SRINAGAR: The state government on Tuesday ordered the implementation of the recommendations by House Committees and asked administrative secretaries to strictly adhere to the rules in this regard.
“In pursuance of Rule 308-A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly, the Government is bound to implement the recommendations contained in a report/interim report within six months from the date of presentation of such report/interim report in the House,” reads a circular (25 of GAD) issued here by Commissioner Secretary to government, Khursheed Ahmad Shah.
Accordingly, the government impressed upon all the administrative secretaries to strictly adhere to the rule and implement the recommendations made in the reports laid on the table of the Legislative House from time to time.
“The General Administration Department in coordination with the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs shall ensure close coordination between various departments and Assembly Secretariat for making the functioning of the Committees effective, meaningful and result oriented.”
In case the recommendations are not implemented or partially implemented within the stipulated period, the minister concerned shall make a short statement on the Floor of the House explaining the reasons for non-implementation of such recommendations wholly or partially, the rule says.
If any member is not satisfied with the explanation, he or she may raise a discussion on the report and in that case the Speaker may, if he thinks fit, allow the discussion.
The member raising discussion, as per Rule, is required to give a notice in writing to the Secretary of the House two days in advance of the day on which the discussion is desired to be raised.
“The member who has given notice may initiate the discussion and at the end of discussion concerned Minister shall reply. Any member who has previously intimated to the Speaker may be permitted to take part in the discussion. After discussion, decision of the Speaker shall be final,” the Rule add.
In recent past, a number of House Committees were constituted by the government but there recommendations were barely implemented. Among them included one constituted by the Speaker regarding SRO-105 on granting of mining leases to non-state subjects in Jammu and Kashmir.
The 14-member house panel headed by National Conference legislator and former Speaker of the legislative assembly Mohammad Akhbar Lone unanimous recommendation revocation of the SRO-105. However, the ruling PDP-BJP alliance formed a cabinet sub-committee to “deliberate upon” the house committee’s unanimous recommendation.
The CSC met twice on November 12 and December 14 last year before submitting a memorandum to the state cabinet on 23 December 2016 for considering its “suggestions and advice.” The cabinet despite elapsing of more than five months is yet to take a call on it.
The House committee had concluded that J&K Minor Mineral Concessions, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules (SRO-105 of 2016) was violating all laws protecting interests of the State subjects.
“SRO-105 is in gross violation of the Constitution of J&K, Land Alienation Act, State Subject Law, Transfer of Property Act and Land Grants Act,” reads the report presented in the House in the legislative assembly on June 29 last year.
While stating that only state’s permanent residents have exclusive right over immoveable property in the State, the house panel had said and referred to state subject order of 1927, section 6 of J&K Constitution, Article 370 and 35-A of Indian Constitution, in support of its claim.
The panel had also noted that Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1970, does not impinge upon the exclusive rights of permanent residents of J&K over the immoveable property within the State.”
“The rights of permanent residents have to be respected while framing Rules in exercise of powers section 15 and 23(C) of the Act,” it said.
The committee had observed that SRO-105 “ignores and disregards the constitutional and statutory imperatives relevant to grant of prospecting license, mining lease, quarry license and other minor mineral concessions”.
“It (SRO-105) deprives the permanent residents of the State of their rights. In other words, it throws open mineral concessions within the State, to non-permanent residents,” it said.
The committee has pointed out that the Apex Court judgment (Deepak Kumar versus State of Haryana) is not concerned with the right to claim minor mineral concessions. “The judgment, therefore, shall not be used as a cover to deprive the permanent residents of the state what rightfully belongs to them,” the report said.