Ahmedabad Mayors Arrest

The chairman of the All India Council of Mayors, Mr. Nur-ud-Din Ahmed, said in Poona on September 12 that the delegates attending the sixth annual conference of the council were of the opinion that the Gujarat Government should have granted the parole sought by the Mayor of Ahmedabad, Mr. Dinkar Mehta to enable him to attend the conference.

Mr. Ahmed said he had been authorised by the conference to take the issue up with the Gujarat Government. He said that even in the absence of any statutory obligation to do so, it should be possible to establish a convention of doing the Mayors' conference a courtesy in informing it of the arrest or detention of any mayor. In any case, there should be no bar to a mayor attending the conference.

a

The Madras Corporation framed by-law under Section 349 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act controlling and regulating the display of advertisements. Acting under this by-law, the Corporation issued a notification prohibiting advertisements on side-walls, embankments and railings of viaducts, overbridges, culverts and approaches thereto.

The validity of the by-law was challenged by Messrs V. G. Panneerdas and Co., a firm carrying on business in Saidapet and Thyagarayanagar. It was the contention of the petitioner that it was arbitrary and interferred with private business and imposed an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction on lawful occupations.

His Lordship said that he did not think that the by-law was either unjust, unreasonable or unsound. It was a notorious fact that persons who carried on advertisement business exercised their rights vulgarly by exhibiting advertisements on every conceivable place such as lanes, roads, residential houses, bridges, houses, bridges, hospitals and religious places and thereby made the City ugly, unlovely, ghastly and horrible. Therefore, it was but proper that the Corporation should frame a by-law under their statutory powers

It was for the Corporation to regulate, restrict or prevent the exhibition of advertisements if they were exhibited in such places and in such a manner and by such means as to affect injuriously the life and face of the City. The Corporation must certainly have the power to regulate the methods of advertisements with the object of safeguarding the public from dangerous, obstructive or ugly advertisements. It was a reasonable restrictions. It was true that such a restriction might cause nuisance to some and annoyance to some others. But it

could not for that reason be held that such such a by-law was unreasonable, said His Lordship and dismissed the writ petition. Compulsory Retirement Of Commissioner

Mr. Justice P. S. Kailasam at Madras High Court on August 12 ruled that the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules were applicable to the Municipal Commissioners and upheld the Government order compulsorily retiring a Municipal Commissioner from service.

His Lordship dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of Mr. K. Subbaraman, formerly Municipal Commissioner of Mettupalayam who was compulsorily retired from service by the Government after holding that he was guilty of certain charges of corruption.

In his petition, he submitted that the rules which were framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution, were applicable only to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State.

His Lordship said that in the case of Municipal Commissioners, the State Government was empowered to recover from the Municipal Councils concerned the whole of the salary and allowances paid to the Commissioners appointed by the Government. The salaries of the Municipal Commissioners were paid out of the State funds. As such they came within the scope of Art. 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Pro

Maharashtra

Bombay Corporation Act

The Minister for Urban Development, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria, assured the State Assembly on September 28 that the Government would "seriously consider" the question of appointing a commission or a committee to go into the affairs of the BEST undertaking to recommend measures for putting it on a sound footing administratively and financially.

The Minister was replying to a debate on a Bill to amend the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, empowering the civic body to give the BEST a temporary advance or to transfer any surplus cash balance from any of its budgets to the BEST budget to enable the undertaking to tide over its financial difficulties.

ernment to

The Bill also empowers the State Govregulate water supply in Greater Bombay in the event of an emergency, as happend recently.

The suggestion for setting up a commission or a committee was made during the debate by Dr. P. V. Mandlik (SSP).

Dr. Zakaria said the BEST Undertaking was in financial difficulties. It was not able to balance its budget, as its proposals for an increase in the bus fares had not yet been approved by the Corporation. It had not been able to fulfil its statutory obligations to

allow a cash balance of at least Rs. 1 lakh in its budget and to make a contribution to the municipal fund as required under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

The financial difficulties facing the undertaking were of such a magnitude that only a miracle could enable it to balance its budget.

The question of raising the bus fares, he said, was essentially within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. It was for the Corporation to seriously consider whether it would like to compensate the BEST for its losses or allow it to increase the fares.

After the Minister's reply the Bill was passed in all its three readings.

During the debate, Mr. K. S. Dharia (Cong.) said the bus fares should not be increased but the Corporation should subsidise the BEST.

Dr. Mandlik said the ruling party had brought the undertaking to the verge of bankruptcy.

Breach of Privilege By Bombay
Corporation

The Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly on September 29 accepted here the findings of the privileges committee, holding the Bombay Municipal Corporation guilty of a breach of privilege of the House arising out of the adjournment motion passed by the civic body at its meeting on August 3, 1964.

The Assembly, on a motion of the Chief Minister, Mr. V. P. Naik, called upon the civic body to rescind the resolution it had passed on August 3. In case the Corporation failed to do so within six weeks from today, it would be fined Rs. 10,000.

It decided to call upon individual councillors, Mr. Issakbhai Banduk wala, Mr. M. Madhavan, Dr. B. M. Dhabuwala, Dr. R. B. More, Mr. A. S. Zariwala, Mr. L. P. Pujari, Mr. H. P. Advani and Mr. B. K. BomanBehram to appear before the bar of the House and be admonished, unless they apologised unconditionally to the House within six weeks from today.

The House decided not to take any action against Mr. R. G. Kharat in view of his having already apologised unconditionally,

In the case of Mr. V.P. Bapat, the House decided to apprise the Legislative Council of the position obtaining in his case as he had been subsequently elected member of the Council.

The adjournment motion of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, which became the subject matter of the privilege issue, arose out of a discussion held earlier in the Legislative Assembly on the collapse of a part of the Bhabha Hospital at Bandra,

The Chief Minister moved the motion without offering any remarks.

Dr. P. V. Mandlik (PSP) felt that, it would have been better if attempts had been made earlier to persuade the councillors involved in the affair to get the resolution rescinded and to express regret.

Mr. F. M. Pinto (Ind.) agreed with the views of Dr. Mandlik.

Replying to the speeches of the two members, the only participants in the brief debate, Mr. Naik said that it was his duty, as the Leader of the House, to uphold the prestige and dignity of the legislature.

He stated that, in moving the motion, he was not at all prompted by animus or illwill. Maintenance of the dignity of the House, which represented the people of the State, was the only object in coming before the House with the motion.

He was of the view that this should be the attitude and spirit of all the people and institutions. including the Bombay Municipal Corporation, towards this august legislature.

Mr. Naik pointed out that one could think of showing mercy only if the institution or persons concerned asked for it.

He assured the House that if there was any indication of a change in the attitude on the part of the Corporation or the councillors concerned, he would come before the House with the advice to reconsider the decision.

After the Chief Minister's reply, the House carried the motion.

Later, the House accepted the findings of the privilege committee, holding Mr. P.K. Atre, editor, printer and publisher of the daily, "Maratha," guilty or a breach of privilege of the House arising out of a news item appearing in the issue of the daily dated. August 13, 1964.

The motion, also moved by the Chief Minister, said that Mr. Atre be called before the bar of the House and admonished by the Speaker unless he apologised unconditionally to the House.

Corporation Strength Goes Up

The Assembly also passed without discussion a Bill to amend the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act increasing the strength of the members of the civic body from 131 to 140.

Legal Opinion To Be Sought

Representatives of various parties in the Bombay Municipal Corporation met in the Mayor's chamber and decided to explore the possibility of reaching an understanding with the state Legislature over the Assembly decision to penalise the civic body for breach of privilege of the Assembly. The Mayor, Mr. S. R. Patkar, presided.

Many of those who attended the meeting frankly admitted that they were not in a position to say how an understanding could be reached.

In the meanwhile the civic body will seek legal opinion.

Dr. Shanti Patel, Leader of the Congress Party, told pressmen after the meeting that the two democratic bodies should resolve differences, if any.

A councillor felt that there should be "peace with honour."

Land Reclamation In Greater Bombay

Urban Development Minister, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria, said in Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on September 29 that the question of freezing land prices in urban areas "bristled with legal and constitutional difficulties."

Dr. Zakaria said that it was not as if the State Government did not favour freezing the prices of lands in cities and towns. The Urban Lands Policy Committee, set up by the Government of India, of which he was the chairman, had also carefully considered the question but it was found that it was not possible to take the measure, in view of certain provisions of the Constitution which came in the way.

The Minister was replying to a short discussion raised by Mr. F. M. Pinto (Ind.) on the "wrong and unreasonable policy of the State Government in selling the land reclaimed at Backbay, Mahim, Wadala and Kurla at high prices, which is detrimental to the public interest and led to sea erosion at Versova and other places."

Dr. Zakaria said that experts were sharply divided on whether the reclamation measures were responsible for the erosion. It was therefore, not possible to accept Mr. Pinto's contention on the point.

He said that but for "our farsighted forefather," who executed reclamation schemes in Bombay, the city would have continued to remain a cluster of seven fishing villages, as it was before. The development of the city to its present premier position among the metropolitan cities was due to their imaginative and poineering spirit, he pointed out.

Criticism Wrong

Referring to the progress of the reclamation schemes in Greater Bombay, Dr. Zakaria said that the land reclaimed was sold by auction to the highest bidder. There was no reason why they should not be sold at prices which the rich could afford to pay. The money received through the sales went to the general coffers of the State Government and the funds would be used for the benefit of the poorer sections of society.

It would be wrong to contend, he pointed out, that all the reclamated land went to the affluent. Nearly 250 acres of land reclaimed under the Mahim reclamation scheme would be utilised by the University of Bombay for its new campus.

The Maharashtra Housing Board, he said, was the biggest landlord, in Greater Bombay today. Its colonies were not meant for the rich. A large number of the Housing Board colonies had been constructed and were being constructed on such reclaimed land, he said.

Dr. P. V. Mandlik (PSP) said that the Government did not heed the Opposition demand made repeatedly during the past several years, that the prices of land in the urban areas in the State in general and in Greater Bombay in particular, should be controlled.

As the Government itself sold its land at such high prices, private land owners were also encouraged to raise the prices of their land. In result, one witnessed the spectacle of luxurious building, including skyscrapers, coming up in Bombay, Dr. Mandlik stated."

He added that if the Government continued its present policy, no housing accommodation would be available to the poorer sections in Greater Bombay. Only the affluent would have houses to live and the city would virtually be turned into a home of the rich.

Development Of Greater Bombay

A ban on the setting up of new industries and expansion of existing ones in Greater Bombay was demanded in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on September 23.

It was argued in support of the above demand that unchecked development of industries in Greater Bombay led to an increase in the population of the metropolis which created innumberable problems and difficulties for the people whose lives were made at times unbearable.

The occasion was a discussion on the third and fourth reports of the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation for the financial years ended March 31, 1965 and 1966 respectively.

Mr. A. H. Mamdani (Cong.) said that the problems arising out of the concentration of industries in Greater Bombay always overshadowed numerous difficulties and needs of the people in all other areas of the State.

He cited the instance of the acute water scarcity that was experienced in Bombay during last summer which had threatened both normal life of the citizens and the industrial production there.

Mr. Mamdani charged the corporation of being responsible for assisting in further concentration of industries in Greater Bombay to the neglect of all other industrially under-developed regions of the State. He quoted figures in support of his contention.

Quoting from the report for 1966, he pointed out how out a total of about Rs. 2.46 crores advanced as loans by the corporation in the year under review, Rs. 1,08 crores was given as a loan in Greater Bombay alone. As compared to this, the amount of loan advanced to industries in other areas was very small.

The figures of loans advanced by the corporation in other regions in the year under report were about Rs. 60 lakhs in the Poona region, about Rs. 3 lakhs in Vidarbha and about Rs. 9 lakhs in Marathwada.

Mr. Mamdani said that more than 75 per cent of the amount of the loans advanced by the corporation was in the Bombay-Kalyan and Poona Chinchwad industrial complex. He pointed out that a majority of the districts in the State had not received any loans from the corporation.

He said that the present directors of the corporation "misused their position."

The corporation was inefficient, he said and it was high time that the Government intervened in the matter and improved its affairs.

Mr. S. G. Kocharekar (PSP) also complained that the present board of directors of the corporation comprised persons from Bombay and Poona only. He demanded that the people from the rural areas should be given adequate representation on the board.

He complained that there was considerable dissatisfaction among the people in Vidarbha as this region was being neglected.