Supplementary Budget passed
By Arun Pratap Singh
Gairsain, 23 Aug: On the third and the concluding day of the monsoon session of the state assembly, of the eight bills that were tabled yesterday by the government, 7 were passed by voice vote today, while one was referred to the Select Committee on the demand of the members, all of whom were from the treasury benches. They included Munna Singh Chauhan, Vinod Chamoli, Preetam Singh Panwar, etc. In addition, another legislation which has been returned by the Governor without approval for reconsideration was also referred to a Select Committee. On the proposal of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Speaker Ritu Khanduri Bhushan was authorised by the House to nominate the select committees in this respect.
It may be recalled that, in all, 8 bills were tabled in the House in the last two days. At the same time, a supplementary budget of about Rs 5000 crores was also presented. Today, the Supplementary budget was passed in the House.
The bills are Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act 1916) Amendment Bill 2024; Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1959) Amendment Bill 2024; Uttarakhand Public and Private Property Damage Recovery Bill 2024; Uttarakhand State Legislative Assembly Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2024; Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950) Amendment Bill; Uttarakhand State Sports University Bill 2024; Uttarakhand Labour and Correctional Services Bill 2024 and the Appropriation Bill 2024.
As the bills were passed one by one by the House, and the Uttarakhand Municipal Bodies Act (Amendment) was also passed by the House. During this, Preetam Singh Panwar tried to intervene but was asked to sit down by Speaker Ritu Khanduri Bhushan. This was followed by the call of the minister to pass the next bill, i.e. Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act 1959) Amendment Bill 2024. Before the bill could be declared passed, Munna Singh Chauhan rose and claimed that the government in its hurry to get the bill passed is ignoring some very potential dangers for the state. Reminding the House that the amendment was being sought regarding OBC reservations in the Wards, but it was not proper or appropriate to depend on a so called rapid survey conducted in respect of OBC population in the state. He claimed that the demography of the state was being rapidly changed by immigrants from other states. As far as reservations are concerned, it a state subject to decide reservation of various castes under SC, ST or OBC categories. As per the prevalent rules, only local people are entitled to get reservations under SC, ST or OBC categories but with the help of a rapid survey, it is not possible to determine the actual population of native people under these reserved categories. Claiming that perhaps the government was in a hurry because of certain orders of the High Court, Chauhan reminded that no court of law can direct the legislature to pass certain bills within the time limits prescribed by the court. He demanded that the bill be sent to a Select Committee.
Vinod Chamoli also raised certain pertinent issues and reminded the House that, in 1993, the agitation for a separate Uttarakhand had picked up momentum after the OBC reservations were being implemented. He reminded that Uttarakhand has a very low population of native OBCs and most of the OBCs getting jobs and other benefits are natives of other states like UP. As per the rules, they are not entitled to reservations under these categories, he asserted. He also demanded that the bill be referred to a Select Committee. Preetam Singh Panwar and some other members also associated themselves with Chauhan and Chamoli. Gauging the mood of treasury members, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prem Aggarwal proposed the bill be referred to a Select Committee. As this was done, Munna Singh Chauhan rose again and reminded the House that the issue of OBC reservation of wards was not limited to Municipal Corporations only but also applied to Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats and therefore the bill just passed in respect of the Municipalities also be withdrawn and referred to the Select Committee. To this, Speaker Bhushan objected and reminded him that the bill once passed could not be withdrawn but only amended through an amendment bill which can be tabled in next session.
However, the treasury members appeared adamant on withdrawal of the bill or on inclusion of all the urban local bodies under the purview of the select committee. Cabinet Minister Saurabh Bahuguna also lent support to the demand of including all local bodies under purview of the select committee. Chauhan reminded that there is no specific mention of procedure of deciding OBC wards or reserved wards in any of the bills and therefore without withdrawing the bill, the decision taken by the Select Committee in respect of the Corporations can be applied on all the bodies. To this, the minister agreed and promised that the decision of the Select Committee will apply to all the local urban bodies.
In respect of the bill on the Universities Act, the governor had returned the bill for reconsideration. This bill proposes uniform and centralised laws regarding administration of all state universities. The apprehension is however that this bill has been brought by the government for greater control over functioning of the state universities even when by nature itself the universities are treated as autonomous bodies. As the bill has been returned for reconsideration by the governor, who also happens to be ex-officio Chancellor of all the state universities, the bill has been referred to a select committee.
