It would be wrong on part of the Governor

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It would be wrong on part of the Orissa Governor if the transacted businesses of the last two days of the Assembly are not quashed and the Speaker, whom he has summoned, is not asked to retrieve those two days for placing before the Legislature afresh the Bills declared to have been passed behind the Opposition.

It is sad that it could not be appreciated that democracy is democracy only because of Opposition. Any Bill could be passed by the Government because the Government stands on majority in the Assembly. But any such Bill passed without being examined under wisdom of the Opposition would make a farce of the said Bill and shall have no credibility in a democracy.

It was within the competency of the Speaker to halt proceeding of the House till wisdom of Opposition was available to the official Bills. But it did not happen. Even Rules of Business was given no respect in adoption of mass affecting bills.

The Congress legislative wing has acted most correctly by apprising the Governor of the sad developments in legislative business of the Assembly.

It would be wrong on his part if the Bills declared adopted behind back of the Opposition are not recalled and placed in the pre-debate position. The details of shenanigans involving the bill prohibiting land grabbing should also be obtained by the Governor and acted upon in interest of democracy vis-à-vis what the Speaker says.
We deem it proper to publish the Congress Memorandum to the Governor.

Your Excellency,

The Odisha Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Odisha Legislative Assembly to replace the ordinance which was promulgated on 28th May, 2015. The bill was taken for consideration and the whole House cutting across the party line objected to certain provisions of the Bill. It was unanimous view of the House that landless and homesteadless persons occupying urban land should not be criminally prosecuted and they should not be forcibly evicted without making alternative provision for them. The House was also unanimous that corporate house, businessmen, apartment owners, haves of the society and occupying government land with the motive of making money or accumulating property should be firmly dealt with. The bill was called a draconian law so far as poor and downtrodden of the society are concerned. The views of the Supreme Court on the issue was also placed before the House where the Apex Court has held that a poor man coming to the urban area in search of a living and occupying a Government land as he has not able to afford a rented house amounts to his livelihood and right to livelihood is a fundamental right which shall not be violated.

While replying to the consideration of the bill the Hon’ble Speaker firmly said that the poor, landless, homesteadless persons would be protected and all amendments to that effect would be accepted. He also admitted that there are mistakes in the bill which needs to be corrected. In view of his assurance, a motion for referring to the bill to Select Committee was withdrawn. The House was then adjourned for clause by clause discussion to specific date. Because major amendments to the Bill was required, the Hon’ble Minister took time to study the same and examine various amendments. It was also decided in the House to call all party meeting in the Chamber of the Hon’ble Speaker to find out a correct formula so that passing of the Bills may be unanimous.

While taking all clause by clause discussion, again these matters were discussed in the House. Amendments moved both by the Opposition and the Ruling Party to clause2(c) of the Bill was accepted by the Minister with certain changes. But finally draft of the amendment suggested by the members and accepted by the Minister was read out several times in the House and thereafter it was adopted in the House and the Hon’ble Speaker made a declaration to that effect. The House was then adjourned for 27th August, 2015. Then the bill was taken for further discussion. The Hon’ble Minister moved a motion to withdraw the amendment adopted by the House amending clause 2(c) of the Bill. No writing motion was tabled in the House nor was it circulated among the members. The Opposition therefore demanded that this being an unprecedented subject taken by the Minister, the motion should be circulated and the member should know which portion of the bill for amendment to the bill was proposed to be withdrawn. But, neither a copy was supplied nor it was circulated. The Hon’ble Speaker insisted that, the motion should be taken up and in a hurry the motion was adopted. This was strongly protested by the opposition on the ground that the Rules of Business do not permit such thing and in fact, it is an unprecedented subject. It was also contended that the move of the Minister and the procedure adopted by the Hon’ble Speaker was unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to the rules.

Even though, it was vehemently opposed the motion of the Minister was adopted while the House was not in order. The Leader of Opposition standing on the seat wanted to move his other amendments to the bill. But an opportunity was not given to him even to move the amendments. By the time, other amendments were called, there was a pandemonium in the House and nothing could be heard. Even though, the Leader of Opposition was ready to move his amendment, he was not allowed to do so. The result was that he had to go to the well of the House and sit on dharana along with other opposition members. The Hon’ble Speaker had earlier ruled that if the Leader of Opposition is on the well, sitting on dharana, proceedings of the House should not be carried. But, violating his own ruling, the Hon’ble Speaker rushed through the bill in absence of the opposition and practically without any discussion, the bill was adopted. The opposition had no option, but to protest and walk out of the House. Passing of the bill, therefore, is unconstitutional, illegal, contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Odisha Legislative Assembly and highly democratic. No important bill should be passed in absence of the opposition. It may not be out of place to mention that, the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly requested the Hon’ble Speaker to adjourn the House for some time, call an all party meeting and find out a solution. This did not impress the Hon’ble Speaker and he decided to transact the business of the House while the House was not in order and in absence of the opposition. Not only, this bill, but several other important bills such as; Odisha Police Bill, 2015, Odisha Municipal Amendment Act, 2015, and the Odisha Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 2015 were also passed hurriedly in absence of the opposition. Such a fact is bad for democracy.

In earlier occasion also, the Hon’ble Speaker refused to give the opposition a chance to discuss about the indictment of the Chief Minister by the High Court in a case relating to the Ex-D.G.of Police. In all party meeting it was decided that the adjournment motion could be moved on law and order position of the State and in that motion those matters can be discussed. Accordingly, the opposition moved an adjournment motion relating deteriorating law and order situation in the State. Though the members were allowed to participate to discuss into about the observation of the High Court, in the case of Prakash Mishra and the Supreme Court judgment arising out of that case, at the end of the day, the Hon’ble Speaker all of a sudden expunged that part of the discussion though the wording of the ruling of the Hon’ble Speaker was not very specific, it was not known to anybody, to which portion of the proceeding was expunged. In view of that, the members did not carry anything about that discussion and the result was people could not know what discussion actually took place inside the House and what the Government stand was.

This again was contrary to rule-222 of the Rules of Business and it was protested in the next date. The Leader of Opposition requested the Hon’ble Speaker to provide him a copy of his speech recorded during the adjournment motion showing which portion of his speech was deleted and in spite of the assurance of the Speaker, it is not yet been given. This only shows that the Hon’ble Speaker did not know which part of the speech was expunged.

The adjournment motion was discussed relating to the teachers strike on 27th August, 2015. Half an hour before the motion, the adjournment motion was taken up. The visitors’ gallery meant for the media and all the visitors to the gallery were asked to go away. When the Leader of the Opposition asked the Hon’ble Speaker as to why the visitors were being driven out there was no answer.

The aforesaid conduct of the Hon’ble Speaker and the role of the Government clearly shows that an undeclared emergency has been in force in the State and all the rights being the fundamental rights or statutory rights or rights agreed by convention all the members of the House have been withdrawn and the business of the House is being transacted undemocratically and unconstitutionally at the whim of the leader of the House and the Hon’ble Speaker. This is bad for democracy and one can say democracy is dead in the State. It also appears that pressure has been put on the media by giving threat or otherwise to censure the proceedings of the House and thereby preventing the media from carrying the message of the House to the people. Unprecedented situation therefore has arisen in the House. Anything talked against the Government or which impress the Government are expunged. Anything which will expose the Government and impress it is not allowed to be discussed and if by chance something discussed and expunged it is not allowed to be circulated in the press.

This being an extraordinary situation intervention of Your Excellency is urgently required. Your Excellency has to protect the law and the constitution and protect the members of the House.
Please intervene and take appropriate action.

Apartment Bill should be improved upon in the Assembly before being passed

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

A few days ago, while talking with a top functionary. I had mentioned of Prava Apartment situated in Unit IV, Bhubaneswar, where my Samudi Dr. Asoka Mishra resides. I am unable to go to his house since around three months as the ‘Lift’ is not working. Nobody knows whether it is really damaged or rendered defunct. But, according to the belief of my Samudi, it is damaged, because that is what he has been informed by the Association they have formed.
Non-functioning of the Lift for months together is drastically hampering human rights of the legitimate residents of Prava Apartment, as aging or senior residents of upper floors are unable to come out even for medical checkups. Their regular life is severely affected because of non-functioning of the lift.

“What do you mean by legitimate residents?” he had asked me. I had explained that apartment owners are giving outsiders, unknown to all owners, their houses on rent and these people having no concern for safety of the Apartment building, are misusing the lift that is precipitating its malfunctioning, pushing it often and finally to collapse, as has happened in the Prava Apartment.

“The owners must have formed a society to manage the common utilities and to maintain the structure. What that society is doing?” he had queried. I confessed that I had no knowledge, except knowing that my Samuduni is leading almost an incarcerated life in her own house, because only of the non-functioning of the Lift. She is unable to come out for daily walking, marketing or meeting the relations for months together, because the society has failed to repair the lift promptly, when the apartment is fitted with only one lift by the builder.

I am glad to note that, the executive government has formulated legal provisions to save such disadvantaged residents of multi-storied apartment houses. A new Bill, named and styled as ‘The Odisha Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Bill, 2015’ has been moved in the Orissa Legislative Assembly. It aims to amend the Act of 1982.

In proposing an amendment in section 14 (1) of the Act, it wants the Competent Authority to be empowered to “direct the Association of Apartment Owners to repair or replace damaged property within such period as may be specified in such direction failing which the Competent Authority may undertake the said work and expenses incurred for undertaking such work shall be recovered from the Association of Apartment Owners”.

If the Assembly adopts the Bill, a great relief to residents like that of Prava Apartment would surely come.

But I feel that the draft Bill has areas to be improved upon by the Assembly while adopting it. I suggest the following improvements:

1. there should be blatant ban on letting out of apartments by their respective owners to any outsider to eliminate misuse of utilities and threat to common safety. Suppose an unsocial element occupies an apartment on rent and indulges in secret making of bombs and during the manufacturing process, a bomb accidentally blasts and destroys the entire structure over and above damage to and loss of life. In the prevailing environment of criminality, such apprehension cannot be ruled out. The authorities know of the misuse of an apartment in Krishna Towers for women trafficking involving even IAS and IIS officers. Laxity of law in allowing renting out of apartments to outsiders is the cause of such illegalities. Therefore, the proposed amendment Bill should be improved upon by the Assembly to provide for a total ban on renting out of any apartment by any owner without express agreement of all the owners as all of them co-possess the entire building and surrounding free space within the compound, subject to police verification by the Competent Authority on the person or persons to be accommodated on rent;

2. the residents of upper floors of Prava Apartment are suffering, because the Lift, which is the single Lift, has become defunct. The law makers should get educated from this experience and proceed to provide that every apartment building must be equipped with at least two Lifts before the builder is allowed to sell any apartment. The proposed Bill should be improved upon in this respect before adoption.

3. A case study of Prava Apartment shows that there is a sort of mafia raj in action through the owners association. As for example, the association has rented out the roof of the building to a mobile phone company that has erected its heavyweight tower directly on the apartment of an owner who is a lone and senior lady. Under impact of the tower, her roof is cracking and leaking. She is feeling unsafe and her protests are not heeded to. It is suspected that, the association has deliberately kept the Lift defunct to teach her a lesson, as it is most unbearable for her to entirely depend daily on stairs of the five floors. Keeping this in view, the tabled Bill should be improved upon to the extent of banning any such construction on any roof top of any apartment building and demolition of any and all such constructions prior to enactment of the introduced Bill.

But this depends upon legislative environment of the house and individual and collective concern of our MLAs for the people.

Assembly in Session // Has Mining helped Orissa? The question is directly put to Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, history will certainly note, has squandered away Orissa’s mineral wealth in the name of earning for the State Exchequer. I have written on the subject so many times in these pages. Without going to any further elaboration, I will prefer to place here what his Minister of Mines Sri Prafulla Mallik has put on records in answering a query from Sri Dillip Ray (BJP) in the Assembly.

According to the Minister, the State has earned Rs. 5305.58 crores in the last financial year (2014-15) against mining worth Rs. 54,491.69 crores. In the preceding year (2013-14) the revenue earned was Rs.5,519.57 crores against mining worth Rs.54,556.73 crores. In 2012-13, the State had earned Rs.5,679.35 crores while Orissa was denuded of minerals worth Rs.34,994.28 crores.

Thus, according to the government, Orissa has been denuded of minerals worth Rs.143,940 crores and 70 lakhs during only three years from 2012-13 to 2014-15, while earning for its exchequer a sum of only Rs.16504 crores and 50 lakhs.

Orissa government is deliberately not examining the cost of health hazards to which people are dragged into by the mining and related industries.

A single case study, which is the only research on the subject available so far,  covering a small patch of Anugul and Talcher years ago, gives us a chance to imagine to what unfathomable extent of damage mining and related industries are subjecting us to.

Scholar Dr. M. Mishra had conducted a case study of environmental economy in a micro level, under the head “Health Cost of Industrial Pollution in Angul-Talcher Industrial Area in Orissa, India”. In this research done a decade ago, Dr. Mishra has quantified the”health cost of pollution” to be Rs.1775 per annum in the average, only in the small patch of area under his research. This was when cost of health care was 200% less that the prevailing cost.

Just imagine what the cost of health damage management would be at the present rate all over Orissa!

Minerals are not created in a day. They take millions of years to be formed. Naveen and his likes, voted to power for a term of five years only, are finishing our mineral wealth oblivious of the needs of our future generations, obviously for private payola, when, as admitted in the above noted answer of the minister, the money earned for public exchequer is too marginally little to meet the cost of health damage, as the above cited research has indicated.

Will the Assembly in session note of it?

And, if the Assembly takes note, will the Chief Minister reveal, by way of study results, the cost of the health damage caused to whole of Orissa by mining?  The question is put to him directly in public interest.

Bill Introduced in Absence of Legislative Environment

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Land grabbing prohibited under an ordinance promulgated on May 26 will collapse if not evolved into enactment by the Assembly this session. Therefore, in absence of the Revenue Minister Bijayshree Rautray, the minister of Parliamentary Affairs Bikram Keshari Arukha introduced Orissa Land Gabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2015 in the Assembly on Wednesday , despite absence of Legislative environment, as both the Treasury and Opposition (Congress) benches were not allowing the Speaker proceed with the scheduled business of the day. The situation was such that the whole day passed away with the House acting only for about 9 minutes. Introduction of the Bill by Sri Arukh was the last transaction of the day lost to repeated adjournments.

The Bill is addressed to provide for penal prosecution against encroachment of government or public sector land. The concept has its origin in the government’s anxiousness to escape the public wrath generated by exposure of illegal land grabbing by ruling party heavyweights, top bureaucrats and also fellows in judiciary.

Establishment of Special Courts for speedy determination of offense with deterrent punishment to offenders in land grabbing cases is a major object behind the Bill. If enacted, it would make land grabbing punishable with imprisonment for minimum one year which may extend up to seven years with fine up to Rs.20,000/-. Such courts will be deemed as Civil Courts and Courts of Sessions for complete coverage of the offenders.

Being a welfare law, it should have retrospective effect. Unless serious attention is given to its text, it may end up in defeat of the people’s desire to punish and retrieve from whosoever has grabbed public lands in the State, where landless people constitute more then 70% of the population, in the sense of remunerative land-owning.

What treat the Assembly would give the Bill depends on legislative environment which is conspicuous by its absence since commencement of the session.

Supreme Court Of India Should Act KR Pura In Matter Of Athgarh

“We are of the opinion that when a nomination paper is presented it is a bounden duty of the Returning Officer to receive the nomination, peruse it, point out the defects, if any, and allow candidates to rectify the defects and when the defects are not removed then alone the question of rejection of nomination would arise,” the Supreme Court of India has ruled in the matter of a case pertaining to rejection of a candidate’s nomination in RK Pura Assembly constituency of Karnataka in 2008 by the RO in 2008.

Kavitha Mahesh, a candidate, whose nomination was rejected by the RO, not at the time of receiving, but on the day of scrutiny for publication of final list of candidates, facilitating election of Nandiesha Reddy in absence of proper contest, had moved the Karnataka High Court for nullification of the said election on ground of illegal rejection of her papers. That was challenged by Reddy in the Apex Court.

In dismissing Reddy’s appeal, a bench of Justice H.S.Bedi and Justice C.K.Prasad of the Supreme Court has held, “Any other view, in our opinion, will lead to grave
consequences and the Returning Officers may start refusing to accept the nomination at the threshold which may ensure victory to a particular candidate at the election”.

This exact point I have repeatedly discussed in these pages in the matter of rejection of nomination of Ranendra Pratap Swain by the RO in Athgarh constituency.

The observation and ruling of the Supreme Court in RK Pura matter applies entirely to the case of Athgarh pending before it.

The Returning Officer has butchered democracy in Athgarh and that needs to get back life. The Orissa High Court has declared the election of the ruling party’s adopted candidate null and void. But the Supreme Court is yet to deliver its verdict as the case has, through special leave , landed before it.

Democracy cries to get back life in Athgarh. The Supreme Court should not make any delay as revival of democracy should never be delayed.

The issue has been answered by the Supreme Court in RK Pura matter. It should be applied to the Athgarh case as the issue is exactly the same.

Athgarh MLA’s Source of Litigation Fund Needs Be Probed Into

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Athgarh MLA Ramesh Raut is using dilatory tactics in the Supreme Court to keep obstructed the citizens’ right to elect the candidate of their choice in that constituency.

He was elected from Athgarh constituency to Orissa Legislative Assembly in general elections, 2009, only because the Returning Officer (RO) misused his powers to reject, in discernibly illegal manner, the correctly submitted nomination papers of the sitting and by then the most popular candidate, Ranendra Pratap Swain.

Orissa High Court has declared the election null and void, as to it, the conduct of the RO in rejecting Swain’s nomination papers was blatantly illegal.

Raut has challenged the High Court Order in the Supreme Court; but curiously, has been using dilatory tactics though his lawyers are top ranking lawyers of India such as F. S. Nariman, Harish Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Pallav Shisodia and Soli Sorabjee.

Raut hails from a very poor family of Athargh; has no known education beyond the primary school level and was a mere page in Swain’s office before filing his papers and hence it can never be accepted that the Returning Officer, who, as Sub-Collector, was the highest administrative officer of the Sub-Division, acted under his influence to remove Swain, a former minister and a political heavyweight, from the list of contesting candidates.

The RO’s daredevilry in writing off Swain from the list of candidates was obviously meant to oblige a secret villain, who the State is yet to identify.

Whether in course of the case the Supreme Court would look at the issue I have raised in this matter in these pages, I cannot say.

But I have shown that the Athgarh RO’s conduct should be viewed as an experimentation on how a Prime Ministerial Candidate, when time comes, could be eliminated from electoral fray by gaining over the RO of his constituency.

If any secret villain was in search of an opportunity to derail Indian democracy by gaining over the ROs, then it can be safely said that Athgarh has written for that person or body of persons the success story.

Yes, the RO can keep any candidate out of fray by rejecting his /her nomination papers, howsoever arbitrarily that be, because the election laws have given the said officer the carte blanche to reject the nomination papers of any candidate notwithstanding the fact that it is possible on part of the same officer to tamper with the papers of the targeted candidate lying for days in his / her custody to create a cause for rejection thereof, as has happened in Athgarh.

If any enemy nation can gain over the ROs or majority of them, which in this country of bureaucratic corruption as well as of the cash-for-question-and-cash-for-confidence-vote-parliament is not at all impossible, democracy can be derailed by playing the tricks with candidates capable of forming government(s) after the elections.

The Athgarh case has proved that election cases raised against wrongful rejection of nomination papers by the RO may take many years to end. And, nobody can say for sure that such cases would end before another election takes place. Thus, by using a RO, any villain can keep any popular and befitting candidate out of legislative houses for an entire term.

Therefore I had argued in my previous article on Athgarh that the carte blanche given to the RO in rejection of nomination papers be done away with by immediate creation of an appellate layer above the said officer, with stipulation that if any aggrieved candidate demands, the final list of candidates in his / her constituency cannot be notified till orders in the appeal against rejection of nomination papers are pronounced.

Even as I insist that it should be proper for the Supreme Court to cogitate upon this issue while hearing the Athgarh case, it would not be out of context to suggest that the Athgarh MLA’s source of finance in defraying the cost of litigation in the Supreme Court needs be probed into.

Lawyers: F. S. Nariman, Harish Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Pallav Shisodia and Soli Sorabjee that are working for Raut in the Supreme Court belong to the costliest layer of lawyers in the country. Raut does not come from a financial background strong enough to shoulder their fees. Neither his known source of income can defray the expenses. So who is funding him?

Unless he discloses the name of his financier, it can be safely assumed that somebody working secretly against Indian democracy, who used the Athgarh constituency as a laboratory to test if a RO could be successfully used to derail elections, is certainly ghost-paying the lawyers for Raut or paying them through Raut.

In the best interest of democracy, therefore, it is imperative that the details of the person or body of persons who is financing the Athgarh MLA in his case before the Supreme Court and the motive behind such financing be probed into immediately.

If the authorities in power have any dedication to democracy, one may hope that this suggestion would be taken into cognizance.


Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Scheduled business in Orissa Legislative Assembly was abraded on July 7 as the Speaker had to adjourn the House twice over Opposition demand for an inquiry by a House Committee into the assault on democracy involving Ramesh Raut, MLA from Athgarh.

The controversial MLA is not a crossbencher. He was officially adopted by BJD during electioneering and hence very much a part of the treasury benches. So the treasury benches cannot but be responsible for his conduct as a member of the House.

After becoming a member of the House consequence upon oath taking, he squandered away time till 19th June and signing on that day a resignation letter allegedly on dotted lines, he handed over the same to the newly elected Speaker at his residence in the company of BJD hoodlums on June 20.

Undisclosed sources informed a section of selected media after a couple of days that though forced to submit resignation letter, Raut has promptly informed the Speaker that he would withdraw the same.

The Speaker maintained that he had not received any such communication even as no action was taken by him on the resignation letter.

Raut went underground causing rambling rumors that his life was in danger. Selected media persons were made to meet his wife in her parents’ place to carry stories of how she and her children were brought over there by the MLA to preempt danger to their lives.

Police teams were pressed to fetch him from his hideout and his father had to file FIR in Police airing his tearful fears over his son’s safety.

R.P.Swain, politically butchered by BJD with a fake ticket, was cautiously focused as the mastermind behind Raut’s resignation as that would pave the way for his return to the Assembly.

Attempts to destroy Swain’s public image were rampant inasmuch as the peoples were being fed with speculations that Raut was kept under arrest by the former where he was to stay till his resignation was accepted.

The Speaker added force to the gravity of the case by issuing summons to Raut warranting his presence to place his version on the ongoing controversy over his resignation and when he appeared before him in response to the summon, Police went wild in whisking him away from the Speaker’s chamber.

To the Press the Speaker however told that from Raut’s averments he got the impression that Swain had crafted the resignation letter that no more was in force, as the member has preferred to withdraw the same.

But surprisingly, at the official guesthouse, where the Police had kept him under guards, he told the media that Swain was never involved with his resignation. He made it clear that Swain never kept him under arrest and that the FIR filed by his father was based on misconception.

Swain has also emphatically stated that neither he not his supporters have ever put any pressure on Raut to resign.

Who then had made him resign and eventually withdraw the same in absence of acceptance thereof by the Speaker?

Where then had he really stayed during the intervening period when media was hinting at Swain to have kept him arrested in some secret den?

Why the Chief Minister, who as BJD boss had adopted him as his party candidate and invested his party funds for his victory, was silent on his resignation and disappearance for the entire period, even though Raut was already on records to have revealed that he had to resign by signing on dotted lines under pressure of BJD stalwarts?

The peoples of Orissa deserve unambiguous answers to these questions. Naturally therefore the Opposition wanted the Assembly to locate the truth.

A member’s resignation under unauthorized pressure is certainly indicative of severe assault on democracy.

It should have been proper for the Chief minister to place details of the sordid development by way of a statement in the House while invoking collective wisdom of members to ensure non-recurrence of such assault on democracy. As he did not volunteered a statement, the Opposition stressed on constitution of a House Committee to inquire into the matter and to suggest remedial measure. But this did not happen. On the other hand, Raut made a statement that was different from what he had stated before the Speaker in his chamber. Either of his statements is vitiated with the mischief of disrespect for the House.

The Congress members expressed deep concern over deterioration of democratic dignity and insisted upon formation of a House Committee to investigate into the matter. But the treasury side opposed. The House was successively adjourned twice under pandemonium to no benefit of democracy as suppression of facts emerged as the Mantra of the rulers of the day.