got any share in the Board also ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- The Chairman does not need to have any shares. It so happen that the present Chairman has got 10 shares purchased many years back.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- On a point of information, may we know the pay of the Accountant appointed for preparing the Cost Accounts, Shri. R.N. Chakravarty. In his absence, what do they do ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have appointed a Firm for preparing the Cost Accounts of the past years.

Mr. Speaker :- Let the Minister reply first. You shall have the chance to seek clarification.

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- As I have said, we have appointed a Firm of Accountants who are preparing the Cost Accounts which should have been prepared many years ago and now this is being done. We have to appoint an Accountant to study the procedure and be advised by the Firm of experts on keeping Cost Accounts in the future.

Shri. Francis K. Mawlot :- Another point. The Minister just now said that there are two officers who are allowed private practice. May we know to what extent ?

Shri. S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- There is no question of extent. They are allowed to practise. If it is not an official  work, then, outside office hours, if this does not interfere with their official work.


PROROGATION

Mr. Speaker :- The discussion is closed. Now, I will read the order of prorogation from the Governor :-

"RAJ BHAVAN

The 11th December, 1974

SHILLONG

ORDER

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India, I Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby prorogue the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly at the conclusion of its sitting on the 13th December, 1974.

 Sd/-

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH

Governor of Meghalaya.

        The House stands prorogued.

R.T. RYMBAI

Dated Shillong,

Secretary

The 13th December, 1974.

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

        ******