![]() Friday, Jul 11, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Special Correspondent
They did not heed the ruling of the Speaker, M.V. Venkatappa, that he would allow them to raise the issue as a short-duration one as it was a subject of urgent public importance (Rule 69). He even allowed the Congress members to begin the discussion, but the Opposition members from the BJP and the All-India Progressive Janata Dal (AIPJD) remained in the well of the House continuing the dharna. When the dharna was on, the Speaker allowed the tabling of the reports of 12 subject committees. The Opposition members raised slogans stating that the Government was "anti-farmer" and "anti-children". The latter was an allusion to the reported cases of food poisoning among schoolchildren, who had partaken of food supplied under the "Akshara Dasoha" scheme. It was the lone JD(U) member, P.G.R. Sindhia, who urged the Speaker to adjourn the House as his Opposition colleagues were unrelenting and wanted the subject to be taken as an adjournment motion (Rule 60). Earlier in the day, the House had been adjourned twice in view of the dharna. What precipitated the dharna by the BJP and AIPJD members was a remark by the Law and Parliamentary Minister, D.B. Chandre Gowda, who wanted to know if the Opposition had given due notice seeking to raise the issue for discussion. Even as the Chair observed that it had received the adjournment notice, which it had converted into one for short-duration discussion and sent it to his (minister's) office in time, the members of the two parties were seen rushing into the well of the House resenting Mr. Gowda's enquiry. Following this, the Chair adjourned the House for 20 minutes. Earlier, the Chair, after a preliminary submission by the Opposition, ruled that it would allow the issue to be discussed as a short-duration matter while the Opposition insisted on the matter being discussed in the form it wanted. Mr. Gowda, who at one stage made it clear that the Government had no objection to a discussion on the issue, said it was left to the Chair to decide in what form it should be discussed. Even if it was allowed, an adjournment motion could be discussed after Question Hour, he added. Following this statement, the AIPJD member, C. Byre Gowda, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Jagadish Shettar, demanded suspension of Question Hour and a review of the ruling. At this stage, Jayaprakash Hegde (Ind.) pointed out that even otherwise, if 23 members favoured a discussion on an adjournment motion, it should be permitted. It was at this stage that Mr. Gowda sought to know if the Opposition had given due notice to raise the matter as an adjournment motion. In his preliminary submission, Mr. Shettar referred to the aerial inspection of drought-affected areas by the Chief Minister, S.M. Krishna, and others on the eve of the session, and said one could understand use of helicopter for inspecting flood-affected areas, but not drought-hit regions. Mr. Shettar and the AIPJD floor leader, B. Somashekar, referred to the irregularities in drought-relief works. Mr. Sindhia wondered whether one should accept the claim of the Centre or the State Government on the funds and the foodgrains released by the former for relief works. By their statements, some State ministers were trying to provoke a confrontation with the Centre to serve their own political ends, he said, and added that the same people had praised the Centre during their visit to Delhi.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|