Proceedings of the Winter Session of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly assembled at 9-30 a.m. on Wednesday, the Thirtieth November, 1977 in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong with the Speaker in the Chair.

Present :- Minister Six, Minister of State, Five, Members forty-one.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us begin the business of the day by taking up Unstarred Question No.21.

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS

(Replies to which were laid on the Table)

Adulteration of Mustard Oil

Shri Dlosingh Lyngdoh  asked :

21. Will the Minister-in-charge of Food and Civil Supplies be pleased to state -

        (a) Whether it is a fact that the State Government had detected a case of adulteration of mustard oil with inferior oils like linseed oil, rapeseed oil, etc., some time in the second week of November 1977 by one firm at Khanapara?

        (b) If so, the name of the firm?

        (c) What action Government have taken against the firm?

Shri E. Bareh [Minister-in-charge of Supply] replied :

21.    (a) - On 5th November, 1977 the Civil Surgeon and the District Food Inspector collected food sample of mustard oil from a firm at 9th mile Khanapara under the provision of Pure Food Act and handed over to the Public Analyst for analysis and submission of report.

        (b) - M/S S.B. Industries.

        (c) - The result of analysis is awaited.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, when is the result of the analysis likely to be obtained?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have no information.

Shri D.D. Pugh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it has been stated that the case was detected on 5th November, 1977 and today is the 30th. It means that it has taken about 25 or 26 days. May we know from the Minister how highly technical is the process of testing that the department has taken at least 25 or 26 days to get the report?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have no knowledge on that. It is being tested at Gauhati and not here.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, whether the Government intends at expending the matter to get the analysis done in time?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Supply) :- Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Shri K.M. Roy Marbaniang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what action has been taken against M/S S.B. Industries?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are awaiting the report of the analyst and soon action is taken at this stage.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Who are the proprietors of this M/S S.B. Industries?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Supply) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want notice.

Accommodation of the Meghalaya House 

Shri H. Hadem asked :

22. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state how was the Warrant / Order of Precedence in occupying seats in Meghalaya House in Delhi and Calcutta determined on :

 

(i) Between the MLAs on official duties arriving on the same day ?

 

(ii) Between  MLAs on private duties arriving on the same day ?

 

(iii) Between MLAs on official duty and MLAs on private visit arriving on the same day ?

Shri Williamson Sangma (Chief Minister ) replied :

22. (i) Both the MLAs would be accommodated.
  (ii) Accommodation would be provided to both of them subject to availability.
  (iii) MLAs on official duty will be given priority.

 New Market at Lower Jail Road near Polo Ground

Shri P.R. Kyndiah asked :-

23. Will the Minister in charge of Municipal Administration be pleased to state -

(a) The amount of loan , with particulars taken by the Shillong Municipal Board for the construction of a new market at Lower Jail  Road near Polo Ground?

(b) The number of stalls constructed in the new market and particulars of allotment of stalls and shops?

(c) The names of allotees giving a break up of tribals and non tribals.

Shri U  Kharbuli (Minister of State in charge of Municipal Administration) replied :

23 (a)- Rupees 5.60 Lakhs was taken by the Shillong Municipal Board as loan from the State Bank of India.

    (b)- Two hundred ten stalls were constructed in the new market . Of these, 9 stalls are still to be allotted. Six- of the stalls are for tribals and 3 for non-tribals.

    (c)- A statement as per Annexure 'X' is placed on the Table of the House.

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, with your permission I would like to make a slight correction in answer to question 23 (b). Instead of 9 it is 8 which are yet to be allotted. Consequently the figures also is to be reduced from 6 to 5. Five of the stalls are for tribals and three for non tribals.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- What are the principles for allotment?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :-Mr. Speaker Sir, there is a Selection Committee appointed by the Chief  Executive Officer for this. First of all those people  who have been vacated from archery ground, whoever wants to have those stalls will be given the fist preference. Besides that, consequent upon the time of clearance of the road side along the road, those people who have got their stalls along the road side also have to be rehabilitated in this market complex.

Shri P. R. Kyndiah :-  Whether first preference is to be given to the tribal applicants ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, we welcome as many of them as they could come.

Prof M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker Sir, what is the total for tribals and the total for non tribals.

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- Mr. Speaker Sir, so far according to the criteria laid down there are as many as 104 tribals who will be entitled and 106 no tribals who are entitled.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker Sir, whether this does not come under the employment policy of the Government or 40:40:5?

Mr. Speaker :- I think that is irrelevant.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Whether the Committee was appointed? If so, the names of Members?

Shri U. Kharbuli, Minister of State, Municipal Administration :- Following are the members of the Committee. Of course the Chief Executive Members is the Chairman and the members are Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh, Shri H. Ladia, Shri S.M. Jyrwa, M.D.C., Shri E.B. Lyngdoh, M.D.C. and two non-tribals, the Ex-Ward Commissioners Shri Kamaki Gupta and Shri D.P. Agarwal.

Police Outpost in Garo Hills

Shri J.C. Marak asked :

21. Will the Chief Minister be pleased to state -

        (a) The reason for establishing a Police Outpost at Sibbari?

        (b) Whether the Government intends to renovate the Tura Police Station?

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

24.   (a) - No police Outpost has been established at Sibbari.

        (b) - Keeping in view the financial position and priority of works, repairs and renovation of these buildings will be taken up.

Operation of power tillers tractors, etc.

Shri J.M. Syiem asked :

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

        (a) Whether the Government is aware of the fact that a large number of cultivation are not getting the help of Departmental power tillers and tractors as most of the machines went out of order during earlier operations?

        (b) Whether it is a fact that the operators of the said machines are left to themselves although they have no knowledge to do even minor repairs to the machines?

        (c) Whether it is a fact that the Foreman-in-charge of these machines is unable to supervise the work over a vast area of operation for want of transport facilities?

       (d) The reason why the Foreman, Mechanical (Field), cannot be provided with some transport to enable to supervise and effect necessary repairs to power tillers, tractors and bull dozers whether they go out of order, without delay?

        (e) Whether the Government propose to enquire into the wastage of time and money on account of want of transport facilities to the Foreman?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) replied :

25.    (a) - No, most of the farmers who requested for the service of tractor or power tiller have got it.

        (b) - No, while it is not possible to attach a mechanic to each machine, as soon as report of breakdown of any machinery is communicated to the Foreman at the District Headquarters action for repair is taken.

        (c)-No major difficulty is felt.

        (d)-As and when necessary, transport is provided.

      (e)-Does not arise at present. However, Government are considering the feasibility of opening a few sub-centres with mechanics in each.

Shri Jormanik Syiem :- What is the area or areas under the large of the fore man ?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- For the whole districts of the East and West Khasi Hills.

Shri Jormanik Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the fore man expected to go for repair on foot ?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- No, Mr. Speaker, Sir. He will avail of the conveyance available with the department.

Shri Jormanik Syiem :- Has he ever asked for any conveyance in the past from the Government for that purpose?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want notice.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the Minister in charge of Agriculture aware of the fact that power tiller in the Shella-Bholaganj Block has been out of order for the last few years due to want of three or four tyres ?

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Mustard Oil produced in the State.

Shri Dlosingh Lyngdoh  asked :

26. Will the Minister in charge of Food and Civil Supplies be pleased to state-

        (a) Whether the quantity of mustard oil produced in the State during the last two years was sufficient to meet the requirement of the population in the State ?

        (b) If not, the quantity of mustard oil imported by the State of Meghalaya from other States annually during the last two years ?

        (c) Whether sun flower oil is in demand by the people of Meghalaya.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister in charge of Food and Civil Supplies) :-  replied :

26.  (a)- No.

      (b)-Mustard oil is imported from outside by private trade on trade of account. It is estimated that the quantity imported from outside has been of the order of 16,000 quintals in 1976 and 10,000 quintals so far in 1977.

      (c)- No.

Power-line from Nangalbibra to Baghmara

Shri Brojendra Sangma  asked :

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

        (a) Whether there is any proposal to extend the power line from Nangalbibra to Baghmara ?

        (b) If so, when can works be started ?

        (c) Whether is it a fact that a big power generator is lying idle at Baghmara power house ?

        (d) If so, the reason  for keeping it idle up till now ?

Shri D.D. Lapang (Minister of State, in charge of Power)  replied:

27.  (a)- Yes.

      (b)- The works can be taken up in 1978-79 as soon as the scheme is sanctioned in time by rural Electrification Corporation.

      (c)- No.

      (d)- Does not arise.

Shri Jackman Marak :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, when will the power line be extended from Nangalbibra to Baghmara ?

Shri D.D. Lapang (Minister of State, Power) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it will be taken up during 1978-79. The answer is in (b) already.

Shri Jackman Marak :- Is there a power line at Baghmara ?

Shri D.D. Lapang (Minister of State, Power) :- There is a 25 Kilowatt diesel generator operating now. There is the necessity of increasing the power line and until the scheme is implemented the whole area will not be covered.

Revenue derived from Song Beat

Shri J. C. Marak  asked :

28. Will the Minister in charge of Forests be pleased to state-

        (a) What is the annual revenue derived from the Songsak range ?

        (b) Who is the Range Officer of Songsak range ?

Shri Grohon Singh Marak (Minister, Forests)  replied :

28.  (a)- There is no range by the name of Songsak range except the Songsak Beat.

        The revenue of Songsak Beat during 1976-77 was Rs. 4,38,875.26.

       (b)- The name of the present Beat Officer of Songsak Beat is Shri Wiseman Momin.

Production of cement by the M.C.C.L.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh  asked :

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

        (a) The quantity of cement each month by the M.C.C.L. during the calendar year 1977 till date ?

        (b) The quantity during the corresponding months in 1976.

        (c) The reasons for shortage in production of cement during the current year ?

        (d) Whether the M.C.C.L. Factory to produce cement according to the normal capacity.

Shri Maham Singh (Minister, Industries)  replied

(Quantity in M.T.)

26. (a)-

January,

1977

3,800

      

February,

1977

6,800

March,

1977

6,240

April

1977

5,350

May

1977

4,700

June

1977

4,110

July

1977

4,880

August

1977

3,060

September,

1977

3,500

October,

 

1977

 

2,800

 

      (b)-

January

1976

6,100

February,

1976

5,400

March

1976

6,600

April

1976

3,000

May

1976

4,600

June

1976

6,400

July

1976

3,670

August

1976

4,900

September

1976

3,950

October

1976

4,100

        (c)- The major reasons for shortage in production of cement were breakdown of machinery during the period from June 1977 to October, 1977, shortage of coal and occasional electrical load shedding.

        (d)- Yes.

Electrification of Mahendraganj, Purakhasia Areas

Shri Shamsul Haque  asked :

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

        (a) Whether there is any proposal to prepare a scheme for electrification of Mahendraganj, Purakhasia area ?

        (b) If so, when will the scheme be ready ?

Shri D. D. Lapang (Minister of State, Power)  replied :

30.   (a)- Yes.

      (b)- The scheme is expected to be ready during 1978-79 for submission to the Rural Electrification Corporation.

Transport of produces from Jaintia Hills Border Areas

Shri H. E. Pohshna  asked :

31. Will the Minister incharge of Border Areas Development be pleased to state-

        (a) How many border trucks are being used for the carriage of border produces from the border markets of Jaintia Hills to Jowai market ?

        (b) What is the quantity of p.o.l. consumed by each truck for the months of April to October, 1979 ? (The No. of each truck and the quantity of goods transported by each to be furnished).

        (c) The mileage performed by each truck ?

Shri Maham Singh (Minister in Border Areas Development)  replied :

31. (a)- 4 (four) Nos.

       (b)- A statement is placed on the Table of the House.

(c)-

MLG

662

-2,532 Km.

MLG

697

-6,234 Km

MLG

661

-1,040 Km

MLG

660

-1,290 Km

Shri S. P.  Swer :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we know the reason as to why the truck No. MLG-661 performed only 1,040 Km. whereas the other Truck No. MLG 697 performed 6,234 Kms.

Shri Maham Singh (Minister, Border Areas Development) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want notice why this truck has performed only so much mileage.

Shri K. M. Roy Marbaniang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, when were these four MLG-Trucks border areas purchased ?

Shri Maham Singh (Minister, Border Areas Development) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want notice for that.

Announcement by the Speaker

Shri F. K. Mawlot (Minister of State, Transport) :- Sir, I beg leave of the House to correct the statement which I made the other day.

Mr. Speaker :- You will do that after 1.30 P.M.

        As usual, I am to report to the House that out of 1 starred question sent to the Government, no reply has been received and the percentage is zero out of 73 unstarred questions sent to the Government, 31 questions have been replied to. The percentage is 42.46 per cent.

        Before we pass on to the other item, I may inform the House that yesterday when a breach of privilege motion was moved by Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw against Shri S. N. Koch, I expected that something might come out outside the House so that the whole issue might be hushed up. But in the meantime, yesterday itself I have received a letter from Mr. Koch which reads like this :

To,  
  The Hon'ble Speaker, Meghalaya, Shillong.

 

Subject : Privilege motion moved by Shri. M.N. Majaw, M.L.A. against Shri. S.N. Koch.

Sir,

        In continuation of my letter dated 29th November 1977 in reply to the notice served upon me by Shri M.N. Majaw M.L.A. I beg further to add that on 28th November 1977 immediately after the rising of the House. I left fore the Member' Hostel after visiting Shri Maham Singh, Minister, in his room accompanied by Shri H. E. Pohshna, Shri Jagabandhu Barman and Shri Samsul Haque. All of us left together for M.L.As Hostel. The notice of Shri Majaw was served on me at 9.15 a.m. today when I was leaving the Assembly Hostel. After going through the notice against me, I hurriedly wrote earlier letter by making a simple denial of the allegation thinking that I would be making a statement. But unfortunately, I could not do as the matter was closed before I make the statement.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Sd/- S.N. Koch.

        But in the meantime, there is another letter that I received from Shri H. Hadem and Shri Dlosingh Lyngdoh. The letter reads as follows :-

To,  
  The Hon'ble Speaker, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, Shillong.

Sir,

        We have the honour to state that yesterday, the 28th November 1977 at about 1.40 P.M. while we were passing through the corridor of the House, we saw Prof M. N. Majaw and Shri S. N. Koch along with some other gentlemen whom we did not recognise standing and conversing just near the News Editor's office of the Assembly. As we were busy, we did not of course get a chance of hearing the subject they were conversing about. This has a reference to the privilege motion moved by Shri M. N. Majaw against Shri S. N. Koch, M.L.A.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Sd/- H. Hadem

 

Sd/- Dlosingh Lyngdoh

        So it appears to me that there is a prima facie and I refer this matter to the Privilege Committee.

CENSURE MOTION

        Before we take up item no. 2. I have received a notice from Prof. M. N. Majaw which reads as follows :-

To,  
  The Secretary, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, Shillong.

        Censure Motion under Rule 133 of the Rules of Procedure.

Sir,

        I intend with the consent of the Speaker to move a censure motion under the provisions of Rule 133 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. As per the provisions of Sub-rule 2 (a) of 133, I am enclosing a copy of the said censure motion.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Sd/- M. N. Majaw

 The motion reads as follows -

        Censure Motion to be moved by Prof M. N. Majaw under the provisions of Rule 133.

        This House do now censure Shri Edwingson Bareh, Minister Agriculture, P.W.D. (R and B) Food and Civil Supplies, etc., and Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang, Minister of State in-charge of Co-operation, Jails, Civil Defence including Home Guard, etc.

Shri Maham Singh (Minister for Parliamentary Affairs) :- May I have a word ?

Mr. Speaker :- Is it a point of order ?

*Shri Maham Singh (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs) :- Yes. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to submit that this notice is out of order. Sir, it may be remembered that yesterday a question was raised whether the sitting of the House will be extended for an additional day, and the sense of the House was taken and the majority of the members of the House did not agree to any extension of the sitting of the House. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that this notice which has been submitted before you at this later hour is an attempt on the part of the hon. Member to gain what was not achieved yesterday and what was not passed by the whole House. So this is an indirect attempt which has been made to obtain that desire of his. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this connection, I would not submit that the calendar of the sitting of the House does not permit any longer for taking this motion at present. A number of days had already been allotted and today is the last day of the sitting of this House, and when the whole House has already decided that the sitting will not be extended, I see no reason why the sitting can be extended without taking the sense of the House. Again, I would submit that there is no more time for taking up this motion because Mr. Speaker, Sir, according to Rule 133, of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, which deals with the motion expressing want of confidence in the Ministry or a group of Ministers or a Motion disapproving the action or actions of a Minister may be made with the consent of the Speaker. So here the motion may be made with the consent of the Speaker. Then again the rule speaks of the censure motion and sub-paragraph (3) of this rule maintains that if the Speaker is of the opinion that the motion is in order, he shall read the motion to the Assembly and shall request those member who are in  favour of leave being granted to rise in their places and, if not less then ten members of the House rise accordingly the Speaker shall intimate that leave is granted and that the motion will be taken up on such day not being more than then days and not less then 24 hours from the time at which leave is asked, as he may be appoint.

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, the time is no longer there for discussion of this motion and then again sub-paragraph (5) of Rule 133 reads. "The Speaker shall, at the appointed hour on the allotted day or the last of the allotted days, as the case may be, forthwith put every question necessary to determine the decision of the House on the Motion". This motion should have been brought 24 hours before, Mr. Speaker, Sir, and not to be taken up today. Then again I will read with regard to the day for fixing the sitting of this House-Rule 230 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business-"The time table in regard to business Assembly and circulated to the members". Then Rule 231 reads- "As soon as may be after the report has been made to the House, a motion may be moved by a member of the Committee designated by the Speaker; "that this Assembly agrees with the allocation of time proposed by the Committee in regard to such and such Bill or Bills or other Government Business", and if such a motion is accepted by  the House, it shall take effect as if it were an order of the House". Now the House has already agreed Mr. Speaker, Sir, to the calendar that has been drawn up. Again it reads in the proviso-"Provided that an amendment may be moved that the report be referred back to the Committee either without limitation or with reference to any particular matter :

        Provided further that not more than half an hour shall be allotted for the discussion of the motion and no member shall  speak for more than five minutes on such motion"

        And then again Rule 232 reads-"At the appointed hour in accordance with the Allocation of Time of Order for the completion of a particular stage of a Bill the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of all the outstanding matter in connection with the stage of the Bill, and then Rule 23 reads-

        "No variation in the Allocation of Time Order shall  be made except on the request of the Leader of the House who shall notify orally to the House that there was general agreement for such variation, which shall enforced by the Speaker after taking the sense of the House ". So Mr. Speaker, Sir, yesterday also the view of the Leader of the House was taken as to whether there should be any extension of this House for which the sense of this House was taken. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that this House, the whole House by a majority had already given its opinion that the sitting of the House cannot be extended. I would submit that this is not a genuine demand of the hon. Member. The motion put forward by him has been given at a very late stage when there is no more time for discussion on it.

Mr. Speaker :- Can you point out to me the rule under which this mind of question cannot be moved at the last stage.

Shri Maham Singh (Minister of Parliamentary Affairs) :- The time does not permit Mr. Speaker, Sir, and therefore it is out of order. it has to be discussed for not less than 24 hours and not more than 10 days. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, it cannot be discussed today because by 1.30 p.m. the sitting will be over and then again it cannot be taken up tomorrow because as I said , the House has already given its opinion that the sitting cannot be extended any further. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that there is no more scope for any further discussion of this motion brought forward by the hon. Member.

*Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in reply to the point of order or if I may be allowed to speak. I must say that my motives cannot enter into the discussion as to whether there is a point of order or not. My motive as the Hon'ble Minister for Parliamentary Affairs has referred, does not touch and is not relevant at all to the point out of order. A point of order may be raised under Rule 300 at page 154, sub-rule (3) where it says " Subject to conditions referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) a member may formulate a point of order and the Speaker shall decide whether the point raised is a point of order and if so, give his decision thereon which shall be "final and also Rule 374 reads". If any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the decision of the Speaker shall be final.

        Rule 315- "All questions not specifically provided for in these rules and all questions relating to the detailed working of these rules shall be regulated in such manner as the Speaker may, from time to time direct".

        Now we are coming to Rule 133 which relates to Censure Motions  where a point of order has been raised. I would say that there are three stages. The first is the submission of the censure motion which you in your wisdom Mr. Speaker, Sir, will judge it as being in order or not. The second stage will be that of sub rule (3) of Rule 133 It says "If the Speaker is of opinion that the motion is in order he shall read the motion to the Assembly and shall request those members who are in  favour of leave being granted to rise in their places and, if not less than ten members of the House rise accordingly, the Speaker shall intimate that leave is granted and that the motion will be taken up on such day not being more than ten days and not less than twenty four hours from the time at which leave is asked, as he may appoint.

        As a matter of fact the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs should have intervened after that stage. Then the third stage is with regard to fixing the time. 

Mr. Speaker :- Prof. Majaw, the point of order if at all it raised it should come at any stage. But where it appears that both the Hon'ble Minister and you have stated correctly that the rule clearly says that not less then ten members......

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Yes, I am quoting that. In this sub-rule (3) of Rule 133 there is no proviso, there is no alternative rule. The exact provision of this sub-rule says "the Speaker shall intimate that leave is granted and that the motion will be taken up on such day not being more than ten days". So leave is granted by securing the requisite number of members to stand in support of the motion. Now two or three hon. Members have referred to the allotted days. They are not the allotted days of the business calendar if you read the English correctly. Those are the days allotted by you for discussion of this No-confidence Motion. If you read sub-rule (5) it says.

        "The Speaker shall at the appointed hour on the allotted day or the last of the allotted days, as the case may be, forth with put every question necessary to determine the decision of the House" I may submit that the reference to the allotted day is not quite relevant and so Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would suggest that we come forward and see whether leave is granted by the House as per Rule 133 and sub rule (3).

Shri H. Hadem :- Moreover, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that the point of order raised by the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Affairs is not relevant to this particular issue. I will not stress the burden on you as you have already reminded because Rule 115 says that all questions not specifically provided for in these rules and all questions relating to the detail working of these rules shall be regulated in such a manner as the Speaker may from time to time direct. Here we have got a very detailed and specific rule that the Speaker shall give his consent to move a motion. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 133 says "that the Speaker shall not give a consent to give a motion under the preceding sub-rule unless the following conditions fulfilled namely : (a) the member desiring to move the motion has before the commencement of the sitting of the day given a written notice to the Secretary of his intention to move the motion." But we are sitting here and we do not know whether he has submitted that notice or not. I think the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Affairs said that he has just submitted in here now. Then that is another thing.

Mr. Speaker :- The contention of the Minister in-charge of Parliamentary Affairs is that  this being the last day .....

Shri H. Hadem :- But he last day is the last day of the session. The rule is very clear and definite and also the leave to move the motion has been asked for after the questions on the list of business have been disposed of. Now we have come to this stage and we have got to see that this has got a specific rule and that this rule covers it. So if the House does not grants leave according to rule to rule 133 automatically it lapses.

Shri S. N. Koch :- I think the rule is very clear and specific. It says that within 10 days and not before 24 hours if it is admitted today.

Mr. Speaker :- If leave is granted today it cannot be taken up before five minutes past 10 O'clock and it should not be after the 9th of next month.

Shri S. N. Koch :- That is why the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs has raised a point of order and the hon. Mover simply by explanation refers to the interpretation of the rules for regulating the business of the House. This is very much within the cognisance of the Speaker. The question of interpretation arises on whether we are assuming that this motion is admitted and whether we can take up till tomorrow, the House already expressed its opinion.

*Shri D. D.  Pugh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Hon'ble Minister in-charge of Parliamentary Affairs while making the point of order had referred to the proceeding of the House and on that question I would like to say that it is admittedly that as far the question of extension of the session is concerned the Speaker shall or shall not announce the extension only after ascertaining the sense of the House. But we have now before us the question of extension of the session. What we have before us is the question of admissibility of an essential motion. One the censure motion Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is an humble submission that the rules are very very clear. Rule 133 as you very well know says that if 10 or more members rise in their seats then leave of the House shall be granted and in the granting of the leave it is you Mr. Speaker, Sir, who has the final authority in  the House and finally I would like to submit Mr. Speaker, Sir, that we have precedents, examples and illustrations galore in the history of our country where a no-confidence motion, a censure motion has been tabled on the last day of the session whether in Parliament or in the various State Assemblies and therefore Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is absolutely not correct on the part of the Minister in-charge of Parliamentary Affairs to have stated that this should have been tabled two or three days ago, and with this submission Sir, I raise a point of order.

Shri S. N. Koch :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, by hearing the hon. Member it appears that he is trying to put an elephant inside the bottle. The House already decided that there will be no extension.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- That is the example of putting one's foot into his mouth.

RULING BY THE SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker :- I have listened attentively to the please made by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and the other hon. Members. There is a lot of difference between the extension of the sitting of the House to transact ordinary business as admitted by me under the rules and as already approved of by the House. This House yesterday rejected extension of the sitting on the ground of transacting ordinary business. But here is a case of a motion where the hands of the Speaker are practically did. I wish I should come across a rule which may say that on the last day such kind of a motion shall not be raised. But the rules here says that it shall be raised on any day before the member decided to move a motion before the commencement of the sitting of the day. Here the day is not definite,  whether first or second or the middle or the last day, and practically speaking, in our rules we have not made a distinction between a no-confidence motion and a censure motion although in  some other Legislatures there is a clear distinction; and, in so far as the day be allotted is concerned, this does not refer to the day allotted for transacting the ordinary business which has already been admitted. The allotted number of days here speaks of the days to be allotted for the purpose of this particular kind of motion. The practice every where in so far as a no-confidence motion is concerned is that when it comes up it must be disposed of. That is the practice everywhere. It is a practice in all Legislatures all over the world. Of course, I know it is really a matter of great inconvenience to many of us or to the whole House. But if more than 10 members stand in support of the motion though I have not put that-then  leave is granted. I have no other alternative. But it is wrong to say that while fixing the date I will not consult anybody. While fixing the date in the Lok Sabha or anywhere else, the Speaker always consults the Leader of the House. That is the practice. So, I think, the point raised by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is really not relevant in this particular kind of censure motion. Now let me ask those members who support this motion moved by Prof. Majaw, to stand up.

(Twelve members rose in their seats)

        There are more than 10,so leave is granted. And so far as the date is concerned I will consult the Leader of the House and announce it a little later.

        Let us now take up Item No.2. The Minister in-charge of P.H.E. to move Demand No.8.

VOTING OF SUPPLEMENTARY DEMANDS FOR GRANTS

Shri Sanford K. Marak (Minister, P.H.E.) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor I beg move that an additional amount of Rs.50,000 be granted to the Minister incharge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978, for the administration of the head "282-Public Health Sanitation and Water Supply-B-Sewerage and Water Supply and 283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and there are two cut motions no the grant. Cut motion number one stands in the name of Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy. Will you move ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Yes Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- Actually, here you are to raise only a discussion in the matter of procedure.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the Act has now been adopted, I will not move.

Mr. Speaker :- Cut motion number two ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- it was by mistake that my name had been put in twice.

Mr. Speaker :- So the two cut motions which stand in the name of Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy are deemed to have been withdrawn.

        Now I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.50,000 be granted to the Minister incharge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978, for the administration of the head "282-Public Health Sanitation and Water Supply-B-Sewerage and Water Supply and 283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings".

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

        Now the Minister in charge of labour to move Demand No.9.

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour etc.) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.1,08,900 be granted to the Minister incharge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978, for the administration of the head  "287-Labour and Employment-III-B-Employment and Training".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and there are two cut motions on this demand. The first cut motion stands in the name of Prof. Alexander Warjri.

Prof. A. Warjri :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.1,08,900 under Supplementary Demand No.9 Major head "287-Labour and Employment-III-B-Employment and Training". Minor head 4-Training of Bratsmen and Supervisors at page 10 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100.00 i.e. the amount of the whole supplementary demand of Rs.1,08,900 do stand reduced by Rs.100.00.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can raise a discussion on the functioning of the Industrial Training Institute at Shillong.

Prof. A. Warjri :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you can see, this is only a token cut and I would like to discuss the functioning of the Industrial Training Institute at Shillong. This I.T.I. was created long before Meghalaya came into existence. Perhaps it was mote than 10 years back that this I.T.I. had come into existence. But unfortunately, this I.T.I., Shillong, had been housed at Gauhati and practically, nothing has been done for training of our boys and girls. Since it has existed at Gauhati with all machineries and equipments and the full staff was maintained at Gauhati there were no trainees at all. In 1972, Meghalaya was created but the I.T.I. Shillong, still remained at Gauhati until the year 1975, and the Government of Meghalaya had been paying for the staff and for the maintenance of the I.T.I. at Gauhati including the maintenance of the machineries and equipments. In  1975 the machineries were brought to Shillong and were housed at the Meter Factory. But the conditions of the machineries were such that some of them are now fit only to be auctioned as scrap iron. Most of the machineries could not be operated at all and some of the trades which are very necessary for training of the youths in their various trades could not be taken up as these machineries could not be repaired or used because of lack of spare parts or that some of the spare parts are not available and then  some of them are not worth repairing. (A voice- You mean the motor mechanics ? Yes. I would like to get a reply from the Government as to what action has been taken regarding the staff who have been regularly paid up from Shillong while the I.T.I. was still at Gauhati What action has been taken for the missing spare parts ? What action has been taken against those staff for whom the Government had been pay regular salaries ?

Mr. Speaker :- Before you proceed any further I must say that since the two cut motions are identical and relate to the two I.T.Is at Shillong and Jowai, I club these two together.

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, just another point here. The cut motion was moved with the intention to raise a discussion on the functioning of the I.T.I. at Shillong. I do not see there is anything against this while it was at Gauhati.

Mr. Speaker :- It should be like this if the cut motions are clubbed. To raise a discussion on the functioning of the Industrial Training Institute in Shillong and to ventilate the grievances and opening of I.T.I. in Jowai.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D. etc.) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, why action against the staff at Gauhati was mentioned?

Prof. Alexander Warjri :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, precisely, so I have written here to discuss the functioning of the Industrial Training Institute Shillong. Its name is Industrial Training Institute, Shillong but it was housed at Gauhati for more than 10 years. As I said Mr. Speaker, Sir, then when the machineries and equipments were brought to Shillong in 1975, the staff also came along and it was found that most of the important part of these machines have been lost. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the staff did not do any work at all because there were no trainees. At least they should have been made responsible for pilferage or for the missing of these important parts of the machineries, in other words for the maintenance of the machineries. Then at the same time, I found or rather I heard that a number of these staff that came over from Gauhati are demanding that they should go back to Assam and as a consequence Mr. Speaker, Sir, they are the unwilling workers. As soon as they came here they began to apply earned leave which ranged from 30 days to 180 days and it is really impossible on the part of the Principal of the Training Institute to maintain discipline and to get the cooperation from such staff. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, would like to request the Government that immediate action be taken for the transfer of those staff and to replace them with the available staff that we can get from the State itself.

        Then another thing, which I would like to remark here, as I have observed just now, that even the machineries and the staff were brought from Gauhati that they were housed at the Meter Factory which belongs to the M.S.E.B. and as I understand the M.E.S.B. was very reluctant in giving the building and they did so for a short time. Some of the machineries that could be fitted there could not be done unless some cement in the floor it broken and the machineries could be fixed. I do not understand why it took  so long for the Government to take up construction of the I.T.I. quarter and building there at Umpling that is near Rynjah. A plot of land has already been acquired by the Assam Government and as far as I remember in our budget session, from time to time sanction have been made from 1 lakhs to 2 lakhs for the construction of the I.T.I. building at Umpling. Up till now nothing has been started. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to request the Government,  through you that this construction be taken up immediately so that this Training Institute be housed as its own place. These are the few words I would like to say regarding the I.T.I., Shillong.

*Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since you have clubbed the two cut motions, I would like to say a few words. But before I could agree with the the views of the Government that so long this has been run by the Assam Government that it is not the responsibility of the present Government, I think I ought to remind the House that regarding the I.T.I. at Jowai the scheme has already been there since Assam time and also Mr. Speaker, Sir, in 1972-73 the same matter had been raised on the floor of the House during the Budget Session and assurance has been given by the Government. But up till now we have seen that nothing has been done. So in view of this reason, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to request the Government through you, to appreciate the intention behind the cut motion. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it does not mean that I am against the grant but I would like to request the Government to early expedite the same. With these few words I resume my seat.

Shri S. P. Swer :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in support of the cut motion, I would like to raise one point. In this connection, the Government has constituted an Advisory Committee for the trades and it is very surprising to know that the Advisory Committee has not met even once to advise the I.T.I. and the trades conducted by the I.T.I. at Shillong. So I would like to urge upon the Government to see that this Advisory Committee sits for the purpose which was entrusted upon it.

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

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour, etc) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my gratefulness to the hon. Member who have taken part in the cut motion because I realise that the motive way purely not with the intention to deny this demand but rather to give suggestions for improvement so as to enable the institution to run in a very effective manner.

        As you all know, the I.T.I. is a party of the craftsmen training programme whose main objective is to ensure flow of skilled workers in different trades of the industries and also the quality of the industrial production and also to reduce, as far as practicable, unemployment among the educated youths by equipping them with such knowledge or experience for industrial employment.

        The point raised by Prof. A. Warjri, the hon. member from Mawkhar regarding the conditions of the machineries is that those machineries were purchased by the Assam Government since the time when the institution was at Gauhati as he said. At present, these machineries have been brought here and they were found really to be not in good condition that we would like them to be and on this the Government is taken steps for this real cement or improvement. He also mentioned about the Instructors who are not willing to remain here and clamored to go back to Assam. As far as possible, we have replaced them by those people available from within the State and most of them are our own scheduled tribes, for instance, the Instructor in Motor Mechanics, Mathematics Instructor, Language Instructor and Machineries Instructor in place of those Instructors who have been released to go back to Assam. As regards housing, we have in the current year's budget provided a sum of Rs.2,71,000 and this amount will be about sufficient for the construction of one workshop building and two quarters for grade IV employees and it is expected that these buildings will be completed within this current year. Well, Sir, all the suggestions are being noted. Regarding the fixing of responsibility for negligence on the part of the staff, this also will surely be looked into.

       With regard to the points raised by the hon. member from Mynso, I do not know, as there seems, to be no proposal for opening of I.T.I. in Jowai. But that does not mean that we shall not look into it. As and when we feel that the need is there, we will surely try to do something about it. 

        The point raised by the hon. member from Sohra is not very clear. But any way, I shall consult the proceedings of the House and see how best we can look after those grievances if any. So with these clarifications, I would request the hon. members to kindly withdraw the cut motion so that we can get the advantage of utilising this amount for which we have come through this Supplementary Demand.

Shri H. Hadem :- On  a point of clarification. May we know when this scheme was dropped because it was there since Assam's time and when the site has been selected at Ladthalaboh ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour) :- This has not come to my knowledge. I shall surely look into it.

Prof. A. Warjri :- Before I withdraw my cut motion Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to get some clarification, namely :- (1) How many of those staff who are willing to go back to Assam are still there in the I.T.I. ? (2) Since Mr. Swer is not here, whether this Advisory Committee for I.T.I. is still functioning or not ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour) :- On point No. (1) no specific representation to that effect has come to my notice. But  I shall try to find out how many of them who have expressed their willingness to go back to Assam if need be, I can inform the member through correspondence later on or I may suggest if he can come to my office, we shall surely look into it.

Prof. A. Warjri :-  On the staff, whether the Principal himself expressed his desire to go back to Assam ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Labour) :-  The fact was that this Principal was not there when the institution was in Assam. He was appointed here in Shillong. As regard functioning of the Advisory Committee nothing to the contrary has come to my knowledge. But I am under impression that it is still functioning.

Prof. A. Warjri :- In view of the clarifications made by the Minister in charge, I withdraw my cut motion.

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

Shri H. Hadem :- My cut motion also because the cut motions are clubbed. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Have the hon. members leave of the House to withdraw their cut motions ?

(Voices-Yes, yes)

        The cut motions are with leave of the House withdrawn.

        I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,08,900 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the  head "287-Labour and Employment-III-B-Employment and Training".

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

        Now let us come to demand No.10. to be moved by Chief Minister.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.20,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which  will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1978 for the administration of the head "288-Social Security and Welfare-E-Other Social  Security and Welfare Programmes IV Soldiers, 'Sailors' and Airmen's Board".

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved and I have received two cut motions which  stand in the name of Shri R. Lyngdoh and Shri J. C. Marak.

Shri R. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.20,000 under Supplementary Demand No.10, Major head "288-Social Security and Welfare-E-Other Social Security and Welfare Programmes-IV Soldiers, 'Sailors' and Airmen's Board". at page 11 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced by Rs.100 i.e., the amount of the whole supplementary demand of Rs. 20,000 do stand reduced by Rs.100.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now you can initiate the discussion.

Shri R. Lyngdoh :- Sir, in moving this cut motion I just want to point out that only in  the State of ours that the ex-service men are not having any welfare amenities at all. They are not in receipt of any aid, any assistance, of course, there may be here and there which has not come to our knowledge. Sir, but in other States a lot of facilities in the form of grants-in-aid like giving certain plot of lands or scholarship for the children and other form of facilities are being extended to the Serving and ex-servicemen. But in regard to our State Sir, so far we have seen nothing much has been done. Of course, I appreciate that only now the Government has come forward that this small scheme for construction of one widow home at Happy Valley. I think this may be the initiative of some military men and the Government they want to extent help to them. Of course Sir, this is a very good thing, but I have seen that nothing has been done much in other welfare. Sir, I also remember once when I was  member of that Board in 1973, there was a meeting where it was decided that the ex-service men in the State of Meghalaya did not need to have some allotted plots of land which could be required by the Government. It was during those days that it was recommended by the Board of Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen that they should help them in constructing their houses or by giving some sort of agricultural loans or grants and to see that they are improving in their own places and some other schemes also were decided during that time. So it seem that it is the inefficiency of the office or for that matter the Government for not implementing the scheme at all and of course if they have implemented it somewhere, may be to give the benefit to some people who do not belong to the State, I think, otherwise we could have known it. Therefore, I will not say anything more on this point because we understand and we know that what the ex-service men have done in  giving their lives in the defence of our country and we have seen during the two or three Wars like the Chinese War, the Pakistani War and lately the liberation of Bangladesh and these people were sent to these wars and here also they have given their lives. So I think when other States like Punjab, Haryana, U.P. and Maharashtra have extended great help to the ex-service men and to the welfare of their children also, why here we have seen nothing of that sort. So, I would request the Government to see to this inefficiency of the offices. I would like to say that there is inefficiency in the offices because I was and am still  a member of the Board since 1973 and that only one meeting was held. Of course, if there are other meetings, we did not get any notice at all and I am very glad that now the ex-servicemen have formed a 'Meghalaya Ex-servicemen league' of their own. So I think they have a good intention among themselves, but I understand that they are not getting any co-operation from  the Government. Department is giving information to them about the welfare scheme which the State Government on the Central Government have given. So I would request the Government to really help such organisation and to give more help or rather to have a close co-ordination with that Meghalaya ex-service league. I would like to inform the Government that there are some other organisation here in the State, where members (ex-servicemen do not belong to the State and yet they are getting help from the Board. So I would request the Government to see to this organisation which has been recently formed by the ex-servicemen of the State of Meghalaya and to extend help in establishing a widow home here and in some other areas also.

Prof. A. Warjri :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the cut motion though it would be better if the Chief Minister himself would support this cut motion because he himself is an ex-servicemen. Sir, much has been said by  the mover of the cut motion. What I would like to say here is that by trying to see the need and welfare of the ex-servicemen and by constructing the widow home we not only serve them but we should also get service and help for our own State from ex-service men. Being ex-servicemen naturally they are a well disciplined group of persons. I used to have a talk with some of the ex-servicemen and I realised that we can have so many schemes for their welfare. Sir, we would like to see our villages becoming model villages and I was also thinking that a number of these ex-servicemen, specially our Meghalayan tribal ex-servicemen should be given opportunity to group themselves, land should be given to them as it is done in other parts of the country and also with the help of  the Government to construct model villages with enough land to cultivate and thereby be a shining example to other villages in the State. I have stressed on the word tribal ex-servicemen from Meghalaya because I am seeing a danger here. Sir, years and years back the British had settled down the ex-servicemen of the Gorkha regiment and those ex-servicemen were allowed to keep cows and they also got the permission to graze their cattle in the northern slopes of Khasi Hills. Sir, these people as ex-servicemen have gone and others have taken their place and they have become a menace to the people of Meghalaya. That is why, Sir, I stress on the point that there should be ex-servicemen belonging Meghalayan tribals and I also would like to urge upon the Government that some more help should be given to them, specially to those who have taken the initiative to start small  scale industries. Sir, since quite a few years there has been movement from the ex-servicemen to start tannery industries but Sir, that has not come uptil now.

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is about pensioners.

Prof. A. Warjri :- I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I mean is that such kinds of industries should be encouraged here in our State also. If these industries are started here by a group of ex-service men the industry will be a success. Last point, Sir, that I would like to state here is that there are a number of vacant posts of land here and there which the Government so far have given to certain officers and applicants. I think certain plots of land should also be given or reserved for allotting to ex-servicemen and rather I would say that preference should be given to ex-servicemen specially those who are tribal ex-servicemen for which there would be no difficulty in asking the permission from the District Council and with these few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the cut motion.

Shri J. C. Marak :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not moving my cut motion and I would  like to club my cut motion with this cut motion and while supporting this cut motion I would like to mention here that regarding Demand No.10 I would like to know only one point here which liberal contribution of Rs.20,000/ has been allotted. Well, Sir, the Minister in charge of Soldiers' Sailors' and Airmens' Board requires an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- for construction    ------ Happy Valley for the exclusive use of work---- and I also have seen that this proposal is very good. I agree. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, liberal contribution means the liberal amount of liberal contribution and what we can judge from the economic point of view of our State's economic. Sir ------  is very poor and---- our Government have accorded to the request made by the army authorities that is my opinion, the Minister in charge wants to give an amount of Rs. 20.000/- as liberal contribution. In  that case we can give or assist them with some thousands of say at least Rs.10.000/- and the ---- Rs.10.000/- be utilized for developmental purpose of our State. Sir, I would suggest to the State through you that atleast fifty percent of allotted amount be given to the army authorities for construction of this one widow home at Happy Valley, because here ---- is a question of construction of only one widow ------- not ------ homes. I again suggest that at least Rs.10,000 or Rs.5,000 may be allotted her construction of this one widow-home.

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very grateful to the hon. mover of the Cut Motion who has taken very keen interest in the welfare of the ex-servicemen. While I fully appreciate the programme for construction of Widow Homes at Happy Valley. I have to express that similar welfare schemes should also be taken up for giving aid to the ex-servicemen in the State. I will give the hon. Members the figures of the ex-servicemen at present.

        The State Government is carrying out a preliminary census of ex-servicemen and other department residing in Meghalaya through the agency of the Constituency Development Blocks and ------ of the Government of India. The work is now progress. However, the present estimated number of such personnel is as follows :-

East and West Khasi Hills Districts

...

...

6000

Jaintia Hills District

...

...

     60

East and West Garo Hills Districts

...

...

   300

Total

6360

 2. The State Government has also constituted  -- State --- Rajya Sainik Board" with a retired Lt. Col. as its Secretary, District level. "Zila Sainik Board" for Khasi and Jaintia Hills District with a retired Major is the Secretary, and appointed as ex-servicemen as the "Welfare Worker" for the two Districts of Garo Hills.--- State level "Managing Committee for the Administration of the Special Fund for Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of ex-servicemen has also been constituted.

        The basic functions Boards/Committees etc. are to implement various welfare programmes/schemes for the exclusive benefit of ex-servicemen and their dependents residing in Meghalaya.

3. Government is fully aware of the fact that promotion of welfare measures and implementation of welfare and rehabilitation schemes for ex-servicemen and their families is of national interest, but how far the national objectives contained in the Resolutions adopted at various meetings of the Kendriya Sainik Board with head quarters at New Delhi and to be implemented within the State have to be examined vis-a-vis the available resources and other contributing factors and the priorities laid down by the Government in the developmental sector.

4. The corpus of the Specialised Fund has been built up through grants-in-aid sanctioned both by the Central and State Governments and an amount of Rs.2,16,372.95 P is standing as the credit of the Special Fund which is kept in deposit in the State Bank of India. The majority of welfare schemes for ex-servicemen are financed from the interest according out of the Fund.

5. The following welfare schemes have so far been implemented exclusively for the benefit of ex-servicemen and their families :-

 

(a) Rehabilitation Loans to families of ex-servicemen for which an amount of Rs.5,000/- is available in the Budget.

(b) Allotment of the Agencies for Kerosene Oil, Cooking Gas and Petrol. These Agencies are controlled by the Central Government. So far, the Kerosene Oil and One Cooking Gas agency has been allotted to ex-servicemen of this State. Unfortunately, the Kerosene Oil Agency was not accepted by the allottee.

(c) One Jai-Jawan Stall was allotted to Shri Nurbok Lyngdoh, an ex-servicemen and is functioning in Shillong.

(d) Grant of stipend of the value of Rs.100 p.m. to ex-servicemen undergoing post-release training in Industrial Training Institutes. Proposal to raise the value of this stipend is being examine by the Government. The Government of India also sanction a stipend of the value of Rs.60/ p.m. for those undergoing pre-release training in these Institutes.

(e) Grants of free legal assistance to Servicing/ Ex-servicemen and and their family members belonging to low-income groups. A State-level Committee for this purpose has been constituted and the Committee will recommend deserving cases to Government for consideration.

(f) Sanction of ex-gratia grants to Prisoners of War and to dependents of those killed in action or maimed offices or Jawans. The cases of Naik Narendra Chandra and Naik Silverster A. Sangma of Garo Hills have been referred to Government of India for clearance and when cleared they would be granted an amount of Rs.5,000 each.

(g) Grant of liberal educational facilities to families of officers and men of the Army, Navy, Air forces, B.S.F. Assam Rifles and other Para Military forces who were killed or disabled in action during the Indo-Chinese War, 1962 and Indo-Pak War of 1965. These concessions apply only to permanent resident of Meghalaya.

(h) Re-employment of ex-servicemen in civil posts.

6. Besides the above specific schemes the following concessions are available to ex-servicemen, viz. :-

 

 (i) Exemption from the payment of application examination fees for recruitment to posts through the MPSC and District Selection Committees.

(ii) Exemption from the payment of House Tax within then Shillong Municipality on the merit of each case.

(iii) Registration facilities have been provided in the Employment Exchanges throughout the State.

(iv) Disabled ex-servicemen are accorded No.1 priority along with retrenched employees for appointment to Class III and IV posts.

7. Government is also actively considering the following schemes concessions for the benefit of ex-servicemen :

 

(a) Relaxation of age to qualify for Government jobs.

(b) Relaxation in educational qualifications for appointment to Class III and IV posts under Government.

(c) Reservation  of posts under Government in category III and IV.

(d) Exemption of total military pension to re-employed ex- service men while fixing their payment on appointment to civil posts.

(e) Construction of Sainik Rest Houses at Shillong, Jowai, Tura.

(f) Preferential treatment in the grant of Bus/Taxi permits.

(g) Grant of municipal stalls in market areas.

(h) Cash and land grants to Gallantry Award Winners.

(i) Resettlement of ex-service men in Industries as a measure of self-employment.

(j) Self-employment schemes for ex-servicemen Drivers.

        I believe the hon. Mover and the supporter of the Cut Motion would realise that the Government has been trying its best, subject to availability of fund to help the ex-servicemen including some of the Armed forces. Shri Marak a member from Chokpot said that he has no objection to the construction of Widow Homes to be located at Happy Valley instead of Assam Regiment. He wanted that the amount be given as contribution. Well, I accept that Rs.20,000/- for construction of a home is not so big enough. But I agree that a similar home may be taken up for construction to be allotted. I can accept this proposal. Out of Rs.20.000 Rs.10.000 should be reserved for that purpose and another Rs.10.000 should be given for the Widow Homes. I can assure the hon. Member that this similar programme may be taken up in future. A similar contribution will be given when such schemes are approved and taken up for construction. Apart from the scheme I have placed before the House a number of new schemes have been suggested by Prof. Warjri, a member from Mawkhar for examining these schemes. These more or less have been put forward and covered by the scheme already taken up for rehabilitation or ex-servicemen. Whatever the suggestion put forward have been taken note and the public concerned will look into these.

        In view of the above ...... the hon. member may kindly withdraw his cut motion.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have one more clarification. The Chief Minister has referred to the scheme of re-employment in the State. Sir, in this respect, the ex-servicemen Board of the Central Government had given a direction that in the District or State Soldiers Sailors and Airmens Boards all posts in such Boards should be filled up by the ex-servicemen. But what we found here in the S.S.A. Boards like that in the Secretariat as well as in some District Boards in the district level, they have not been given a chance at all. But rather they have given employment to other category of personnel. Therefore, Sir, I would like to get a clarification whether the State Government is following the policy laid down by the Central Board of ex-servicemen or not. 

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the points raised by the hon. Member has been taken note of and I will ask the department concerned to look into this matter.

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the assurance from the Chief Minister who has read out a number of schemes that have been implemented and also many of the welfare schemes that are yet to be implemented, and we expect that they will be implemented soon. I withdraw my cut motion.

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

(Voice : yes yes)

        The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn

        Let me put the question before the House. the question is that an additional amount amount of Rs.20,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which  will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1978 for the administration of the head "288-Social Security and Welfare-E-Other Social  Security and Welfare Programmes - Soldiers, "Sailors" and Airmen's Board".

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

        Let us come to  Demand No.11 to be moved by the Minister in charge of Agriculture.

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which  will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1978 for the administration of the head "305-Agriculture/306-I-Minor Irrigation/295-Other Social and Community Service/283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings."

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I have received two cut motions which stand in the name of Shri H. Hadem and Shri S.P. Swer. Any one of you can move.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that he total provision of  Rs.5,00,000 under Supplementary Demand No.11, Major head "305-Agriculture/306-I-Minor Irrigation/295-Other Social and Community Services/283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings." at page 12 o the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Re.1. i.e. the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.5,00,000 do stand reduced to Re.1. I want to discuss the necessity or otherwise of the Department taking part in the National Agricultural Expo-1977.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Motion moved. Now, you can initiate the discussion.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the explanatory note given by the Minister incharge here is that the amount is required in connection with the expenditure to be incurred by the State for participation in the National Agriculture Expo-1977 to be held in New Delhi from 13th November to 14th December, of 1977. The expenditure was urgent and unforeseen and the amount was sanctioned  by taking advance from the Contingency Fund. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to move this cut motion because now and again, the reply from the Government is that for every scheme that is being brought, the Government always complained of paucity of fund and this amount of Rs.5,00,000 to me is not a matter of joke and that is why, I say I  want to discuss the necessity or otherwise of the department taking part in this particular exhibition. Sir, I would like to know from the Minister incharge whether by and investment of Rs.5,00,000/- what would be the income there from. Because, Sir, we cannot just say that the mater is very urgent and very important. There are matters that are urgent but not very important. It depends therefore, Sir, on the aspect of the matter which the Government can bring forward and the necessity of that particular expenditure. Sir, the original grant voted by this House was already of the order of more than 2 crores and now five lakhs are necessary just for this particular purpose. As such, Sir, I would request the Minister to enlighten the House as to what will be the benefit there from and what are the activities undertaken by the department in this particular subject otherwise. I do not see any reason why such an amount of five lakhs should be spent. I would rather be a blessing by using  the amount of five lakhs of rupees by helping our cultivators either in the border areas or rural areas and in other  aspects of the conditions prevailing in our State. I think, Agriculture Department can make a lot of improvement with this amount if it is not spent for the purpose connected with the Expo-1977. With these words, Sir, I move my cut motion.

*Shri S. N. Koch :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the cut motion moved by my friend from Mynso-Raliang. This is a policy cut and of course listening to the hon. mover of this cut motion, we have not expected that he will speak of the policy of the Government in so far as this demand is concerned. This is a policy cut and according to me, the hon. mover himself would have thought that the Government is pursuing a wrong policy by participating in the National Agricultural Expo-1977. But what we heard is that he has objected to this amount of five lakhs which is is to be spent for the National Agricultural Expo-1977. There are many thoughts to move as a reply to the semmision of the hon. mover. For example if we are to establish any research station somewhere in the State definitely we shall have to invest for our future by participating in the National Agricultural Expo 1977. We expect and our Government do expect that our cultivators will be going there and also the staff and officers of the department will be going there. Not only that, they will be showing to the country, to the people from all over the world who are witnessing this Expo-1977. Moreover, they will be learning what is going on there. We have been hearing about the green revolution taking place in our country where we must see for ourselves. We expect and our Government expect that if we can bring about the green revolution in agriculture our agriculturists, our officers must know something about it. And that may not be sufficient by simply reading a book or by attending a university or college but by practical demonstration that is to be done in the National Agricultural Expo-1977. As such, I vehemently oppose the cut motion and I support the policy of the Government to participate in the National Agricultural Expo-1977. With these words, I resume my seat. 

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the cut motion. Sir, the question here is whether it is necessary for the Department to take part in that Agri-Expo-1977 at New Delhi. Considering this, on one hand we feel it is necessary and that is why the Government wanted to send people to take part in the Agri-Expo-1977. As the hon. Member who has just spoken before me has expressed that we would learn many things from others also by seeing the things there at New Delhi. But on the other hand Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would submit what we can see in New Delhi is of course what other agriculturists from other part of the country would bring there. But I believe we could see only items, but we cannot produce the same here only by seeing the exhibition. Sir, we are not so much against that scheme, but against this amount which is too big. If we send them there, why not send two or three real progressive farmers of the State ? Because as we have seen here the Government have allotted so big an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for the purpose. There are so many complaints, we understand, about paucity of fund and what I understand now is that the Government have directed that from each Block certain number of farmers would be selected to participate in the exhibition. But I am afraid, those farmers, may not be at all the real farmers. They may not be farmers but rather friends of either politicians or B.D.Os. They may be personal friends of those ....

Shri S. N. Koch :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if such cases are there, the hon. member should cite concrete examples. 

Shri Rowell Lyngdoh :- Yes, there are many cases and there are many complaints on this question but nothing is done because they could not avoid the pleasure of certain officers or because they are friends of somebody they were sent there. We can cite many examples and there are so many Boards, so many Committees and so many missions for which they were sent to visit other States also. But it is of no use citing all these things. My question is that the amount is to big to send them because the State will not be able to get anything from them. What our Department will be showing there will, I think, be of such items that will be pitiful compared to items other States. Sometimes I feel that our State has not been able to concentrate on agriculture as compared to other States. So we would like to suggest that it would have been better if we could send our agricultural experts who have been trained like the B.Sc Agriculture or other experts to go about organising our agriculturists in our State in different areas, train them, show them the new technique in order to produce more and better than before. They can train our agriculturists and cultivators in different areas of the State. So we should not send people to Delhi just to watch and spend Government money without getting any benefit. Of course they may see something  at Delhi which they will tell their own children only, while I do not think they are getting any benefit from the Agricultural Expo-1977 there. They cannot get any help in respect of agriculture and other agricultural fields. So, I would say that perhaps the alternative policy is that instead of sending them like that or instead of spending such a huge amount for that Agricultural Expo-1977 we can spend this amount in helping poor cultivators in our State by way of demonstration and instruction in public or in-groups or we can show them the modern methods of cultivation. So with these few words I support the motion.

        (At this stage Shri O.L. Nongtdu, Chairman occupied the Chair).

*Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the cut motion and in supporting this cut motion, I would like to take the permission of the Chair in reading out a few lines of the extract from a newspaper under the articles on this Agri. Expo-1977 which was published a few days ago from Delhi. It will give us some light on the discussion at hand now and this will be placed on the Table of the House if necessary. I quote from this newspaper article in Agri-Expo - a massive non-event, under the caption "Delhi Affairs", I will just quote a few lines which are relevant to a particular question I would like to make in support of this motion. It is as follows :- "The Agri. Expo-1977 Fair has started on a lame leg. It has failed so far to draw crowds in the real sense. There are hardly farmers to be seen around. There seem to be something fundamentally wrong with the fair. Majority of those who have visited the fair have returned rather unhappy ".

        And then the writer goes on to explain a few of the defects of the fair as to how it is run; how it is not properly explained by the guides and so on. I am not going to dwell on those lines. Then the articles reads- "Lastly, I ask myself the million-rupee question. For whom is this fair meant ? For the recreation of the people of Delhi whose taste fro social and cultural life has been jaded for long ? For the few tourists roaming about Delhi ? Or for the farmers ?

        It is meant for the farmers then whoever planned it did so without any foresight. This is not the time of the year when  a farmer can afford himself a holiday or even a business trip to Delhi to see the Fair. Because it is the rabi sowing season in most of the country and in other parts the kharif harvest time. 

        An educated farmer already using modern and mechanical equipment for farming will not find much to learn here. The uneducated, average farmer cannot afford the expenditure of a trip and stay in Delhi.

        The official conception for the Fair was for giving importance to the development, agricultural and rural sectors. For whom ? Farmers', and that is the factor most missing at the Fair.

        On the whole the Fair seems to be a colossal waste of money, time and man-power unless such a fair can be put on the wheels or can be set up at regional centres to get maximum utility out of it.".

        I wonder the Minister of Agriculture had seen this. If not he can read after I place it on the Table. Now Mr. Chairman, Sir, we are having this fair from 13th November to 14th December about a month. And according to the explanatory note the expenditure is to be incurred by the State for participation in the National Agricultural Expo' 1977 to be held from 13th  November to 14th December. We know that this is the time when many of our farmers are busy and therefore this has been highlighted by this article at this particular time of the year that the farmers are busy.  Whom we are going to send ? We will send Government officers also to take care of the running of the fair. If you take them away at this particular time when farmers are busy and when they need the advice of the agricultural staff, would it not mean taking away people who are needed in the State ? Do we have surplus staff that we can afford to manage the whole affair ?  Then the question of sending is not for a few days but it is for a month before hand and after wards to clear up whatever has been taken for the fair and when to add to what has already been dated by the previous Speakers who supported the cut motion, whatever will be the amount benefited will it be commensurate with the huge amount of 5 lakhs ? I would rather say that this amount have been far better spent if it would be spent in the State or in the Eastern region. The writer of this article had suggested that such a fair could be arranged in the State itself and another method that it could be put within the North Eastern Region where the farmers could see the development to agriculture. The need of improvement to have participation of the State to the extent of 5 lakhs will bring very very little benefit to the State. I do not say that it will bring any benefit but it will certainly not be commensurate with the amount that is to be spent.

        Then the question who is to be sent, perhaps a few farmers may be picked up  here and there. But I have been reliably informed that two members who are politicians are to be put in the list. Well if the department thinks that they will give the benefit to the farmers by sending people who are not farmers, who are representing the State in the District Council and who had been representing in the ruling party, they are doing injustice to the State. I remember, Mr. Chairman, Sir, when the A.P.H.L.C. was the ruling party, we sent a group of farmers to the southern part of India to examine and to work in the border areas to find development. They were not politicians, they were farmers selected from various Blocks in the border areas and it is very distressing to learn that people who are not farmers are being sent. Rather this amount of money could have been used far better improving the research facilities or the development facilities of the Agriculture Department. It is very important for us to help our farmers to increase the yield and to solve the problem of disease of their crops for many years. Since the time that ----- member of the Assam Assembly and subsequently I, along with others perhaps from both sides of the House has been  pressing the Government of India and the various research authorities to set up research organisation programmes of horticulture research and agricultural research and two years ago through many efforts it was finally decided by the Government of India in consultation with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research to set up this research organisation in our State. They have started functioning but it was distressing to learn just a few days ago that there is a considerable amount of frustration on the part of the officers because of land not being made available for this research. They have been here for two years and they have got land from Nagaland and Sikkim but it seems in some hitch. I wonder why the Agriculture Minister did not look into this ? Rather spending 5 lakhs for people on trips to Delhi who are not farmers. To learn the improvement and to help the farmers in their real problems can be best done by demonstration in our State by having a fair of this type in Shillong, Tura or Jowai where many farmers can visit but it is impossible for most farmers to go to Delhi. Yes Government may spend the amount to pay for the whole fair but it is not wise to go to Delhi. I feel it is an unnecessary expenditure. There have been occasions in the past where we have participated in such Nationals Fairs but I do not think this is necessary for us as a State to participate in any fair that takes place in Delhi. We cannot afford the colossal amount of expenditure that seems to be required. I think it is time that the Government should re-examine the policy of participating in such events where the benefit is very little or not at all. therefore, I support this cut motion for examining the necessity and I think it is not necessary to participate in this fair.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr.  Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the cut motion. On the matter of policy I do feel that the Government should not participate in all kinds of fairs and exhibition that are held in Delhi from time to time. I believe a policy has to be evolved on the basis of discretion. At least on this particular fair, that is, the National Agricultural Expo' 1977, I do feel that it is not necessary to participate in this exhibition or fair. I say that because of certain reliable information that I have, apart from the fact that it is not the opportune time and perhaps, as has been commented by certain papers, that is a colossal waste of public money. Apart from that, participation in a fair or exhibition has two types-one, to participate by sending experts and farmers in order to enrich their knowledge; and secondly, participating in the form of exhibiting our products. Now, in this case, the participation from our State has fallen into the latter category. My information is that of this amount of Rs.5 lakhs an amount of less than Rs. 4 lakhs is involved in the construction of a pavilion or a stall and an amount of about Rs. 25,000 in the shape of of providing electricity to the pavilion. Now, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that anybody who had gone to Delhi and witnessed the pavilion of the Meghalaya State would come to the conclusion that the amount spent on the building is not commensurate with the building which has come up. The amount spent is about Rs.3,75,000 but according to my information on the objective assessment made by a technical personnel, the amount could not be more than a lakh of rupees. I think the Minister of Agriculture should satisfy himself by going there and see the shape of things. This is outrageous. In fact, it is a talk of a number of responsible persons and that it is verging on being a scandalous affair. I would like also to bring to the attention of the House that the amount of Rs.25,000 spent on electricity was ill-spent. On two or three occasion there was no light in the pavilion and it was black out. Everybody was saying : What has happened to the Meghalaya Pavilion ? It is all dark. It is very serious I think ......

Shri M. N. Majaw :- The whole fair was not under black-out ?

Shri P. R. Kyndiah :- No, only this. Another matter which I would like to put before the House is that when we had a fair of this nature, like the Asia 1972, I remember that even a small Stall, at that time, was carefully planned and the architecture had to reflect the Meghalaya genius. But in this case, this is absolutely and totally absent ; it is just a ramshackle structure which does not reflect at all the beauty of Meghalaya not to speak of the products or exhibits. Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House-it is scandalous if it is true. Out of the amount of Rs.3,75,000 meant for the construction of the building-it is given to a contractor from Calcutta-75 per cent was given as advance to the contractor. How do we expect to get results ? I do not know how this can happen, but it happened. Let the Minister reply to it. I believe this matter is very serious. Therefore, if this kind of expenditure and waste goes on with the exhibition or fair of this type. I really feel that there is no need for us to participate in this kind of exhibition. Therefore, with these few informations that I bring to the House I support the cut motion.

Mr. Chairman :- Now the Minister to reply. 

*Shri E. Bareh  Minister, Agriculture, etc.) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, at the first instance I would like to express my gratefulness to the members who have brought the cut motion against participation of the Agriculture Department of Meghalaya in the Agricultural Expo' 1977 by bringing up certain things. It seems to be very objectionable to them. But I won't say anything right now because there are subject to enquiries and verification. But I will, first of all, touch upon how we take pat in this fair. " The Government of India decided to hold a National Agricultural Fair in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, for a month starting from 14th of November 1977. To this Fair, neighbouring countries and International Firms connected with agriculture and allied sectors have also been invited. This Fair has been named as "Indian Agricultural Exposition" (Agri. Expo) 1977. The Exposition is designed to cover all aspects of Indian agriculture and allied industries, and the objective is to depict achievements in the fields of agriculture and allied sectors with particular emphasis on progress in research and technology, production, land reforms, rural development and export capabilities. To disseminate proper information on the progress made in the field of agriculture and allied sectors, the Government of India desired and requested all the State Governments to participate in the Exposition." So the Government of India had written to our Government expressing its desire that we, as a State Government, also should take part in this Fair. The matter here is that we have already taken part in this Exposition, 1977 and I will come to the point raised by the hon. Member about the defects here and there and about the criticisms here and there later. But I will now only touch upon the point as to what is the benefit we will be deriving from this participation in this Fair. Mr. Chairman, Sir, as you know, in Meghalaya agriculture is not only a vocation for the people. It is a way of life. The vital role which development in the fields of agriculture and allied sectors is expected to play in the all-round development of the State cannot be over-emphasised. On the other hand, we have many peculiar problems which do not get proper recognition at different forums.

        In order to project our land, our people and our way of life so that our problem can be understood in their proper prospective, we found this opportunity of participating in the Agriculture Exposition, 1977 almost professional. There is also a need to familiarise our State and the people of the country as a whole. Such familiarisation will make it easier for the people of Meghalaya to participate effectively in achieving national objectives of economic development and social justice. Meghalaya has got many produces in agriculture and allied sectors for which proper markets are to  be developed by our participation. The hon. members will be very happy to learn that the Meghalaya State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. have received a very encouraging trend from the visits to the Fair and thereby people are getting away all the agricultural produces and crafts to Meghalaya. All these factors were taken into account and the Government decided to participate in the Agriculture Exposition, 1977. This is the National Agricultural Fair and I would also like to inform the members of this House that we have already got one First Prize and one Second Prize in this Fair. One First Prize from Pine-apple and the Second Prize from Banana. The  whole intention is how to project our image so that the people could know what we produce here and where to find market for that. We expect that in the long run the profit will be so much for the State when we take part in this Fair. The hon. Member has raised a point about the procedure for sending our farmers to the fair. I am sorry Mr. Chairman, Sir, to say that because we are not selecting the farmer ourselves and the Department did not select the farmers the Department has requested the Chairman of the B.D.Cs to select the farmers from their Blocks five (5) from each Block. That is, Mr. Chairman, Sir, it is up to them to select and then send to us. And I will not agree that only because I am a public representative,  I have lost my original profession and that is a farmer. I am a farmer even now and I am a politician at the same time. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I cannot give up my original profession as a farmer because I maintain my livelihood from my cultivation. Is there any bar to send a progressive farmer to the Fair only because he happens to be also a public representative Mr. Chairman,  Sir ?

Shri P. R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, what is the directive principle of the Government ? Is it not correct on the part of the Minister to enquire into.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Yes, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I told that I will enquire into the matter.

Shri H. E. Pohshna :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, whether all staff are farmers ?

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, Mr. H. Hadem, the hon. Mover of the Cut Motion asked what is the benefit for spending so much money. I think, Mr. Chairman, Sir, that point has been taken up in the first instance and I will not go into it again. Mr. Rowell also asked what is the necessity for taking part in this Agriculture Exposition,  1977.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I oppose that the Minister addressed the hon. Member as Mr. Rowell instead of addressing him as the hon. Member from Mawkyrwat.

*Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Thank you my best friend. You are correct.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, that is not the way to address the hon. Member of the House in  a session like this.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Alright you can raise it as a point of order. Mr. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy, M.L.A. from Shella has referred to certain press clipping. I think, Mr. Chairman, Sir, that press clipping is not so much the concern of our State as it is so much with the Government of India who decided to hold this fair at that time and in such a manner. On this point I have nothing to reply because it is the affair of the Central Government.

        He also pointed out about the number of the officials being sent to Delhi for more than a month. Yes, we have to send the officials to make the arrangements for the fair and on this, Mr. Chairman Sir, we have had a very short time at our disposal. We did not keep one officer for the entire period, but we sent them by rotation because we need their services in our State also. Regarding the farmers who will go to see the fair. I have already replied to that point. The hon. Mover from  Shella also mentioned that he would appreciate, if this type of fair could be arranged in the north eastern region. That very fact shows that there must be a benefit by such kind of fairs, otherwise he would not have suggested for holding such fair in the north eastern region. He also suggested that rather than spend this amount in taking part in this fair, it would have been properly used for useful purpose for improvement of the Research Centre here in our State. For this I would like to mention that the Central Research Centre has been established here. But the only complaint here is that land is not being made available to this Research Department of the Government of India for their research complex. I can assure the Ex-Minister that I will certainly look into the matter and we will try to solve the difficulty. The development activities in this district could not progress because of the peculiar land tenure system and this has always put a check on our development programme. However, I will make it a point to enquire into it and see if we can give our help to this department.

        Let me come to the hon. Member from Jaiaw, I hope I got him correctly this time. In his observation, he has brought certain things which I appreciate very much. But that has not come to our knowledge. While we plan for taking part in this Expo1977,  we call for tenders for construction of pavilion. We sent our Engineers to Delhi to see to this and we have given a contract to one firm which has quoted the lowest rate. How he was paid 75 per cent as advance is really a shock to me because the money was deposited with the fair authority and not paid direct by our Agriculture Department to the contractor and it was the fair authority who made the payment to the contractor from time to time. However, I will certainly look into it and find out what actually happened when I go to Delhi day after tomorrow.

        Regarding the amount of Rs.3 lakhs that we have spent for construction of the pavilion, we have already accepted the tender and measurement of the work will be taken. I will also check this up when I go to Delhi. Regarding electricity, we called for a quotation and if we spent Rs.25,000 on  electricity that also is a surprise to me. But I will certainly look into all this. When  we have spent so much money how could such things happen in our pavilion ? Now about the policy of taking part in such types of fair, I think the whole intention is to project our State, to project our products so that the whole country will know about it. Of course this is not a fixed policy. We will have to consider whether it is possible for our State to take part in such fair. As I have said in the beginning, I am very happy that through this cut motion certain things have come to light and have come to my knowledge and I am happy that these things came to ,my knowledge before I leave for Delhi for the Expo 1977. However, Mr. Chairman, Sir, the money has already been spent and even if I want to recall it back, I cannot. But it is good that we discuss here so that it will be a guidance for the Government in the future and for me and for all of us as to how we should properly utilise the amount meant for such fair so that more benefit will be brought to our State. So with this, I request the hon. mover to kindly withdraw this cut motion.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, this is a policy cut as already mentioned by the Member advocate. As such, I have also raised a point here that I could not see any benefit out of this fair. After hearing the reply from the Minister in charge who informed us that the benefit by spending Rs. 5 lakhs was first prize a pine-apple and second prize a banana and with such poor prizes, I am not convinced with the reply of the Minister and I am sticking to my cut motion.

Mr. Chairman :- I put the cut motion before the House that the total provision of Rs.5,00,000 under Supplementary Demand No.11 Major Head 305-Agriculture/306-I-Minor Irrigation/295-other Social and Community Services/283-Housing-C-Government Residential Building at Page 12 of the List of Supplementary Demand be reduced to Re.1 i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.5,00,000 do stand reduced to Re.1.

        (The cut motion was lost by voice votes).

        Now there is another cut motion in the name of Shri S.P. Swer. Now Shri S..P. Swer to move the cut motion.

Shri S. P. Swer :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, the points which I intend to raise in the cut motion were already discussed in cut motion No.1 therefore I will not move my cut motion.

Mr. Chairman :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion ? (Voice- Yes, yes). The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn.

        Now I put the question before the House that an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "305-Agriculture 306-I-Minor Irrigation/295-Other Social and Community Services/283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings".

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed)

        Now we will come to Demand No.12. Minister in charge of Community Development to move.

Shri Grohonsing A. Marak (Minister, C.D.) :- On the recommendation of the Governor, I beg, Sir, to move that an additional amount of Rs.8,70,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head  "314-Community Development and 283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings and 288-Social Security and Welfare".

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. Since there is no cut motion I put the question before the House that  an additional amount of Rs.8,70,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head  "314-Community Development and 283-Housing-C-Government Residential Buildings and 288-Social Security and Welfare".

        (The motion was carried and the demand was passed)

        Now we come to Demand No.13. Minister in charge of P.W.D. to move.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D.) :- Mr. Chairman Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that  an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "459-Capital Outlay on Public Works".

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. I have got one cut motion which stands in the name of Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy. Shri. S.D.D. Nichols-Roy to move the cut motion.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.1,50,000 under Supplementary Demand No.13 Major head  "459-Capital Outlay on Public Works". Minor head-C-Construction-Sub-head-(b)-General purpose-Office and Administrative Buildings for all Services, Detailed head 11 "Geology and Mining (Plan), at page 14 of the List of Supplementary Demands of Rs.1,50,000 do stand reduced to Re.1.

Mr. Chairman :-  Motion moved. Now you can initiate the discussion.

*Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, this is a very simple cut motion because it deals with the policy of the Government buildings in Shillong, where we have a large number of Government buildings which we have not utilised for the purpose of the Government of Meghalaya. This demand is to build an office building and I believe that it is far better for us to wait if necessary for a couple of years, until the  present Government building. I mean a particular Secretariat which I have in mind which has been loaned to the University and once the University has set up its own building in their own campus, I presume that these buildings will be free and other Department including this one can move to that building. I think the rent of office building will be almost the same with the amount spent for the construction of such buildings in a few years. So I would like to urge upon the Minister in charge of P.W.D. and the Department concerned to reconsider this demand because it is really not necessary to construct a new office building when we have surplus Government buildings to accommodate other Departments. That is why I put this cut motion to oppose the policy for unnecessary expenditure, when there are adequate Government buildings for the Government of Meghalaya. It would be economically wrong for us, I believe, to spend money on buildings at this particular time. That is the only reason why I have brought this cut motion for reconsideration of the idea of constructing a building in Shillong.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D.) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I do not know how to construct the buildings, I only know how to execute the work. And since there is a need for such office buildings for the Directorate of Mineral Resources, we will have to consider their need because this amount has already been passed during the budget session. This Department cannot execute the work, so this is only for the transfer of this amount.

Shri B. B. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, on a point of order, I may remind the Hon'ble Minister and the House that there is already a direction from the Speaker that the Government will function as one and now why one Minister is shifting his burden to the other Minister. It is a wrong policy and this kind of reply is not right before the House.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D.) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, let me make it clear. This demand has already been passed in the Budget Session. But the Mineral Resources Department cannot take up the construction work, so the construction has been taken up by the P.W.D. Therefore, it is only a question of changing the head of account. Sir, it is also a policy matter whether we should construct more buildings in Shillong when there are many Government buildings which are not yet utilised by the State Government. Mr. Chairman, Sir, even at present here are many Government Departments which are still housed in rented buildings and that is a fact and we cannot deny though there are other buildings which we have also allowed other Departments to use. The major part of this Directorate is being housed in a rented building at a monthly rent of Rs.1,597.12p and as Government could not provide suitable place in the existing buildings to house this Department where the total strength of the staff and officers is 160 out of which 26 officers are to be provided with proper office accommodation besides its machineries plus a fleet of vehicles and other stores on one compact building. And in the land at Risa Colony we have proposed to construct a building for officers' accommodation and the laboratory which is already existing there, which is being used right from the time of Assam Government. It was therefore, considered proper that the whole Directorate should be housed in one compact complex for increased efficiency. That is the criterion whether we will have to construct the additional building for this Department or not. So this is the money which has already been sanctioned by the House in the Budget Session. Now my only request is to change the head of account so that the P.W.D. can take steps to construct these buildings in the site where a part of the Department is already functioning so that it will be one complete complex and that more efficiency can be attained. Therefore, whether we should construct this building or not is a new idea to us and certainly we will consider if it is convenient to house this Department in different buildings and we will really consider it if it will be possible on our part.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, the suggestion made by me was that the horse shoe building which has been given to the University will be vacated after a couple of years and at the time other Government offices can be very well housed in that building. That is my main suggestion here.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D. etc) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, this Department has already been functioning in that building at Risa Colony and whether it will be convenient to split them is another question to be considered here. Sir, I will consult the department whether it will be convenient on their part to do so and if it will be convenient then we will certainly consider the proposal. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to request the hon. mover to kindly withdraw his cut motion.

Shri S. D. D. Nichols-Roy :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that I particularly brought this cut motion to draw the attention of the Government to this particular matter as we all know that within two or three years many Government buildings will be vacated where we can easily house those departments which are in rented houses. But while taking into consideration the need and the circumstances as explained by the Minister, P.W.D. I withdraw my cut motion.

Mr. Chairman :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion ?

        (Voices-Yes yes). The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn.

        Now I put the main question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "459-Capital Outlay on Public Works".

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

        Now let us come to Demand No.14. The Minister incharge of P.W.D. to move.

Shri E. Bareh (Minister, P.W.D.) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.51,62,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "499-Capital Outlay on Special and Backward Areas-C-North Eastern Areas."

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. Since there is no cut motion on this demand, I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.51,62,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "499-Capital Outlay on Special and Backward Areas-C-North Eastern Areas."

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

        Now let us come to Demand No. 15. The Minister incharge of Industries to move.

Shri Maham Singh (Minister, Industries, etc.) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.104 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "526-Capital Outlay on Consumer Industries".

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. Since there is no cut motion on this demand, I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.104 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head  "526-Capital Outlay on Consumer Industries".

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

        Now let us come to Demand No.16. The Minister incharge of Urban Development to move.

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Urban Development) :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor, I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.2,41,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "684-Loans for Urban Development".

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. Now, I have got as many as four cut motions on this demand. The first cut motion stands in the name of Shri Humphrey Hadem. Mr. Hadem, you may move your cut motion.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.2,41,000 under Supplementary demand No.16, Major Head "684-Loans for Urban Development", at page 17 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Re.1, i.e. the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.2,41,000 do stand reduced to Re.1.

Mr. Chairman :- Motion moved. Now you can initiate the discussion.

*Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Chairman, Sir, I have got a few points to bring to the notice of the Government. Sir, according to the information received so far and also according to the reply given by the Minister in charge, some preferences were given to those shops whose stalls were dismantled in Polo ground modern market complex. Sir, during the question hour I could not here properly because the sound was very feeble, but even then so far as I could understand that only four or five applicants were considered for giving the stalls, I mean the stalls in the modern market complex. Sir, so far as I understand the actual dealers did not get the stalls though they were promised at the time of dismantling their shops that a suitable office would be given in that new market complex. As such I want to have a clear clarification on this matter as to how these people have been treated and what action has been taken by the Government to provide them  with some alternative arrangements. I also want to know about the future plan of the Government in view of the genuine necessity of those traders who were evicted from the previous market place. Over and above this I have also learned that there were some village headman, under whose recommendations such stalls were provided to those persons who had no such shops there before. With these few words I move my cut motion.

(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

*Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may be allowed to speak as I have also a cut motion on this grant. I would like to support the cut motion moved by the hon. Member from Mynso. In the explanatory note given by the Minister of State at page 17 of the List of Supplementary Demands, it has been  stated that the scheme was financed partly by the State Bank of India and partly be realisation of advance rent from the allottees. We are told that the advance share was made by some of the allottees of the stalls. But due to financial hardship they failed to pay their respective share in advance. Now I would like to know how many who did not pay or failed to pay their advance rent. How many of the stalls are proposed to be distributed. As regards the question that an amount of Rs.2,41,000 has to be distributed equally among all the allottees who failed to pay the advance rent to the Municipality, may I also ask whether at the time of dismantling of this area and the huts any correct and comprehensive list was made out of the affected and afflicted persons. The intention of the Government is that all those persons who have lost their possessions would be rehabilitate in some way or other by giving them alternative source, namely, trading within this Modern Complex. Now, this is a very important matter and the amount Rs.2,41.000 is going to be distributed. It says here that it is proposed to make the amount available considering the financial hardship of the allotters who failed the pay the share in advance. It is proposed to make the amount of Rs.2,41,000 available to the Shillong Municipality and loan in the shape of share of the allottees. Now, how is this share be given out. How many have paid their advance rent. Therefore, I would like to have a break-up in reply of the subject about tribals and non-tribals. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I point out whether political, economic, administrative and judicial power has several needs and unlimited time that certain persons only were allotted the stalls. This list has been laid on the Table of the House. But Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find in the report at page 1 the growing population in Shillong. Now it comes to light that 40,000 ration cards have been surrendered and in spite of that today there is still an excess. The number of ration cards has exceeded and the actual populations in Shillong has been increased. The influx of people from outside is due to opening of new Central Government offices and also the influx is due to the business communicates from out side the State. I would like to point out to the influx of people belonging to business communities from outside the State and the Government has admitted that there has been such influx. I would like to know these persons who somehow came and settled down within this area of Polo ground and are now demanding accommodation in the modern market.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- The list has not been placed. It will be finalised later.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find it on my table and I saw that it has already been placed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been distributed to all the members. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a mater of protection and of national integrity and for the interests of the tribal people; it is a matter that is exercising the mind of all the members of this House. I humbly submit that to influence through wealth, through money as a power has far-reaching consequence. That the person comes into the State gets help from the Government and gets his existence and is trying to undertake some humble profession. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this trading business a political intention to derive financial power and political power ? So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, anyway, having any community in the State, I must insist that while we are taught, to love our neighbours, we are also taught 'the charity begins at home', therefore, I would request the Minister of State, through you, Sir, that Government should take special care for allotting these stalls and we would have thought that distribution of stalls has a bearing on the percentage of population in the State. At least 80 per cent would be given to the tribals and 20 per cent to the non-tribals. But as we learnt from the reply to the question that the number of stalls will be 104 to the tribals and 106 to the non-tribals.

*Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- May I just Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, intervene ? I have been informed this morning by my colleague, the Minister of State,  Municipal Administration, that this Bazar was constructed for rehabilitation of those shop-keepers who were previously kept along the load, those who were running the shops  and only those shops which have been dismantled, that a new complex has been constructed. Therefore, the question of 80 per cent for the tribals does not arise. It is a question of rehabilitation. 

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- May I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, before Government dismantle these shops, do Government try to find out how many of these people were genuine citizens of the State. This is a great problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, because a large number of persons have come to our State and because of peculiar circumstances obtaining in the State, it is impossible to distinguish between them who came here a few year back and the persons who came here 30 years back who have become Bara Babus in some offices in Shillong. Also those who were born and brought up here in Shillong as many of them have occupied those stalls. Their eviction will be really a great problem. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether I wonder whether a careful examination was made at that time before these stalls were dismantled, in order to find out the bonafides of those persons who were made permanent residents of this State. It is hard to prove whether they have got the residential permits or whether they posses the citizenship certificates as required under the law. I remember we have not been able to pass the  Residential Permit Bill.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just point out to the hon. member that we do not have a separate citizenship for each State but what we have got is the Indian citizenship.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- About the foreigners Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my connection and the contention of many of the hon. Members in this House that there are at least 40,000 foreigners who have come from one particular country to this town of Shillong. This is proved from the electoral roll and the ration cards Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. Therefore, the Government has not yet succeeded in giving us a clear criterion laid down how to distinguish between the person who came here one or two years before and the one who came several years ago. I would like the Government to enlighten us to the criteria of distinguishing a man who came a few years ago and the one who came several years ago. There are ways but the Government have not employed those ways.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- What are the ways ?

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- If only the Government were really sincere to hunt and locate and to root out the foreigners who are in our State we would have a tremendous solution to the problem of water the problem of rent, the problem of housing, to the problem of food and supply in this beautiful city of Meghalaya. Now, Sir, once you give him financial power, the man who controls over the financial destiny of this city, you may say good-bye to the political power. There is, Sir, a kind of wedge between the financial power and the political power and with the money, an unscrupulous businessman can purchase with due respect even  the Minister. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to get a very clear reply from this highly intelligent, active and very qualified Minister of State as to the number of applications that have been received in the first place. Secondly, how many of them had paid the advance rent. Thirdly, whether the Government has made a very clear examination or a census of the inhabitants of that area before they dismantled the huts and shops and fourthly, any help that has been given to those who have also compiled with the rules of the Shillong Municipality and whether they have all paid the advance rent or not.

Prof. Alexander Warjri :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like that my cut motion be clubbed together with this. Taking part in this cut motion, I would like first of all to express my gratitude to the Government, i.e., the A.P.H.L.C. Government which has taken up a scheme of dismantling the very eye sore of Shillong. I am saying this specifically because that place falls within my constituency. But at the same time, I regret when I heard from the Minister that a Committee had been constituted in which the M.L.A. of this Constituency in which this modern market complex had been built, was not consulted or included in any way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like also to contradict what the Chief Minister has just stated that all the ships have been dismantled. I know for a fact that there are quite a number of shops on the other side of the stream that have not bee dismantled. The reason, must probably, was that there is no place for those shops or that there are some complications and I would like to know from the Minister in-charge whether any settlement had been made regarding the ownership of that famous triangle including the stream side, whether it falls within the Government land or it belongs to some other claimants. Now, Sir, regarding the settlement of the land, I want to know what are the modes of settlement of land within the Shillong Municipality ? Not only with regard to the money taken for this particular purpose but there are amounts or loans that had been taken by the Municipality from the Government or from the banks with security from the Government. I would like to know further from the Minister concerned whether this kind of model complex, modern market, would be only located in that places or whether there is any intention to build some other markets like this in places like Malki or in some other places where there are markets, which are somehow or other out-dated.

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

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, first of all I would like to thank the hon. mover and also hon. Members who have taken part in this cut motion for having expressed their concern over their welfare of the people of the State, particularly, that of the tribals. I would like to inform them through you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that having decided to build that modern market complex in that place with a view to do away with that eye-sore, as one of the hon. Members has stated, from this beautiful city of ours, ways and means had to be devised how to finance this project and we are fortunate that the State Bank of India have come forward to extend the loan of Rs.5,60,000 which is only a part of our requirement. And the bank also while extending this financial aid had put some conditions in such a way that there shall also be some amount of contribution from the beneficiaries themselves. So, in this way, at the first instance the Municipality authority thought that we can supplement the shortfall by raising some contributions from amongst the beneficiaries themselves by way or advance rent. One thing we should remember since we have committed to construct this market and when it is to be constructed, it has to be completed. In course of time, it was found that most of the beneficiaries, the people who are likely to be benefited out of this complex, are not in a position to fulfill their parts of contribution. So, in this respect while we were earmarking as many as 210 stalls to be allotted, out of which we found that there will be as many as 106 non-tribals and the rest will be tribals. We found that only 70 such people could come forward and contribute their share. But then what to do at least the complex has to be completed, but the contractors who are taking up the work have to be paid, so rather than to wait indefinitely for those people to come forward and contribute their share, we thought that the best course would be to advance from the Government instead to waiting for their contributions and what it will be subsequently realised, in each case, from those people who will be given the stalls by way of rent. So the point raised by the hon. Member from Mawhati as to how this amount is going to be distributed does not arise and perhaps I can clarify here this point that the amount will not be distributed to anybody. This amount will be used for meeting the expenses already incurred in building this modern market. So no one is going to get the financial benefit directly from this amount.

        Then as regards the point raised by the hon. Member from Mawhati whether the Government had properly examined or listed the people whose shops were being demolished so that they can be listed among the beneficiaries. I can state here that has been done. Now as regards the question of allotting any stall to any of the foreigners we are also very particular to see that no foreigners should be there. However, in course of time, if it is found that there is such a person, than we will surely take some steps to oust him from that place. So I do not see any need for apprehension in  this respect. I think Mr. H. Hadem would like to know also the fact that as many as 104 stalls are earmarked for the tribals out of which only 45 of them have come forward to contribute their shares. But even here, so far only 25 of them have come forward to occupy those stalls. Now as to the question of whether there is any difficulty in  allotting these stalls, rather I would like to seek the co-operation of the hon. Member to suggest as to who may be able to contribute their shares. I would request them to co-operate to suggest the persons who could really run the stalls and are ready to contribute their share. Sometimes it is a little embarrassing on the part of some Members to......................helping some politicians or headmen here and there. But when we allowed the stall we would like that our people should be given the benefit. It does not matter whether he is a headman or not. I can never agree that being a headman is a disqualification and if that is the case, I do not know where we would land. So I feel that we should be practical and realistic about it and no one is prevented from coming forward with any suggestion that will really help our people. The tragic part of it is that as compared between the tribals and the non-tribals. We found that practically as I said earlier, out of 104 tribals who were already earmarked and in spite of the fact that 15 of them have already contributed then only 25 have come forward to actually occupy the stalls. The rest I think are not coming to do this. We have to be careful about it because we want to avoid benami transaction to take place. Therefore, we would like to seek the co-operation from our friend tom suggest as to who are really the genuine people to be given. 

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- May I ask on a point of clarification, whether the Government will be prepared to accept tribals stall-holders who are being displaced from that market ?

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- Yes, very much. I have declared in the morning that first of all the policy is to rehabilitate those people who have been ousted from that area provided they are interested but we cannot wait indefinitely for  them. There must be a time limit. We may cancel the names of those people who are not interested whatsoever to contribute their share and the benefit may be given to other tribals.

Shri H. Hadem :- On a point of clarification, whether it is 106 people who have turned up as I do not know the exact number ?

Shri Upstar Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :-With the tribals you know we found so much difficulty. But then as I said the same principal will apply here. If out of these 106 who have been deprived of their business and thereby deserved allotment if they do not come forward we cannot wait for them indefinitely. Then, we shall have to consider the case of the genuine people who are interested to come forward and run their business in the market. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member from Mawkhar about the constitution of the Committee. I may say rather that this Committee had been there already before I took over. Since I took over I do not like to disturb the earlier composition of that Committee. The hon. Member must have taken note of all those names. I do not see any difficulty if he would also like to come and share the burden of the responsibility of distributing these stall since he happens to be the representative from the Constituency where this market falls. We surely consider his inclusion in the Committee also. So with these few clarifications which I hope my friends will be satisfied, I would request them to withdraw the cut motion.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Still two more clarifications. We are grateful for the sincere approach. May we know categorically whether we can recommend applications by having type of persons who will not use these stalls in  the benami transaction and who are particularly educated people who are employed. While the Government recommend any advance from the State Bank of India and the State bank of India is helping them. What is the advance rent, may we know the amount.

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- The amount of the rent is to be made formally on two years advance. It varies from shops to shops depending on the size of the stalls. But then as regards the question raised by the hon. Member I am afraid I cannot give any assurance since I am not a member of that committee. Let this committee process the applications. Surely we should try to really help these people who deserve help.

Shri A. Warjri :- Another point of clarification. What will be the mode of repayment of the loan by the Municipality?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- The mode of repayment will be by reduction from the rent to be realised.

Mr. Speaker :- Your question is of repayment to the bank or to the Government ?

Shri A. Warjri :- Since it is mentioned loan from the bank !

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- This loan is taken from the State Bank of India and with the other part of the loan,  we have thought of making it by propounding a formal two years' advance loan for the beneficiaries which will be adjusted against rent payable by them when they will be occupying the stall. This is the concern of the Municipality to repay the loan to the bank and of course the Government has to stand surely for that. 

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Excuse me, Sir, one point is not very clear. Those allottees who were not able to give advance rent, will they be allotted not in view of the proposal before the House because of this demand. Will they be allowed to occupy the stalls without paying the advance rent ? How the Municipality will collect back the rent if in the first instance they have not given advance rent ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- I think it is explained. The intention is to advance from the Government to enable completion of the market because of the fact that those deserving people who are supposed to occupy the allotted stalls cannot afford to pay, but if they cannot pay all at a time,  at least they are expected to pay monthly rent.

Mr. Speaker :- There are two aspects of the matter  of repayment of the loan by the Municipality to the State Bank of India. There is always a procedure. Here is a question in what manner will Government recover the loan from the allottes because loan was given by the Government on behalf of the allottees.

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- This is the loan given on behalf of the allottees through the Municipality and the Municipality will take the responsibility to repay the loan to the Government.

Mr. Speaker :- It appears some of the Members are not clear about the shops.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- In that case we may suggest that the rent be collected at least advance on the first day of each month so that you can take action against the persons who occupy the stall without paying rent.

Mr. Speaker :- I think the Hon'ble Minister invites any other member to assist him with advice.

Shri A. Warjri :- One thing is not clear regarding shops that are still standing on the other side. When shops have been dismantled how is it that some shops are still there ?

Shri U. Kharbuli (Minister of State, Municipal Administration) :- It is true some of the shops are still on the road side though the intention of the Government is to clear them. It is very difficult even to make the market attractive as long as those stalls are still there. But here again it involves ......

Mr. Speaker :- I think I will help the Minister. I think the owners of these shops on the other side have got an injunction from the Court and so we cannot discuss it here. The Government can take up until the whole procedure is gone through. What about the mover ?

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of the intelligent and wise reply of the Minister I withdraw my cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the Hon. Member leave of the House withdraw the cut motion ? (Voices-Yes, yes). The cut motion with leave of the House withdrawn. So also the cut motions which stand in the name of Shri A. Warjri and Prof. M. N. Majaw clubbed with cut motion of Shri H. Hadem stand withdrawn. Now the other cut motion stands in the name of Mr. Jackman Marak but the whole thing has been discussed. So his cut motion is deemed to have been withdrawn. Let me put the question before the House.

       The question is that an additional amount of Rs.2,41,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1978 for the administration of the head "684-Loans for Urban Development".

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

Demand No. 17

Shri Blooming B. Shallam (Minister of State, i/c Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.13,500 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March 1978 for the administration of the head "688-Loans for Social Security and Welfare-I-Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Schemes".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. There are three cut motions. The first cut motion stands in the name of Shri W. Syiemiong. He is absent.

        Cut motion No.2 stands in the name of Prof. Majaw.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the total provision of Rs.13,500 under Supplementary Demand No.17. Major Head "688 Loans for Social Security and Welfare-I-Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Schemes-B-Rehabilitation Schemes Sub-head (f) Business loans to Indian Repatriates from Burma-Detailed head-I-Loans (non-Plan) at page 18 of the List of Supplementary Demands be reduced to Re.1, i.e., the amount of the whole Supplementary Demand of Rs.13,500 do stand reduced to Re.1.

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

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Here also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have to rely upon the Explanatory Notes given by the Minister. The explanation in  the List of Supplementary Demands at page 18 reads as follows : "An amount of Rs.13,500 is required for immediate sanction of additional business loans sanctioned by the Government of India to seven families of Indian repatriates from Burma. As there is no budget provision  during the year 1977-78 to meet the expenditure an amount of Rs.13,500 was taken as advance from the Contingency Fund. Hence the Supplementary Demand  to regularize the advance taken.

        I would like to know in the first place, whether in selecting the 7 families  the State Government has had any hand or a role to play in perhaps, recommending the names of the families. We remember that in the past there had been cut motion on this particular type of loan being advanced to the business families of a particular community. But we would  like to have more details as to how these loans are given out to them and : if this is such a regular  feature in the Budget, then how is it that the Finance Department of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department did not think of foretelling the need for giving loans to these persons I would like to know whether the Government should consider granting of loans to the business  families  from other communities. These are a number of displaced persons, the Khasi people who have come from the neighbouring countries, the  Garos also and others  like the Punjabi, Bengalese and so many other communities. Why should only one community be  selected for this business  loan and how did the Department over look this ? What is the need for  such urgency  in giving advance from the Contingency Fund, if the Government could have waited till after  passing  the Supplementary Demands. I would like to have a reply on his question. 

Shri Blooming B. Shallam (Minister of State, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the mover of the cut motion and also to inform the House that this scheme of giving business loans to the seven families is a scheme of the Central Government. In fact, we are only carrying out the instruction given by the Government of India.

Mr. Speaker :- These seven families were selected by the Government of India and the State Government have no hand in it?

Shri Blooming B. Shallam (Minister of State, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Yes, and this amount could not be paid up during 1976-77 as there were certain procedural difficulties. This time, since the Government has given the sanction and the question of giving loan to other business communities, the Garos, the Bengalese and the Punjabis as proposed by the hon. Member earlier does not arise and as this is the scheme initiated by the Government of India and  that we are only carrying out the instruction as a State Government, the question of giving to other communities does not come in the picture. As I have already stated this amount could not be disbursed last year and so we have placed it now for regularisation of the amount sanctioned by the Government of India to be reimbursed to the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- For the information of the hon. Member, I would like to give this information that there are a member of Garo refugee families, who have been given business loan in Garos Hills. These Garos, migrated from the then East Pakistan who came in 1964. Then there are some families in Shillong who have got these business loans. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that this particular community has been given special consideration.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- If I remember well, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in earlier years there used to be a longer list of the loanees. What happened to them ? Have they passed away? (Laughter)

Shri Blooming B. Shallam (Minister of State, Relief and Rehabilitation) :- Business loans were given to many families. I cannot remember the exact number. But the problem was that when this loan was given to them., at least some families were not given adequate sums of money at that time. So the required amount was provided by the Government of India and this is only to provide them with the required amount which was not adequate at that time.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- In view of the interesting reply given by the Minister, I beg leave of the House to withdraw the cut motion.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his cut motion? (Voices-Yes, yes). The cut motion is with leave of the House withdrawn.

        The next cut motion stands in the name of the Mr. Jackman Marak. But he is absent. So I put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.13,500 be granted to the Minister-in-charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "688-Loans for Social Security and Welfare-I-Relief Measures and Rehabilitation Schemes".

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

        The Chief Minister to move Demand No.18.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on the recommendation of the Governor I beg to move that an additional amount of Rs.10,68,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "766-Loans to Government Servants".

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. There is one cut motion on this demand which stands in the name of Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy. But he is absent. So let me put the question before the House. The question is that an additional amount of Rs.10,68,000 be granted to the Minister in charge to defray certain charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1978 for the administration of the head "766-Loans to Government Servants".

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

The Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1977.

        Chief Minister to move.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1977.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Bill.

        (The motion was carried and leave was granted).

        But before I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read the message from the Governor.

 

"Raj Bhavan,

 

Shillong.

 

18th November, 1977.

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the introduction of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1977.

 

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH,

 

Governor of Meghalaya".

        Before I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, the copies of the Bill be distributed to the hon. Members.

[After a pause]

        Now the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Bill be introduced.

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

        Before I ask the Chief Minister to move that the Bill be taken into consideration, let me read the message from the Governor.

 

"Raj Bhavan,

 

Shillong.

 

18th November, 1977.

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1977.

 

LALLAN PRASAD SINGH,

 

Governor of Meghalaya".

        Now the Chief Minister to move that the Bill be taken into consideration.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Bill be taken into consideration.

        (The motion was carried).

        Since there is an amendment to the Bill, may I ask the Chief Minister to move the Bill be passed.

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Appropriation (No. III) Bill, 1977 be passed.

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

        Now before we pass on to item No.4 may I inform with the consent of the House, that tomorrow be converted into a working day and that the Censure Motion be taken up tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Shri H. Hadem :- We have got so many programmes tomorrow, Sir.

Government Bill

Mr. Speaker :- Item No. 4. Minister of State, Excise to move.

Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, can we have a full discussion on the Bill ?

Mr. Speaker :-How can you have it unless the Minister has moved the Bill for consideration ? Let the Minister move first.

Shri S. C. Marak (Minister of State, Excise) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Excise (Amendment) Bill, 1977, be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question that the Bill be taken into consideration. The motion is carried and the Bill is now under consideration of the House. What observation do you want to make ?

        What observation do you want to make ?

*Shri H. Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it has been found that the Bill seeks to amend some of the provisions of the existing principal and by that process, it was found that some of the sections were made non-bailable sections and in the financial memorandum it has been stated that the Bill when enacted, will involve no additional expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State. My only observation is that so long the offences under Sections 53 and 61 were balance. But now with the new amendment, the offences under these sections are made non-bailable. But according to me this will involve extra expenditure because the same staff cannot cope with the situation of arresting persons and taking them into custody. Therefore, whether that can be done. I want to have some clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Speaker :- That is anticipatory. When the Government has given the reason and certified that it is not a financial Bill and since the Government says that it will not incur any extra expenditure, whether the offences will be bailable or non-bailable is a different matter which can be discussed in future other wise you should have come forward with an amendment.

        Since there is no amendment, I call upon the Minister to move his motion for passing.

Shri S. C. Marak (Minister of State, Excise) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Excise (Amendment) Bill, 1977 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Excise (Amendment) Bill, 1977 be passed. (The motion was carried and the Bill was passed).

        Before we pass on to Item No. 5, I would like to inform the House that yesterday at 2-30 p.m. my Secretariat received one Bill from the Government viz., the Meghalaya Municipal (Autonomous Districts) Bill, 1977. Since the time is too short we could not send it to the Press. But if the Minister would like to introduce, he can do so. But I feel there will be no time for consideration and passing of the Bill. But that depends on the Minister whether the matter is so urgent or not.

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- For want of time. I think it is better not to move it today.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us pass on to the next item. Chief Minister to present the Annual reports.

Presentation of Reports

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Annual, Reports on the working of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission for the years 1972-73 (from 22nd September, 1972 to 31st March 1973) 1973-74 and 1974-75 together with the Memorandum containing  the comments of the State Government on the said Reports.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No. 6-Mr. S. P, Swer, Chairman PAC. 

Shri S. P. Swer :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Fifth Report, Sixth Report and Seventh Report of the Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No. 7 Mr. Plansing Marak, Chairman, Committee on Estimates.

Shri Plansing Marak :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Third Report and Fourth Report of the Committee on Estimates.

Mr. Speaker :- Item No. 8, Mr. Jormanik Syiem, Chairman, Committee on Government Assurances.

Mr. Jormanik Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Government Assurances.

Obituary references.

Mr. Speaker :- Now we will come to the last item-obituary reference. It is the sense of the House that in case we cannot finish the deliberations right at the dot we may extend the sitting for a few minutes. (Voices-Yes, yes).

Shri W. A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- With your permission, Sir, I would like to make an obituary reference on the death of Shri Prakash Vir Shastri. Shri Prakash Vir Shastri, a member of the Rajya Sabha died in a train accident on the 23rd November, 1977.

        Born in January, 1923, Shri P. V. Shastri earned his Shastri degree from Banaras Hindu University. He took his M.A. degree from Agra University. He was Vice-Chancellor of Gurukul Vrindavan.

        Shri Shastri was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1958 and since then, he had been in Parliament either as  a member of the Lok Sabha or of the Rajya Sabha. At the time of his death, he was a Congress member of the Rajya Sabha, although he was elected as a Jana Sang nominee in 1974. In the general election of 1962 and 1967. Shri Shastri was elected to the Lok Sabha as an Independent candidate. 

        Shri Shastri was internationally known as a leading light of the Arya Samaj, a champion of Hindi, a true nationalist and a forceful orator. He has a chequred political career as a parliamentarian since 1958.

        In his death the country had lost an eminent parliamentarian, a profound Hindi scholar and a crusader liberties.

*Shri B. B. Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House on the passing away of this prominent public leader of the country. The loss to the country is grave and it is out proper that we in this august House express our sense of loss and condolences to the bereaved family.

Mr. Speaker :- I would also like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition on  the tragic demise of Shri Prakash Vir Shastri. He was really a dynamic political leader and a devotee social  worker. I think we Meghalaya in particular should remember more because he was among the first Indian leaders who championed our cause. There was a time when  we were discussing about the struggle for the hill State, but we could not converse with him in Hindi and I remember one of our hon. members Prof. M. N. Majaw, had understood whatever he could talk in those days. I think we should remember him with great respect because he was really the champion of the minorities. Therefore, Shri Shastri had always the champion of the national cause and the minorities. He put before him the national cause. In his death, the nation has lost a great parliamentarian. We all assemble here today to pay our tribute to this noble son of the country and pray to God to grant eternal rest and peace to the departed soul and strength and fortitude to the members of the bereaved family.

        I now request you all to be on your feet and observe silence for two minutes as a mark of respect to the deceased.

(The House observed two minutes' silence)

Adjournment

        The House stands adjourned till 10 A.M. on Thursday, the 1st December, 1977.

Dated Shillong'

D.S. KHONGDUP.

The 30th November, 1977

Secretary,

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

******