of the Bill is the separation of the Corporation's policymaking and administrative functions. The councillors will, under the Bill, comprise a policy making and deliberative body, while the Commissioner will be made the head of the administration. He will not be required to approach the Corporation for sanction of expenditure upto Rs. 100,000 and will also be given wider powers of discipline and staff control.

The Government has retained the power to supersede the Corporation or any of its departments if it considers fit, and to frame rules to guide the functioning of the Corporation and the four Standing Committees which are sought to be created under the Bill, as against nine the Corporation now has.

The Bill defines the three authorities-the Council, consisting of 81 councillors and aldermen the Standing Committees and the Commissioner. It introduces a new defi. nition for the Corporation-a "corporate body, comprising all adult citizens of Calcutta"-and keeps it distinct from the Council. Councillors and Aldermen will be entitled to a monthly honorarium of Rs. 100, with a further allowance of Rs. 10 for attend ing each meeting, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50 per month for such attendance. This additional expenditure is sought to be made up by levying an employment tax at the rate of Rs. 1 per month on people earning over Rs. 100 who do not pay any municipal This is expected to yleld an annual revenue of

Rs. 12 laks to Rs. 15 laks.

tax.

Mr. Saila Kumar Mukerjee, Local SelfGovernment Minister, claimed that the utmost care had been taken to ensure that there was no overlapping of the jurisdiction among the three authorities, thus obviating the possibility of administrative deadlocks and imbroglios such as have occurred under the existing set-up.

To eliminate interference with the admi

nistration and what is called "group pressure", councillors have been debarred under the Bill from approaching individual officers, except through the Commissioner. This follows the recommendations of the Biswas Commission (appointed in 1948) and

the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London.

In its main principles, the Bill broadly incorporates the recommendations of the Talukdar Committee, which went into the Corporation's affairs after the breakdown of its conservancy service last year. It does, however, seek to compensate for the loss of the councillors' authority by creating a new Accounts and Estimates Committee. This Committee will have wide powers to supervise the utilisation of the budget grants, and to scrutinise municipal accounts and estimates of expenses. This is expected to strengthen "democratic control over the municipal administration", as the Committee is expected to perform functions similar to those of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees of Parliament.

Judicial tribunals to hear appeals from assessment and building cases, including those relating to the demolition of buildings have also been provided for and their decisions will be final, there being no scope. for appeal to civil courts.

The Bill contains an interesting provision requiring all high buildings in an area in the central part of the city to have built-in parking space on their ground floors. The buildings to have parking space have been described as having a "cubical extent of 10,00 cubic metres". About 75 percent of the ground floor will have to be used as parking space.

The Bill, among other things, retains the provision in regard to the State Government's discretion to depute its officers to act as Special Deputy Commissioners in the Corporation. ration. The only difference with the existing arrangement will be that such deputation will not be dependent on the Corporation's requisition.

The Commissioner will have power to suspend any officer or employee, not appointed on the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000 or less. But his financial powers have been sought to be circumscribed. by making the Chief Accounts Officer also the Financial Adviser.

The Bill has also provided that the noconfidence motion against the Commissioner can be initiated by the Councillors without the State Government's prior approval.

Other amendments suggested in the Bill relate to procedural changes and fiscal matters, as already suggested by the Corporation itself.

It may be recalled that the Governmet had sent the Talukdar Committee's report to the Corporation for its views. The latter almost totally rejected the Committee's basic recommendations relating to the separation of the policy-making and administrative functions and sent its own suggestions, instead. None of these suggestions seem to have been incorporated in the Bill. Congress Councillors' Opposition

The Bill was considered by the Congress Legislajure Party on July 10. The background for the discussions at the CLP meeting was provided partly by the Congrees Councillors' protest against the Bill recorded at a meeting in the Mayor's house, the previous night. The Congres councillors in a resolution had described the Bill as an "undemocratic and retrograde measure". Earlier in the day the Congress Councillors had also met the PCC President Mr. R. L. Sinha, when some of the councillors are said to have demanded that the Local Self-Government Minister should either withdraw the Bill or resign.

At the CLP meeting on July 10, the Chief Minister Mr. P. C. Sen, rejected a suggestion made by the Corporation Councillor Mr. J. L. Shah, to refer the Calcutta Municipal Amendment Bill to a Select Committee. Instead, it was agreed that the Bill should be referred to a committee comprising 17 members mainly representing Calcutta for examination and for suggestions for improvement, with directions to report in a week. Corporation Criticism Of Bill

A meeting of the Calcutta Corporation on July 12, after four hours discussion adopted a resolution saying: "This Corporation disapproves of the provisions in the proposed Bill for amendment of the Calcutta Municipal

Act, 1951, in so far as it curtails the Democratic rights of one of the oldest Municipal

Corporations in India." Referring to the formation of a Congress Legislature Party Committee to examine the draft Bill, the resolution said "This House requests the members of the Committee to suggest such provisions as would preserve and safeguard the basic rights of the citizens of Calcutta and their representatives in the Corporation."

Congress councillors combind with the Opposition members in an unprecedented manner in criticising the West Bengal Government for bringing forward the Bill, participated in the debate, as being "undewhich was described by 26 members, who mocratic, autocratic, retrograde" and a black Bill. The Local Self Government Minister, Mr. Saila Kumar Mukherjee, the IAS and ICS officers in general and Calcutta newspapers were the main targets of attack by most of the 26 speakers.

Moving the resolution, Councillor Mihir Lal Ganguli criticised the provision of the Bill that Councillors should not approach any Corporation's official directly without obtaining the Commission's permission. He feared that if the Bill was passed Calcutta Corporation would be reduced to a debating society. The proposal to provide Rs. 100 as allowance amounted to an insult to them, he remarked.

Mr. Amulya Charan Sarkar, who seconded the resolution, said, "Let us all resign and seek re-election. If we are returned the Bill must be withdrawn. If we are defeated we will have nothing to say against it.

Ex-Mayor Mr. Bijoy Kumar Banerji, said the Bill sought to undermine the councillors' self-respect. He called upon the Councillors to be ready to resign the day the Bill was enacted into law.

Mr. Dhiren Dhar (Communist) said it was an undemocratic measure for the centralization of power. Under the Bill the bureaucracy was entrusted with wide, unrestricted powers.

Mr. Biman Mitra (Civic Welfare Front), while opposing the curtailment of democratic rights as envisaged in the Bill, admitted that about 90 percent of the citizens with whom he had discussed its provisions during the

last few days thought the sooner the measure was adopted the better it would be for the city.

Mr. Nandlal Banerjee (C) admitted that there was a clash between the Congress Party in the Legislature and the Congress Municipal Association. He demanded the resignation of the Local Self-Government Minister.

Another Congress member, Mr. Dulal Mukherjee, accused the Government of nepotism and jobbery. "Rid your administration of these evils and solve the food and other problems first, and then issue sermons", he said.

Dr. Aurbindo Dasgupta (Ind.) said the "corridor system" existed also in the Writers Building. There was an uproar in the House when another Independent member, Mr. Mukut Sarvadhikary remarked that there were 2,000 Keelers and 1,000 Perfumos in the Congress Party.

Mr. Dhiren Bose (C) asked if it was true that Mr. Saila Kumar Mukherjee had been associated with a company as a director when that firm was involved in an alleged foreign exchange evasion case.

Mr. Amulya Charan Sarkar had also made certain remarks against the Local SelfGovernment Minister but he withdrew these on the Mayor's request.

Alderman Dutta said the newspapers that were so critical of the Corporation had not. noticed that the Bill did not curtail the powers of the present Corporation but sought to do so in regard to the powers of the representatives of the people who are going to be elected on the adult franchise.

The House was unanimous in supporting the first part of the motion, but the second part relating to an appeal to the Legislature Party Committee to safeguard the basic rights of the citizens, did not get the support of the Opposition members The Communist members, who had supported the first part of the resolution, voted against it, as the mover did not agree to the deletion of the second part of the resolution. The other Opposition members abstained from voting.

Mayor's Statement

The Mayor of Calcutta, Mr. Chittaranjan Chatterjee in a statement said he was not happy with the provisions of the controversial amending Bill as it did not promise an effective Municipal Government to be run by people's elected representatives. Its provisions were contrary to democratic practice and a Municipal Government without any control on the executive appeared to him ridiculous. There was no provision in the Bill which empowered the Corporation to enforce its decisions on the executive.

In Mr. Chatterjee's opinion under a democratic set-up if the action of an elected representative caused any misgiving the power to deal with it lay with the electorate. Any imposition of superficial check by way of making the executive more powerful would not resolve the problem, the Mayor added. Congress Conncillors' Apology

At its meeting on July 14 the Congress. Legislature Party expressed regret over the speeches and remarks made by Congress councillors during the discussion on the Amending Bill in Calcutta Corporation. A written apology on beealf of Mr. J. L. Saha the deputy leader of the Congress Municipal Association, was placed before the Chief Minister by the Mayor. The CLP felt that strong disciplinary action should be taken against the erring Congress councillors. On July 16 three prominent Councillors, Mr. A. C. Sarkar, Mr.D. N. Bose and Mr. N. L. Banerjee in a letter addressed to the Chief Minister expressed regret for the remarks. made by them at the Corporation meeting on July 12, in particular those relating to the

Local Self-Government Minister.

Opposition Councillors' Memorandum