COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

LOCAL AREA DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (THIRTEENTH )

EIGHTH REPORT Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation ‘Proposals to amend Guidelines on MPLADS’

Presented to Hon’ble Speaker

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW

CONTENTS Composition of MPLADS Committee

Introduction REPORT

I. Permission to contribute Rs. 25 lakh towards Orrisa flood relief from quota of MPLADS fund

II. Suggestion regarding construction of Kolhapur Type weir (water storage) on Rangavali River at Navapur District, Maharashtra under MPLADS

III. Representation regarding giving financial assistance for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch,out of funds collected under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat

IV. Purchase of tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit from MPLADS fund

V. Relaxation in the upper limit of Rs.25 lakh for construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara in

VI. Purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas of Orissa under MPLADS

VII. Suggestion regarding construction of auditorium for Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal under MPLADS

VIII. Representation regarding contribution from MPLADS funds for construction of a hospital block at Manjeri district Mallapuram in Kerala

IX. Relaxation in the upper limit of cost of works recommended by Shri , MP ()

X. Representation from North East MPs’ Forum regarding waiving of condition pertaining to ownership of assets created under MPLADS

XI. Suggestion regarding waiving of the cost towards stamp duty and other charges for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS XII. Representation regarding whether the Rajya Sabha Member could be allowed to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of under MPLADS

XIII. Suggestion to make amendment in Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS

XIV. Suggestion regarding release of MPLADS funds direct to Head of the educational institutions for construction of buildings or entrust the construction/ renovation/repair of school and colleges to their management committees/governing bodies under MPLADS

XV. Suggestion regarding allowing construction of new manned level crossings, road over/under bridges, foot over bridges and passenger amenities in the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under MPLADS

XVI. Representation regarding proposal for purchase of a bus for the trainees of a sports hostel, Ponda, Goa under MPLADS

XVII. Representation regarding construction of Physiotherapy Building within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad under MPLAD Scheme

XVIII. Representation regarding proposal of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, MP (RS) for construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan under MPLADS

XIX. Representation regarding construction of an over-head tank in Rampur (U.P.) at an estimated cost of Rs. 44 lakh under MPLADS

XX. Representation regarding proposal for allotment of funds for Installation of computes in libraries under MPLAD Scheme

INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman of the Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) (2001) having been authorised by the Committee to submit the Report on their behalf, present this Eighth Report on the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation `Proposals to amend Guidelines on MPLADS.’ 2. The Committee considered the representations and proposals received from Hon’ble Ministers and Members of Parliament for amendment to Guidelines on MPLAD Scheme at their sittings held on 27 September, 20 November and 12 December, 2001. The observations/recommendations made in the Report are based on the decisions taken by the Committee at their aforesaid sittings. 3. The Committee considered and adopted the Report at their sitting held on 12 December, 2001. 4. The Committee would like to express their thanks to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for placing before them the written notes and information the Committee desired in connection with examination of the representations and suggestions of Hon’ble Members of Parliament for amendment to the Guidelines on MPLAD Scheme.

5. For facility of reference, the observations/recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report and have also been reproduced in consolidated form in the Appendix to the Report.

Dr. Chairman, Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme

New Delhi

12 December, 2001 (21 Agrahayana, 1923(S) )

COMPOSITION OF THE MPLADS COMMITTEE Dr. Bolla Bulli Ramaiah - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri Adhi Sankar 3. Shri Arun Kumar 4. Dr. Baliram 5. Shri G.M. Banatwalla 6. Shri Surendra Singh Barwala 7. Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi 8. Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi 9. Shri Bikram Keshari Deo 10. Shri Raghuvir Singh Kaushal 11. Shri Chandrakant Khaire 12. Shri Sis Ram Ola 13. Prof. R.R. Pramanik 14. Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan 15. Shri Rajendrasinh Rana 16. Shri S.B.P.B.K. Satyanarayana Rao 17. Shri Tara Chand Sahu 18. Shri Saiduzzama 19. Shri Kishan Singh Sangwan 20. Shri Balbir Singh 21. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh 22. Shri Chinmayanand Swami 23. Shri Ravi Prakash Verma 24. Shri Dinesh Chandra Yadav

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri John Joseph - Additional Secretary 2. Shri Ram Autar Ram - Joint Secretary 3. Shri R.N. Kalra - Director 4. Shri S.C.Kaliraman - Assistant Director

R E P O R T

I Permission to contribute Rs. 25 lakhs towards Orrisa flood relief from quota of MPLADS fund

1.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a letter dated 13 August, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 30 July, 2001 from Shri Ramdas Aggarwal, MP (LS) addressed to Shri Arun Shourie, Minister of State for Planning, Statistics and Programme Implementation regarding permission to contribute Rs. 25 lakhs towards Orissa flood relief from quota of MPLADS fund for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS.

1.2 In his letter dated 30 July, 2001, the hon’ble Member stated as follows:-

“Orissa is once again the grip of heavy as well as devastating floods. Hon’ble Prime Minister himself has visited Orissa on 29 July and provided a big sum for the flood relief work in Orissa State. Here I would like to add that all the Members of Parliament should be allowed to spend Rs. 25 lakh each out of their Member of Parliament Local Area Development funds to help Orissa for combating this dreaded natural calamity. In this regard, I would also like to submit that if it is not at all possible for each and every Member of Parliament to come forward for this noble cause, then I may kindly be allowed to give Rs. 25 lakhs out of my Member of Parliament Local Area Development fund for the flood relief work in Orissa.

I am hopeful that your goodself will certainly consider my request.”

1.3 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 13 August, 2001 stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to enclose herewith a copy of letter dated 30 July, 2001 received from Shri Ramdas Aggarwal, MP (LS) requesting for general permission to allow MPs to contribute an amount upto Rs. 25 lakhs for rehabilitation measures from the people affected by floods in Orissa recently. He has also mentioned that in case it is not possible to issue a general permission for all MPs atleast he may be allowed to contribute Rs. 25 lakhs for rehabilitation measures in Orissa. Under para 1.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, MPs can recommend works outside their constituencies/States for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines for rehabilitation measures in the event of natural calamity of rare severity in any part of the country for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs for each calamity. Shri Ramdas Aggarwal is a Rajya Sabha MP from Rajasthan. He can contribute Rs. 10 lakhs for rehabilitation measures of the people affected by floods in Orissa recently. Allowing him to contribute an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs requires relaxation to the limit of Rs.10 lakhs contained in para 1.3 of the Guidelines. It is requested that the matter may be placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha.” Recommendation

1.4 The Committee consider the proposal of Shri Ramdas Aggarwal, MP (Rajya Sabha) regarding giving permission to contribute Rs.25 lakh towards Orissa flood relief from his quota of MPLADS funds. The Committee note that under Para 1.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, MPs can recommend works outside their Constituencies/States for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines for rehabilitation measures in the event of a natural calamity of rare severity in any part of the country for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10 lakh for each calamity. However, keeping in view that the amount being given is for rehabilitation measures for the people affected by floods in Orissa recently, the Committee permit the hon’ble Member to contribute an amount of Rs. 25 lakh towards Orissa flood relief as a special case. II Suggestion regarding construction of Kolhapur Type weir (water storage) on Rangavali River at Navapur District, Maharashtra under MPLADS

2.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a letter dated 5 July, 2001 enclosing therewith a copy of letter from the Collector, Nandurbar, Maharashtra addressed to the Ministry regarding construction of Kolhapur Type weir (water storage) on Rangavali River at Navapur District, Maharashtra under MPLADS for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS.

2.2 In his letter dated 11 May, 2001 addressed to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Collector, Nandurbar stated as follows:-

“As per the recommendation of hon’ble M.P. Mr. Manikrao Gavit Nandurbar (ST) (Maharashtra State) Parliamentary Constituency the work of Kolhapur Type Weir (storage bandhara) on Rangavali river at Navapur District - Nandurbar costing Rs.9.95 lacks was sanctioned on 31.12.96 having storage capacity 106.75 TCM. As per the estimate the depth of foundation under earth was to be about 1 to 1.5 meters. However, when the work started for foundation the hard rock was found at 6 meters depth. Considering the depth of foundation the cost of this scheme was revised to 43.97 lacks in 1998.

Due to technical reason and as it was understood that Collector could not give approval for more than Rs. 10.00 lacks (as per old guidelines) Hon’ble MP Mr. Manikrao Gavit vide his letter dated 13.4.99 recommended stopping of the work and asked to finalise the work at that stage and treat it as preventive measure for soil erosion. Accordingly, Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation (State Sector), Dhule stopped the work. Total expenditure on work done 2.70 lacks. If the said work is completed it will be beneficial to farmers in command area as well as for drinking water for Navapur city so we pursued this matter for completion of the work even if the cost escalates. We have also convinced hon’ble MP to recommend for completion of said work. Now due to scarcity and non-availability of permanent water source to Navapur City hon’ble MP, Manikrao Gavit vide his letter dated 23.4.2001 has recommended the work of Kolhapur Type Storage Bandhara on Rangavali river at Navapur for water supply purpose. Accordingly the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (State Sector), Dhule has prepared estimate amounting Rs. 54.69 lacks. While preparing the estimate the amount of work done has been taken in to consideration. Now, the estimated storage capacity of the tank is 298.84 TCM. The scheme is useful for water supply to Navapur Municipal Council and also it will be beneficial to the farmers in command area. According to MPLADS Guidelines Collector can sacntion single work up to Rs.25.00 lacks. So we presume that Collector can give revise sanction up to Rs. 25.00 lacks. Collector can give sanction to work of Dam for irrigation or Water supply schemes costing more than 25 lacks. The said work is already sanctioned in 1996. You are requested to clarify whether Collector can give revised sanction to such type of work if cost goes more than 25 lacks. If not you are requested to give sanction for this work. If the work is sanctioned the problem of water source for Navapur Municipal Council will be solved permanently. 2.3 In his second letter dated 28 May, 2001 addressed to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Collector Nandurbar stated as follows:- “As per the recommendation of hon’ble M.P. Mr. Manikrao Gavit Nandurbar (ST) (Maharashtra State) Parliamentary constituency the work of Kolhapur Type weir (Storage bandhara) on Rangavali river at Navapur Distt. – Nandurbar costing Rs. 9.95 lacks was sanctioned on 31.12.96 having storage capacity 106.75 TCM. As per the estimate the depth of foundation under earth was to be about 1 to 15 meters. However, when the work started for foundation the hard rock was found at 6 meters depth. Considering the depth of foundation the cost of this scheme was revised to 43.97 lacks in 1998. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (State Sector) Division, Dhule brought this matter to the notice of hon’ble MP and Collector, Dhule (Un bifurcate District) and submitted revised estimate for approval. But as there is no mention in MPLADS Guidelines of revised sanction and as it was understood that Collector could not give approval for more than Rs.10.00 lacks (as per old Guidelines) hon’ble M.P. Mr. Manikrao Gavit vide his letter dated 13 April, 1999 recommended stopping of the work and asked to finalise the work at that stage and treat it as preventive measure for soil erosion. Since revised approval was not given Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation (State Sector), Dhule stopped the work. As the work already done was useful as a measure to meet soil erosion at that time the expenditure incurred cannot be taken as infructuous.

Now due to scarcity and non-availability of permanent water source to Navapur City hon’ble M.P. Mr. Manikrao Gavit vide his letter dated 23 April, 2001 has recommended the work of Kolhapur Type Storage Bandhara on Rangavali river at Navapur for water supply purpose. Accordinlgy, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (State Sector) , Dhule has prepared estimate amounting Rs. 54.69 lacks. While preparing the estimate the amount of work done has been taken into consideration. Now, the estimated storage capacity of the tank is 298.84 TCM. The scheme is useful for water supply to Navapur Municipal Council and also it will be beneficial to the farmers in command area. You are requested to kindly give sanction for this work.”

2.4 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 5th July, 2001 have stated as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to enclose herewith a copy of the letter No. DPC/MPLADS/2000-2001/0001 dated 11 May, 2001 and 29 May, 2001 on the above subject and to say that on the recommendation of hon’ble MP Shri Manikrao Gavit, District Collector has sought permission to sanction above said incomplete work which was earlier sanctioned during December, 1996 at a cost of Rs. 9.95 lacks but could not be completed and had to be stopped with the consent of the hon’ble MP. An amount of Rs. 2.70 lakhs had already been spent on this work. The work is now proposed to be completed at an estimated cost of Rs. 54.69 lakhs. The Guidelines stipulate that the cost of an individual work should not normally exceed Rs. 25 lakhs. This limit can, however, be exceeded in cases depending on the nature of the work. It is requested that the matter may kindly be placed before the Committee on MPLADS for consideration.”

2.5 The Ministry vide this Secretariat’s O.M. dated 13th August, 2001 here intimated that the proposal of hon’ble Member, Shri Manikrao Gavit is manily for a water supply scheme and provision for which already exists in para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS. Hence, there is no need to bring the matter before the Committee on MPLADS for their consideration. 2.6 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 22 August, 2001 have stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to the Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. No. 9/72/MPLADSC/2001 dated 13 August, 2001 on the above subject and to say that the limit of Rs. 25 lakhs per work stipulated in para 4.1 is being exceeded in the project. Cases involving amounts higher than Rs.25 lakhs are referred to the two Committees of the Parliament for relaxation on case to case basis. Accordingly, it is requested that the case may be placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha for their recommendation.” Recommendation

2.7 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding construction of Kolhapur Type weir (water storage) on Rangavali River at Navapur District, Maharashtra under MPLADS and approve it, as the construction of water storage would cater to the demands of water supply and also help in checking soil erosion in the area of Navapar city in Maharashtra. III

Representation regarding giving financial assistance for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of funds collected under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat

3.1 Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch and Shri P.S. Gadhavi, MP (LS) addressed letters dated 17 and 23 August, 2001 respectively to the hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS along with enclosures regarding seeking financial assistance for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of funds collected under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat.

3.2 In their letter, the Managing Trustee of Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust stated as follows:-

“I am pleased to introduce ourselves as a leading institution aiming to provide better education and medical facilities to the people of this area. Enclosed herewith please find report of progress and achievements of the institution.

Unfortunately our institution have suffered a log by the last earthquake on 26 January, 2001 hence we are badly in need of financial help amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs for medical and Rs.25 lakhs for education purposes from your honour. Respected M.P. Shri Puspadanbhai Gadhvi, and Shri Aanatbhai Dave are very well acquainted with our institution and I am sure they would recommend to help us. I hope your honour would by pleased to know that our institution is inclined to extend full co-operation to the proposed plan for medical college at Bhuj.” 3.3 Shri P.S. Gadhavi, MP (LS) in his letter dated 23 August, 2001 stated as under:- “I am forwarding herewith a copy of letter dated 17 August, 2001 addressed to your goodself by the Managing Director of Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, requesting for financial assistance for their medical and educational institution. I request your goodself to kindly consider their request favourably and do the needful.” 3.4 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 7 September, 2001 stated as follows:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to the Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. dated 4 September, 2001 on the above subject and to say that contribution of the hon’ble MPs made for rehabilitation measures in the event of a natural calamity of rare severity in any part of the country can be utilised for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines on MPLADS. The Guidelines on MPLADS permit construction of buildings for schools, hostels, libraries and other buildings of educational institutions belonging to Government or local bodies. Such buildings belonging to aided institution and unaided but recognised institutions can also be constructed provided, however, that the institution be in existence for not less than two years. Works relating to registered societies and trusts have since been included under MPLADS subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled by the beneficiary organisation. Accordingly, the contribution of hon’ble MPs made under para 1.3 can be utilised for construction of building of Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust provided the said educational institution is recognised by the Government and is in existence for not less than two years and will fulfil the conditions laid down for registered societies/trusts.” 3.5 The Committee may consider whether the proposed amount of Rs. 50 lakhs for medical and Rs. 25 lakhs for education purposes may be granted to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch from the amounts collected from the Members of Parliament, Lok Sabha under MPLADS for the earthquake affected areas of Gujarat. Recommendation

3.6 The Committee note the proposal regarding permission to give financial assistance for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of funds collected under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat. The Committee keeping in view the welfare of local people, allow financial assistance of Rs. 50 lakh for medical and Rs. 25 lakh for educational purposes for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of the funds collected from the Members of Parliament, Lok Sabha under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat.

IV

Purchase of tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit from MPLADS fund

4.1 Dr. Vallabhbhai Kathiria, Minister of State for Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises addressed a letter dated 2 August, 2001 to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding purchase of tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit from MPLADS fund.

4.2 In his letter, the hon’ble Minister stated as follows:-

“General Hospital, Rajkot has purchased a tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit and licence software from Konee Meditech Private Limited, Ahmedabad. This has been installed in the General Hospital on 4 May, 2001.

As per the existing Guidelines under the MPLAD Scheme computers etc., are being provided only to the higher secondary schools and tele-medicine system is not covered under MPLAD Scheme at present.

Tele-medicine center provides lot of convenience for the physicians to consult their colleagues in other locations in respect of proper diagnosis and treatment of their patients.

In view of the same, I would request you to kindly grant special permission for inclusion of the tele-medicine purchased by General Hospital, Rajkot for financial assistance under the MPLAD Scheme.”

4.3 The matter was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining comments thereon. The Ministry in their communication dated 24 August, 2001 have stated as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to refer to the Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. No. 9/80/ MPLADSC/ 2001 dated 16 August, 2001 on the above subject and to say that the tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit and licence software is not covered under the Guidelines on MPLAD Scheme. The tele-medicine system with video conferencing unit has already been purchased by the Government hospital and installed on 4 May, 2001, whereas the hon’ble MOS (HI&PE) has proposed to the District Collector, Rajkot on 28 July, 2001 for meeting cost of the system against MPLADS funds. The Guidelines do not contain any provision for making such payments for the items already purchased without the recommendation of the MP. Moreover, the Guidelines on MPLADS specifically prohibit grants.”

Recommendation

4.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding purchase of tele- medicine system with video conferencing unit from MPLADS fund and disapprove it, as the Guidelines on MPLADS do not contain any provision for making retrospective orders for such payments for the items already purchased without the recommendation of the MP. Moreover, the Guidelines on MPLADS specifically prohibit grants.

V

Relaxation in the upper limit of Rs.25 lakh for construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara in Kerala

5.1 The Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a communication dated 30 August, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 6 August, 2001 from the Government of Kerala (Planning & Economic Affairs, Department) regarding relaxation in the upper limit of Rs.25 lakhs for construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara in Kerala.

5.2 The Secretary to Government of Kerala in his letter dated 6 August, 2001 stated as follows:-

“Sub: MPLADS-funds allotted by four MP’s to a single work - clubbing of fund - clarification sought - reg.

Ref: Lr.No:Plg.860/ PR-PWD/GC-Chavara dated 19.7.01 from the District Collector, Kollam.

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the letter cited and to request you to clarify whether the clubbing of funds is permissible as per Guidelines on MPLADS."

5.3 The Collector, Kollam in his letter dated 19 July, 2001 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Planning and Economic Affairs (CPWD) Department, Government Secretariat, , stated as under:-

“As per the reference cited first, Shri S. Ramachandran Pillai, MP has allotted Rs. 8.00 lakhs for the construction of a building for Government College,Chavara. The work was entrusted to PWD Buildings Division, Kollam for implementation under MPLADS. Administrative Sanction was accorded on 11 August, 2000. Later, vide reference second cited, Shri J. Chitharanjan, MP has allotted Rs. 10 lakhs for undertaking the same work for which also administrative sanction was accorded. As more money was required to complete a block in the College building, Shri P. Rajendran, MP vide reference cited third has also allotted Rs. 20 lakhs. With this allotment, a consolidated estimate of Rs. 36 lakhs was prepared for the construction of the middle block of the ground floor of the College. This estimate is also likely to increase. Vide reference fourth cited, Shri N.K. Premachandran, MP has also allotted Rs. 10 lakhs for the same work taking the total to Rs. 48 lakhs.

When the PWD Officers were informed of the MPLADS guidelines prohibiting clubbing of funds of more than one MP for a single work under one estimate, they expressed their inability to take separate estimates as it invites much practical difficulties in arranging part works in the same building. In the circumstances stated above, it has been decided to bring the matter to the notice of the Government and request Government guidance in the matter.”

5.4 The Ministry in their communication dated 30 August, 2001 have stated as under:-

“Please find enclosed a copy of letter No. 9430/CPMU-1/-01/Plg., dated August, 6, 2001 received from Government of Kerala (Planning and Economic Affairs Department) regarding clubbing of MPLADS funds in respect of four MPs (3 Rajya Sabha MPs and 1 Lok Sabha MP of Kollam constituency) for the construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara.

The present Guidelines stipulate that normally cost of individual work taken up under MPLADS work should not exceed Rs. 25 lakhs. In some case, depending on the nature of the work, some marginal increase could be considered. Since, the cost of the proposed work is Rs. 48 lakhs, which is substantially higher than the ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs, the proposal requires relaxation by the MPLADS Committees of Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha. It is, therefore, requested that above proposal may please be placed before the Committees on MPLADS (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha) for consideration.”

Recommendation

5.5 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member and approve it as the Guidelines on MPLADS permit construction of a building for a Government College, vide Item No. 1 of Appendix-I of the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under the Scheme. Accordingly, the Committee agree to allow relaxation of upper limit of Rs.25 lakh for construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara in Kerala under MPLADS as a special case.

VI

Purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas of Orissa under MPLADS

6.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a letter dated 3 September, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of extracts of the proceedings of Rajya Sabha relating to Shri Ramachandran Khuntia, MP (RS)’s appeal for contribution from MPLADS funds for donation of motor boats for rescue operation and construction of shelters-cum-schools in Orissa.

6.2 The extracts of the proceedings of Rajya Sabha relating to Shri Ramachandran Khuntia, MP (RS)’s appeal for contribution from MPLADS funds for donation of motor boats for rescue operation and for construction of shelters-cum-schools in Orissa are as follows:-

“VI Appeal for contribution from MPLAD funds for donation of motor boats for rescue operation and for construction of shelters-cum-schools in Orissa.

Shri Ramchandran Khuntia: Orissa State is repeatedly affected by Super Cyclone, Super Floods and draught. This year 85,31,483 persons affected, 5 lakh houses damaged, and 1944 river embankments breached. 8 lakh people were evacuated, 41,312 hired boats and defence boats were engaged for rescue operation. The Government should modify MPLAD Fund Guidelines to enable the Members of Parliament to give Motor Boats to flood and cyclone prone Gram Panchayats. In Orissa, many Shelter Houses cum School is in progress and 75 hon’ble Members of Parliament have contributed Rs. 10 lakh from their MPLAD Fund. But more Shelter Houses-cum-School are required. We urge upon the Government to make an appeal to all hon’ble Members of Parliament, to contribute Rs. 10 lakh from their MPLAD Fund so that more Shelter Houses cum School could be constructed.”

6.3 The Ministry vide their communication dated 3 September, 2001 stated as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to enclose herewith extracts of the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha relating to the Special Mention made by Shri Ramachandran Khuntia, hon’ble MP (RS) for “appeal for contribution from MPLADS funds for donation of motor boats for rescue operation and for construction of shelters-cum-schools in Orissa.” The hon’le MP has made a request for amendment of the Guidelines to enable the Members of Parliament to give motor boats to flood and cyclone prone Gram Panchayats in Orissa.

Purchase of motor boats is not covered by the existing Guidelines on MPLADS. The Guidelines permit contribution by MPs, outside their constituencies/States for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines for rehabilitation measures in the event of a natural calamity of rare severity in any part of the country for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, for each calamity. Since purchase of motor boats is not covered under the present Guidelines on MPLADS, it is requested that the proposal of the hon’ble MP for purchase of motor boats for cyclone and flood prone Gram Panchayats in Orissa may kindly be placed before the Committee on MPLAD Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for consideration.”

Recommendation

6.4 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas of Orissa under MPLADS. The Committee while keeping the humanitarion aspect and local felt needs in view, recommend the purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas in general under MPLADS.

VII

Suggestion regarding construction of auditorium for Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal under MPLADS

7.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a letter dated 23 August, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 18 August, 2001 from Shri Vijay Darda, MP (RS) regarding construction of auditorium for Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal under MPLADS for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS.

7.2 In his letter, the hon’ble Member stated as follows:-

“Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal, is contemplating to construct a Auditorium the project cost of which is approximately Rs. 1.00 crore. I had advised the Collector, Yavatmal, to release the required funds to the Institute.

The Collector has, however, advised me that individual work costing more than Rs. 25/- lakhs cannot be considered. In this context, I reproduce below the relevant provision as incorporated vide clause 4.1 of Guidelines on MPLADS and subsequently amended vide your circular No. C/20/2000-MPLADS dated 26 May, 2000. “Ideally it would be desirable to the MPs to suggest individual works costing not more than Rs.25 lakhs per work. However, the limit of Rs. 25 lakhs per work should not be too rigidly construed. Amounts higher than Rs.25 lakhs per work can be spent depending upon the nature of the work. (For example, a single check dam to provide minor irrigation or water supply or a sports stadium may cost more than Rs.25 lakhs. In the case of such work more than Rs. 25 lakhs can be legitimately spent).”

A mention may be made here that the cause for which I propose to give the funds is in the field of education and the area is predominantly dominated by Tribals. The College is recently established and has no sufficient funds to construct the auditorium.

In view of the foregoing and particularly having regard to the fact that there is a scope in the Guidelines, I do not find any reason for not releasing the funds. I, therefore, request you to advise the Collector, Yavatmal, suitably in this regard.”

7.3 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation vide their communication dated 23 August, 2001 stated as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to enclose a copy of the letter dated 18 August, 2001 received from Shri Vijay Darda, hon’ble MP (RS) on the above subject and to say that the limit of Rs.25 lakhs per work stipulated in para 4.1 is being exceeded in this project. Cases involving amounts higher than Rs.25 lakhs are referred to the two Committees on MPLADS for relaxation on case to case basis. It is requested that the matter may kindly be placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha for their recommendation.”

Recommendation

7.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding giving relaxation for the limit of Rs. 25 lakh for construction of auditorium for Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal under MPLADS and approve it as it related to an educational institution in a predominantly tribals dominated area. Moreover, Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS envisages that amounts higher than Rs. 25 lakh per work can be spent depending upon the nature of the work, for example, a single check dam to provide minor irrigation or water supply or a sports stadium may cost more than Rs. 10 lakh. In the case of such works higher amount can be legitimately spent. VIII

Representation regarding contribution from MPLADS funds for construction of a hospital block at Manjeri district Mallapuram in Kerala

8.1 Shri E. Ahamed, MP (LS) addressed a letter dated 12 September, 2001 to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding contribution from MPLADS funds for construction of a hospital block at Manjeri district, Mallapuram in Kerala.

8.2 Shri E. Ahamed, MP (LS), in his letter stated as follows:-

“I would like to bring to your kind attention the urgent need of money to be made available to a very deserving case in my constituency. My district (Mallappuram) is very much backward and the medical facilities for poor people is available only at the Government District Headquarters Hospital at Manjeri (Kerala) which is in a most pathetic condition. Though there are more than 30,000 out-patients every month as well as the delivery of labour cases of 850 per month, the facilities available in this hospital is abysmally poor. The word `Government District Headquarters Hospital’ is only a misnomer.

Now, the President of newly elected District Panchayat and all the Block and Gram Panchayat representatives have formed a Hospital Development Committee with the involvement of the officials and non-officials and a new fund has been created under the District Panchayat Board involving MLAs, MPs and the hospital doctors. Two Rajya Sabha MPs from our side have agreed to allot Rs.35 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively. As I am a local MP and the hospital is located in my constituency headquarters and as it is also my primary duty, I have promised to set apart Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) each for two years i.e. for this year and for next year. The total outlay for the development of the hospital is estimated to be Rs. 17 crores. But I have made it certain that my MPLADS money will be utilised to create a new block which is urgently needed in this hospital and to be named after `Local MPs Block’. I seek the permission of the Committee under your chairmanship taking into account the urgency and the seriousness of the project and for the development of the Government District Hospital which is being used by thousands of poor people in the District.” 8.3 The representation was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining their comments on it. In their reply dated 10 October, 2001, the Ministry have stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to the Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. No. 9/104/MPLADSC/2001 dated 3 October, 2001 on the above subject and to say that the hon’ble MP proposes to allocate Rs. 50 lakhs each for 2 years for a new hospital to be constructed in his constituency at an estimated cost of Rs. 17 crores. He has also stated that 2 MPs from Rajya Sabha from outside have also agreed to allocate Rs. 35 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively. In this connection, the following comments are offered:- (i) As per Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, the cost of individual work to be taken up under MPLADS should not exceed Rs. 25 lakhs. The Lok Sabha Committee on MPLADS in its Seventh Report has recommended that proposals involving investment higher than Rs. 25 lakhs should be placed before the Committee on MPLADS for examining the same on merits. Hence, works requiring higher investments are placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. (ii) Elected Rajya Sabha MPs can allocate funds in any district in the State from which they have been elected. It is not clear whether the two Rajya Sabha MPs who have agreed to allocate funds for this project are from Kerala or not. If they are from any other State, then the provision contained in Para 1.2 of the Guidelines do not allow them to allocate funds in Kerala.” 8.4 In pursuant of the comments of the Ministry, Shri E. Ahamed, MP (LS) vide this Secretariat’s letter dated 22 October, 2001 was requested to clarify whether two Rajya Sabha MPs, who are willing to allocate funds for the project are from Kerala or not. Subsequently, Shri E. Ahamed has telephonically intimated that only his request for contributing Rs. 50 lakhs each for two years for construction of a new hospital might be processed and considered by the Committee on MPLADS for granting permission.

Recommendation

8.5 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member Shri E. Ahamed, regarding contribution from MPLADS funds for construction of a hospital block at Manjeri, district Mallapuram in Kerala and approve the same for contributing Rs. 50 lakh for two years in succession from his MPLADS quota as it was within the purview of the Guidelines on MPLADS.

IX

Relaxation in the upper limit of cost of works recommended by Shri Sikander Bakht, MP (Rajya Sabha)

9.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a communication dated 22 August, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 12 June, 2001 from Shri Sikander Bakht, MP (RS) along with other enclosures regarding relaxation in the upper limit of cost of works recommended by Shri Sikander Bakht, hon’ble Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS. 9.2 In his letter, addressed to Dr. (Mrs.) Najma Heptulla, Chairperson, MPLADS Committee, Rajya Sabha, the hon’ble Member stated as follows:- “From out of MPLADS fund I had proposed to construct three bridges in Gwalior city. The construction of each bridge will cost above Rs.50 lakhs. I have been told by the Director, MPLADS that the sanction for the expenditure of amount above Rs. 25 lakhs will require the approval of MPLADS Committee which is under you. I request you to kindly permit me to get these three bridges constructed for the welfare of the people of the region of Gwalior.” 9.3 The Ministry in their communication dated 22 August, 2001 stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to say that Shri Sikander Bakht, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) has recommended construction of 3 bridges at a cost of about Rs. 50 lakhs each in Gwalior district with MPLADS funds and in that connection he has already written to the Chairperson of the MPLADS Committee of Rajya Sabha. The justification for the construction of 3 bridges has been given by the District Magistrate, Gwalior in his letter dated 9 August, 2001. The limit of Rs. 25 lakh per work as stipulated in para 4.1 of the Guidelines will exceed in these projects. Cases, involving amounts higher than Rs.25 lakh, are referred to the two Committees of Parliament for relaxation, on cases to case basis. The matter may therefore be placed before the Committees for their consideration.” 9.4 In this connection, para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS envisages as follows:-

“Ideally it would be desirable that the MPs suggest individual works costing not more than Rs.25 lakh per work. However, the limit of Rs. 25 lakh per work should not be too rigidly construed. Amounts higher than Rs.25 lakh per work can be spent depending upon the nature of the work. (For example, a single check dam to provide minor irrigation or water supply or a sports stadium may cost more than Rs.25 lakh. In the case of such works higher amount can be legitimately spent).”

Recommendation

9.5 The Committee note the proposal of Shri Sikander Bakht, MP (Rajya Sabha) regarding relaxation in the upper limit of more than of Rs. 25 lakh as cost of works for construction of three bridges at a cost of Rs. 50 lakh each in Gwalior district with MPLADS funds and approve the same as Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS inter alia also envisages that in case of such works higher amount can be legitimately spent. X

Representation from North East MPs’ Forum regarding waiving of condition pertaining to ownership of assets created under MPLADS

10.1 The North East MPs’ Forum comprising ten MPs of Lok Sabha, namely, S/Shri Abdul Hamid, Paban Singh Ghatowar, Bijoy Krishna Handique, K.A. Sangtam, Nepal Chandra Das, Madhab Rajbangshi, Vanlalzawma, A.G. Golam Osmani, S.K. Bwiswmuthiary and five MPs of Rajya Sabha, namely, S/Shri Karnendu Bhattacharjee, C. Apok Jamir, Khagen Das, Dr. Arun Kumar Sarma and Smt. Basanti Sarma, addressed a letter to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding waiving of condition pertaining to ownership of assets created under MPLADS for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS. 10.2 In their letter, the North East MPs’ Forum stated as follows:- “The new guideline amending the earlier guidelines under MPLAD Scheme, creating durable assets of MPLAD Scheme to vest in the Government has created adverse effect on schemes particularly in the North region. MPLAD Schemes are in almost all cases meant for the people not the Government. The local village authority or local organisation or Managing Committee of School/college etc., are the beneficiaries and the assets so created belong to these authorities or organisations, that is, they become the community assets. For example, making a road or a bridge is vested in the local authorities and it is they who implement the MPLAD work. Extension of a educational building which is already in the hands of Managing Committees, it goes to assets created for the school and social purpose. We may also mention that land holdings in North East Region belong to the people. The Government has limited ownership. Therefore, any move to invest the work under MPLAD Scheme to Government will be constructed as imposition by the Government with ulterior motive. In the Deed of Agreement enclosed (See annexure), you will notice that the Deputy Commissioner will be implementing agency and will hand over to the beneficiary only after the completion of the work done by them. It means that virtually the MPLAD Schemes cease to be the Schemes meant for the people. The Government becomes the owner, implementor and the entire authority rolled into one. We, the Members of Parliament from the North-East region, lodge a strong protest against this move which in effect means stoppage of all MPLAD works. We may add that while accountability of public fund is necessary, it could be effected by the concerned officers to keep strict record of community assets so created. We are afraid the concept of community assets is defeated by this new guidelines. We request you to reconsider the matter in your Committee.”

10.3 The representation was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining their factual comments thereon. In their reply dated 5 November, 2001, the Ministry stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. No. 9/108/MPLADSC/2001 dated 16 October, 2001 on the above subject and to say that the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha in its Third Report had recommended for inclusion of works belonging to registered societies/trusts subject to certain conditions.

One of the conditions approved by the Committee was that the ownership of such assets would vest in the Government. The sale/transfer/disposal of these assets will not be undertaken without the prior approval of the Government.

The Committee also recommended that the beneficiary organisation must enter into a formal agreement, in advance, with the Government to comply with the conditions.

Some MPs of North-East region have expressed their unhappiness over this condition of the assets created belonging to the Government. It may be mentioned that these conditions are necessary for accountability of public funds. The Ministry of Law was also consulted for preparation of the draft agreement to be entered between the registered society/trust and the Government. That Ministry, in fact, has advised for compulsory registration of the agreement so entered.

The above facts may please be placed before the Committee.”

10.4 In view of the above, it is for consideration whether the extant conditions regarding ownership of assets created under MPLADS should be vested in the Government or waived particularly in the North-East region ignoring the accountability aspect of the public funds at present vested with the State Government. Recommendation

10.5 The Committee consider the proposal of North East MPs’ Forum regarding waiving of condition pertaining to ownership of assets created under MPLADS. The Committee note that these conditions which stipulate that the ownership of assets created under MPLADS should belong to the government are necessary for accountability of public funds. Therefore, the Committee do not approve the proposal for waiving of these conditions, in order to have uniform set of Guidelines in various regions of the country.

XI

Suggestion regarding waiving of the cost towards stamp duty and other charges for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS

11.1 Shri Ram Sajivan, MP (LS) addressed a letter dated 21 June, 2001 to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding waiving of the cost towards stamp duty and other charges for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS. 11.2 In his letter, the hon’ble Member stated as follows:- “You may be aware that recently the Ministry of Programme Implementation has issued a circular relating funding construction projects in Educational Institutions under the MPLAD Scheme. This circular stipulates that the beneficiary institutions shall enter into an agreement with the respective District Authorities to the effect of transfer of the assets created out of the hon’ble Member’s contribution. This circular’s objectives are laudable in as much as it ensures sound accountability in respect of contribution received by beneficiary institutions. However, at the same time, in the operation of this circular the beneficiary institutions have to bear the cost towards the stamp duty and other conveyancing charges which cuts in to a huge portion of the contribution of the respective Members of Parliament.

In this connection, you may also appreciate that the beneficiary institutions are very small and do not have the means to meet this cost. In fact, it will be normally seen that only financially poor institutions that cannot afford creation of durable assets by itself approach their respective Member of Parliament for assistance. Hence burdening them with cost of conveyancing, stamp duty etc., in actual terms tantamounts to reduction in value of actual assets sought to be created leading to shrinking of the size of the fund in effect.

I may also apprise you that I also had discussions with Shri R. Dutta, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Programme Implementation. He informed me that this circular has been issued in consultation with the Law Ministry. In this context, the Union Ministry of Law had not considered other viable option like notarial registration of the agreement under the Notorial Magistrate hence saving the beneficiary organisation of the Stamp Duty charges while this method also serves the purpose of the circular.

I, therefore, request you to kindly consider the matter and seek to replace the present circular with Notorial registration of the agreement entered between the District Authorities and beneficiary institutions.”

11.3 In this connection, Circular No. C/21/2000-MPLADS dated 23 January, 2001 issued by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to DC/DM/Dy. Commissioners, all districts states as follows:-

“The following shall be substituted as para 2.6 of the Guidelines with immediate effect:- 2.6 The funds under MPLADS may be used for creation of durable assets which shall always be available for public use at large. The ownership of such assets created with MPLAD funds would vest in the Government. The sale/transfer/ disposal of the assets created out of MPLADS funds shall not be undertaken without the prior approval of the Government. The maintenance and upkeep of assets so created will have to be ensured by the beneficiary organisation and will be subject to periodical audit and inspection by the Government. Beneficiary organisations other than Government must enter into a formal agreement, in advance, with Government to comply with the above conditions before the funds from MPLADS are disbursed to the beneficiary organisation.” 11.4 Revised Circular No. C/21/2000-MPLADS dated 4 July, 2001 issued by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to DC/DM/Dy. Commissioners, all districts states as follows:- “I am directed to invite your kind attention to this Ministry’s Circular of even No. dated 23 January, 2001 regarding amendment to para 2.6 of the Guidelines. The words “Beneficiary organisations other than Government must enter into formal agreement, in advance, with Government to comply with the above condition before the funds from MPLADS are disbursed to the beneficiary organisation” appearing in the amended provision of para 2.6 may kindly be substituted as under:- “Beneficiary organisations other than Government must enter into formal agreement in advance, with Government to comply with the above condition before the funds from MPLADS funds are used for creation of a durable assets permissible, as per procedure laid down under the MPLADS Guidelines.” 11.5 The matter was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation on 10 July, 2001, for obtaining their factual comments thereon which are still awaited. 11.6 The Committee may consider whether the stamp duty and other charges may be waived and replaced with notorial registration for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets to them created under MPLADS. Recommendation

11.7 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding waiving of the cost towards stamp duty and other charges for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS. The Committee while taking into account the poor financial condition of small institutions which cannot afford creation of durable assets by itself and thereby approach their respective MP for assistance, recommend that the stamp duty and other conveyancing charges should be waived and replaced with other viable option like notorial registration of the agreement under the Notorial Magistrate, hence saving for the beneficiary organisations/institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS. XII

Representation regarding whether the Rajya Sabha Member could be allowed to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of India under MPLADS

12.1 During the meeting of the Committee on MPLADS on 27 September, 2001, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, MP (LS) handed over a representation to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS on the above subject regarding whether the Rajya Sabha Member could be allowed to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of India under MPLADS

12.2 In his representation, the hon’ble Member stated as follows:-

“A meeting in Delhi on 11 and 12 October, 2001 if possible to discuss the following:-

(1.) Whether Rajya Sabha Member could be allowed to spend development fund 25 percent of their allotment in any part of India. (2.) Whether MP could be given hired vehicle in a maximum limit of expenditure from MPLAD to supervise work in a year. (3.) The above Guidelines may be considered for our recommendation. (4.) The areas where DMs are not complying with Guidelines. Members may be asked to send their proposal if any on present guideline and new suggestions.”

12.3 The representation was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining their comments thereon. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 11 October, 2001 stated as follows:-

(i) Whether the Rajya Sabha Member could be allowed to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of India under MPLADS: Elected MPs of Rajya Sabha can spend MPLADS funds in one or more district(s) in the State from which they have been elected. As per the Guidelines, they cannot spend MPLADS funds in any State other than the State from where he has been elected. Nominated MPs of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can spend MPLADS funds in one or more districts anywhere in the country. MPs can, however, recommend works outside their constituencies/States for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines, for rehabilitation measures in the event of “natural calamity of rare severity” in any part of the country for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, for each calamity.

(ii) Whether MP could be given hired vehicle in a maximum limit of expenditure from MPLADS to supervise work in a year:

There is no provision in the Guidelines on MPLADS for hiring a vehicle with MPLADS funds to supervise MPLADS works. (iii) The areas where DM’s are not complying with the Guidelines: DCs/DMs are required to execute MPLADS works by following the established procedure of the respective States, subject to the Guidelines on MPLADS. In case of violation of the Guidelines on MPLADS the matter is taken up with the State Government/District Collector concerned for remedial measures.”

Recommendation

12.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding allowing Rajya Sabha Member to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of the country under MPLADS. The Committee do not approve it, as under the extant Guidelines on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha MPs cannot spend MPLADS funds in any State other than the State from where they have been elected. Only nominated MPs of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can spend in one or more districts anywhere in the country.

XIII

Suggestion to make amendment in Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS

13.1 During the meeting of the Committee on MPLADS on 20 November, 2001, hon’ble Chairman, desired that Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS might be placed before the Committee for their consideration as the same appeared to be ambiguous and needed elaboration. 13.2 Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS. “It will also be appropriate if the scheme funds are used for partly meeting the cost of a larger work like for example for partly meeting the cost of a micro-hydle work only in case it would result in completion of the works. Where such part costs are met under this para, it should be with reference to clearly identifiable part of the work.”

Recommendation 13.3 The Committee note the provisions of Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS. The Committee after having considered the implications of the provisions of this para recommend that any number of projects can be taken up jointly under MPLADS. Accordingly, they desire that the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation should carry out necessary amendment in the aforesaid para making it broad based so that various projects could be taken up jointly under MPLADS including food for work programme etc.

XIV Suggestion regarding release of MPLADS funds direct to Head of the educational institutions for construction of buildings or entrust the construction/ renovation/repair of school and colleges to their management committees/governing bodies under MPLADS

14.1 Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay, MP (LS) addressed a letter to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS enclosing therewith a copy of letter from Dr. Bikram Sarkar, MP (LS) addressed to the hon’ble Minister of Tourism and Programme Implementation suggesting therein release of MPLADS funds direct to Head of the educational institutions for construction of buildings or entrust the construction/renovation/repair of school and colleges to their management committees/governing bodies under MPLAD Scheme for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS. 14.2 The hon’ble Member, Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay in his letter stated as follows:- “I received the letter (see annexure) addressed to Mr. , hon’ble Minister for Programme Implementation by Dr. Bikram Sarkar, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha where he has suggested for implementation of few ideas which may kindly be discussed in the next meeting of the Committee on MPLADS.

I hope all the suggestions are acceptable and by which rural poor people will be genuinely benefitted.

14.3 The representation of the hon’ble Member was referred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining their factual comments thereon. The Ministry in their reply dated 31 October, 2001 inter alia, stated as follows:- “The undersigned is directed to refer to the Lok Sabha Secretariat O.M. No. 9/112/MPLADSC/2001 dated 18.10.01 on the above subject and to say that Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay has forwarded a copy of the letter dated 5.9.01 addressed to hon’ble Minister, Tourism and Programme Implementation by Dr. Bikram Sarkar who has made a proposal for entrusting construction/ renovation/repair of buildings of school/colleges to the governing bodies/ committee of the school/college. Similar proposals made by hon’ble Members Shri Rampal Singh and Shri Bir Singh Mahato are already under consideration with the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha. A copy of this Ministry’s comments on the proposal of Shri Ram Pal Singh and Shri Bir Singh Mahato, sent vide letter No. L/25/37/94-MPLADS dated 22.10.01 is enclosed.”

14.4. The comments of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation on the proposal of Shri Ram Pal Singh and Bir Singh Mahato vide their letter dated 22 October, 2001 are as follows:- “In this connection, it is stated that in accordance with Para 2.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, works under the Scheme are required to be implemented by the District Head by following the established procedure laid down by the respective State Government/UT. There is specific restriction at Item – 4, Appendix-2 of the existing Guidelines on giving grants and loans. If the MPLADS funds are released directly to the beneficiary organisations, the same would amount to giving grant to them, which is not permissible under the Guidelines. Moreover, no accountability on the District Authority can be fixed if funds are given directly to beneficiary organisation. The proposal of MPs, copies of which are again enclosed, may be placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha for consideration.” 14.5 The Committee may consider whether the suggestion regarding the construction/ renovation/repair of school and colleges be entrusted to their management committees/ governing bodies under MPLAD Scheme which would be beneficial to rural people. Recommendation

14.6 The Committee note the proposal regarding release of MPLADS funds direct to Heads of the educational institution for construction of buildings or entrust the construction/renovation/repair of school and colleges to their management committees/governing bodies under MPLADS and do not approve it as in accordance with Para 2.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, works under the MPLAD Scheme are required to be implemented by the District Head by following the established procedure laid down by the respective State Governments/U.Ts. The Committee are of the view that there is specific restriction at Item-4, Appendix-2 of the existing Guidelines on giving grants and loans and if the MPLADS funds are released directly to the beneficiary organisations, the same would amount to giving grant to them, which is not permissible under the Guidelines. Moreover, no accountability on the District authority can be fixed if funds are given directly to beneficiary organisations. XV

Suggestion regarding allowing construction of new manned level crossings, road over/under bridges, foot over bridges and passenger amenities in the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under MPLADS

15.1 The Committee on MPLADS (Lok Sabha) in Para 3.7 in their Fifth Report, had recommended inter alia as follows:-

“The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Minister regarding inclusion of passenger amenities in the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under MPLADS. The Committee also note the decision of the Committee on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha, which have rejected the proposal on the ground that these items could be covered under the budget allocation of the Ministry of Railways. However, keeping in view the demands of public and requests from hon’ble MPs, the Committee recommend that the works like construction of foot over bridges, new road over/under bridges and passenger amenities at railway stations might be included as permitted items in the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under the Guidelines on MPLAD Scheme.”

15.2 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their Action Taken Note dated 10 May, 2001, on the above mentioned recommendation, stated as under :-

“The matter alongwith the recommendations of the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha has been forwarded to the Committee on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha for their reconsideration.” 15.3 In this regard, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation also furnished their comments vide their communication dated 12 October, 2001 as follows:-. “The undersigned is directed to invite the kind attention of the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat to this Ministry’s O.M. of even no. dated 16.1.2001 on the above subject and enclose herewith a copy of the D.O. letter No. 95/CE-I/LX/10-Pt.A dated 1.10.2001 (see annexure) received from the Railway Board. The Railway Board had conveyed that as per their policy, they provide new level crossings, road over/under bridges or foot over bridges at the time of laying of new railway line or upto ten years after opening of the railway line to traffic. For any accommodation work which include above mentioned items of works, required ten years after opening of the railway line to traffic, they would require the capitalised value of annual recurring cost as deposit in advance. They have indicated the cost of construction of a new level crossing as Rs. 37 lakh which includes Rs. 25 lakh as recurring cost for ten years. The Guidelines on MPLADS specifically prohibit any recurring cost on maintenance. The cost of maintenance of assets are to be borne by the concerned organisation. The Rajya Sabha Committee in its Thirteenth meeting held on 26 February, 2001 had not agreed to include these items under MPLADS on the ground that these items could be covered under the budget allocation of the Ministry of Railways. The Rajya Sabha Committee on MPLADS was requested to reconsider the proposal in view of the recommendations of the Lok Sabha Committee mentioned above. No response has been received from them. The information received from the Railway Board shows that the policy of the Railway authorities is to carry out “accommodation works” as “deposit work”, only after receiving in advance the cost of the work in question alongwith maintenance charges, etc., if such works are to be carried out after ten years of opening the new railway line to traffic.” 15.4 In this connection, a similar representation dated 2 November, 2001 from Shri Kirit Somaiya, MP (LS) addressed to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS was also received. The hon’ble Member in his representation stated as follows:- “I have requested Mumbai Sub Urban Collector for release of Rs. 18 lakhs from my MPLAD Fund for construction of a footbridge. The Collector has already sanctioned the same but due to some instructions from Planning and Implementation Ministry officials the process is withheld.

The footbridge is the responsibility of local authorities, i.e. Mumbai Municiapl Corporation. This bridge will link a population of about 50,000 slum dwellers with schools, markets, bus stops, etc.

Of course, this footbridge is across the Railway lines but is not at all the responsibility of Railway Authorities. It is not over a railway station, it is not a part of railway station or railway passenger amenities. It is not the duty and responsibility of Railways. It is purely the responsibility of local authorities.

The Programme Implementation Department has taken objection in the name of Railways. Railways has already appreciated the construction of such footbridge.

I would request you to ask the Department to withdraw immediately their objection and cooperate to release the fund at the earliest.”

15.5 The aforesaid representation was forwarded to Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for obtaining their comments thereon. The Ministry vide their communication dated 9 November, 2001 replied as under:-

“The undersigned is directed to refer to Lok Sabha Secretariat OM No. 9/115/MPLADSC/2001 on the above subject and to say that a copy of the letter dated 2 November, 2001 of Shri Kirit Somaiya, MP (LS) stated to have been forwarded has actually not been received. However, Shri Somaiya had written a letter dated 31 October, 2001 to this Ministry on the same subject, and position is as under:- (i) Shri Kirit Somaiya has made a proposal for construction of foot bridge in his constituency near Govandi, Chambur. Shri Somaiya informed that this bridge will not be a part of the Railway Station and is not the responsibility of Railways. He has also informed that as the foot bridge is to be constructed over the railway lines, the work can be done only by the Railway Engineering Department on behalf of local authorities.

(ii) Earlier, the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Committees had considered a proposal of the then Railway Minister for allowing certain passenger amenities under MPLADS, such as construction of new level crossing, foot over bridges, new road over/under bridges and passenger amenities at Railway Stations. While the Rajya Sabha Committee in its meeting held on 30 June, 2000 and 26 February, 2001 did not approve the proposal, the Lok Sabha Committee in its Fifth Report had recommended that works like construction of foot over bridges might be included as permitted items in the Illustrative List of works. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat was requested on 1 May, 2001 to place the matter before the Rajya Sabha Committee again, for reconsideration. The present specific request of Shri Somaiya has again been referred to Rajya Sabha Secretariat on 8 November, 2001 for placing the same before the Rajya Sabha Committee for consideration.” 15.6 In the light of the policy of the Railways and the rejection of the proposal by Rajya Sabha MPLADS Committee, the proposals of Railway Board to carry out “accommodation works” as “deposit works”, only after receiving in advance the cost of the work in question alongwith maintenance charges etc. and of Shri Kirit Somaiya for construction of a foot bridge in his constituency near Govandi, Chambur in Mumbai are now placed before the Committee for consideration.

Recommendation

15.7 The Committee note the proposals of Railway Board to carry out “accommodation works” as “deposit works” only after receiving in advance the cost of the work in question along with maintenance charges, etc., and the request of Shri Kirit Somaiya, MP (LS) for construction of a foot bridge in his Parliamentary constituency near Govandi, Chembur in Mumbai and approve the same under MPLADS as they relate to locally felt needs.

XVI

Representation regarding proposal for purchase of a bus for the trainees of a sports hostel, Ponda, Goa under MPLADS

16.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has addressed a letter dated 8 November, 2001 to the Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of D.O. dated 19 October, 2001 from Shri Shripad Y. Naik, hon’ble Minister of State (Shipping), Government of India addressed to Shri Arun Shourie, hon’ble Minister for Public Grievances and Disinvestment, regarding proposal for purchase of a bus for the trainees of a sports hostel, Ponda, Goa under MPLADS.

16.2 Shri Shripad Y. Naik, hon’ble Minister of State (Shipping), in his aforesaid letter stated as follows:-

“This has reference to a proposal forwarded by me under the MPLAD Scheme for effective implementation of the sports hostel under the Centre-State matching grant scheme at Ponda-Goa. During my visit to the hostel, the authorities requested for a bus facility to the inmates for commuting to venues of competitions, as no such provision is available under the sports hostel scheme at present. Currently, the hostel inmates avail of the public transport facilities and as such lose considerable amount of time thus depriving them of time for study and training facilities. Accordingly, a proposal was forwarded for a bus to be provided to the sports hostel, on similar grounds as ambulances with sitting capacity were provided to various organisations by my pre-decessor, Shri Ravi Naik (Ex- MP). However, the proposal has not been accepted by the local collectorate on technical grounds due to which my plans to invite Union Sports Minister, Ms. Uma Bharti, to Goa to commission the said bus for the Sports hostel have been shelved. Considering the above facts, I shall be grateful if necessary directions are given as a special case to provide a bus for the trainees at the Sports hostel, Ponda, as the authorities there, are willing to make arrangements for driver and maintenance. The rules of the MPLAD Scheme may be suitably modified to fit in the above cited proposal, if necessary.” 16.3 In this regard, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation vide their communication dated 8 November, 2001 while forwarding the D.O. letter of the MOS for Shipping has stated as under:- “The Guidelines on MPLADS do not permit purchase of vehicle of any type except ambulance for Government hospitals/reputed service organisations like Red Cross, Ramakrishna Mission, etc.” 16.4 The Ministry has advised our Secretariat to place the matter before the Committee on MPLADS of both the Houses of Parliament. Recommendation

16.5 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member and do not approve it as the Guidelines on MPLADS do not permit purchase of vehicle of any type except ambulance for Government hospitals/reputed service organisations like Red Cross, Ramakrishna Mission, etc.

XVII

Representation regarding construction of Physiotherapy building within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad under MPLAD Scheme

17.1 Shri Brahmakumar Bhatt, hon’ble Member, Rajya Sabha addressed a letter dated 2 November, 2001, to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding construction of Physiotherapy nuilding within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad under MPLAD Scheme, for consideration of the Committee on MPLADS.

17.2 The hon’ble Member, in his letter, stated as follows:- “As you know I contacted you on 31 October, 2001 regarding construction of Physiotherapy Building within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad controlled by the Municipal Commissioner. As the grant was above Rs. 25 lacs, Collector of Ahmedabad sent it to Programme Implementation Department. The matter was put before MPLAD Committee of Rajya Sabha on 18 October, 2001. The Committee which is headed by hon’ble Dr. Nazma Heptulla, sanctioned the Grant of Rs. 40 lacs. She also contacted to me on telephone that that your grant of Rs. 40 lacs is sanctioned.

I am informed by Shri V.K. Arora, Director of the Scheme that now he would put it before the Committee of MPLAD, Lok Sabha for concurrence and therefore I contacted you on phone at Hyderabad. I request you to kindly put the proposal before the Lok Sabha Committee and oblige me.” 17.3 In this regard, a communication dated 26 November, 2001 was also received from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation stating as follows:- “The undersigned is directed to forward herewith a copy of the letter dated 27 September, 2001 addressed to hon’ble Chairperson, Committee on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha, by Shri Brahmakumar Bhatt, hon’ble MP (Rajya Sabha) on the subject mentioned above and to say that construction of buildings for Government educational institutions is permissible under MPLADS. But, in accordance with Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, the cost per work should not exceed Rs. 25 lakhs, which can be exceeded marginally in deserving cases on merits. Proposals costing substantially higher than Rs. 25 lakhs are considered by the two MPLADS Committees for their recommendations on case to case basis. The Rajya Sabha Committee on MPLADS has already approved the proposal in its 18th meeting held on 18 October, 2001. As the instant proposal of the hon’ble MP (Rajya Sabha) exceeds the permissible ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs per work, it is requested that the proposal may please be placed before the Committee on MPLADS (Lok Sabha) for their consideration and recommendation. The hon’ble Member has desired to name the school of Physiotherapy in the memories of his Late Son Suresh. It may be mentioned that as per Item – 5 of Appendix-2 of the Guidelines, Memorials and Memorial buildings are not permissible under MPLADS.”

Recommendation

17.4 The Committee note the proposal of Shri Brahmakumar Bhatt, MP (RS) regarding construction of Physiotherapy building within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad under MPLAD Scheme and approve the same with the condition that the name of the school of Physiotherapy in the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad should not be kept in the memory of his late son (Suresh), as vide Item-5 of Appendix-2 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, construction of memorials and memorial buildings are not permissible under MPLADS.

XVIII Representation regarding proposal of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, MP (RS) for construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan under MPLADS

18.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a communication dated 19 November, 2001 enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 31 October, 2001 from Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, MP (RS) regarding proposal for construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan under MPLADS.

18.2 The hon’ble Member, in his letter, stated as follows:-

“I had sanctioned a sum of rupees three lakh out of my Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme Fund vide my letter of recommendation dated 16 September, 2000 to the District Collector, Udaipur for the construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Community Centre at Gram Panchayat Bhansole, Panchayat Samiti Mawali (Distt.-Udaipur). But this amount is still lying with the District Rural Development Officer, Udaipur for last one year. From the Office of the District Collector, Udaipur, an information has been received on 3 October, 2000 that as per the Guidelines of the Scheme, the approval for the above said work cannot be accorded. I also requested the concerned Minister, Shri Arun Shourie ji vide a letter dated 13 October, 2000 that my recommendation is as per the rules laid down in the Guidelines. Therefore, kindly issue instructions to the District Collector, Udaipur accordingly.

I have received the information through the letter of Deputy Secretary of your department dated 12 October, 2001 that this matter was presented to the Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, Lok Sabha as well as Rajya Sabha and Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development fund Scheme, Lok Sabha has not approved it in its meeting held on 7 August, 2001. I received information from the Lok Sabha Committee that the approval has not been accorded to it under the point 5 of Appendix-II i.e., construction of the Memorial building. Although my request was for the construction of community centre not for the construction of Memorial building. As Jawahar Lal Nehru University is an academic university not a Memorial building of Jawahar Lal Nehru ji. In this regard, orders quoted in the recommendation at SI. No. IV, para 4.11 of the Second Report of the Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development Fund Scheme, Lok Sabha is enclosed herewith (not enclosed). The work of construction of the Community Centre is worth approval under it. Therefore, kindly issue instruction to the District Collector, Udaipur at the earliest that the construction of work of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Community Centre should not be delayed. A lot of time has already been wasted in the correspondence. In anticipation of an early reply.” 18.3 In this regard, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation vide their communication dated 19 November, 2001 while forwarding the letter of the hon’ble Member stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to the recommendations contained in Para No. 2.4 of Seventh Report of the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha wherein the Committee did not approve the proposal of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma for construction of the said building due to specific restriction on construction of memorials and memorial buildings. Dr. Sharma has clarified that he proposes to construct a community centre in the name of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan and not a memorial building. A copy of his letter dated 31 October, 2001 is enclosed. It is requested that the matter may be placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha for reconsideration.” 18.4 It has been informally ascertained from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that the Committee on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha, had considered this proposal in their sitting held on 7 December, 2001 and decided to reject the same.

Recommendation 18.5 The Committee consider the proposal of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, MP (RS) regarding construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan and approve it with the condition that the community centre proposed to be constructed under the MPLADS funds should not be named after anybody, as it is against the Guidelines of the Scheme.

XIX

Representation regarding construction of an over-head tank in Rampur (U.P.) at an estimated cost of Rs. 44 lakh under MPLADS

19.1 The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation addressed a communication dated 16 November, 2001 to Lok Sabha Secretariat enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 2 November, 2001 from the Chief Planning Officer, Rampur, containing the proposal of Shri Mohd. Azam Khan MP (RS) regarding construction of an over-head tank in Rampur (U.P.) at an estimated cost of Rs. 44 lakh under MPLADS.

19.2 The Chief Planning Officer in his letter dated 2 November, 2001 stated as follows:-

“Kindly refer to letter No. 1937/M.P.P./01-02 dated 25 September, 2001, of the undersigned through which construction of an overhead tank with 40 K.L. capacity and 15 metre staging together with tubewell, pump room as well as generator in Rampur town has been recommended as per the proposals put forth by Honourable Member of Parliament (Rajya Sahha) Mohd. Azam Khan under the MPLADS and in view of the above, approval has already been accorded in anticipation of your permission to release an amount of Rs. 20.00 lakh as first instalment for construction work of overhead tank for which an amount of Rs. 44.00 lakh have been sanctioned to the Project Manager, U.P. Government Construction Corporation, Rampur on 10.9.2001.

In regard to the above, it has been informed by you vide your letter No. R/24/53/97- MPLADS dated 16 October, 2001 that installation of tubewells and construction of water tanks is permissible under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, provided that the cost of such works do not exceed Rs. 25.00 lakh amount as per Minister’s letter No. C/20/2000-MPLADS dated 26 May, 2001. It is, therefore, requested that ex-post-facto sanction for Rs. 44.00 lakh may kindly be granted for the construction of an overhead tank in town area as stated above.”

19.3 The Ministry in their communication dated 16 November, 2001 stated as under:- “The undersigned is directed to forward herewith a copy of the letter dated 2 November, 2001 received from the Chief Planning Officer, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh containing the proposal of Shri Mohd. Azam Khan, hon’ble Member (RS) on the subject mentioned above and to say that construction of an over-head tank is permissible as per Item No.2 under Appendix-I of the existing Guidelines on MPLADS. But, in accordance with para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, ideally it would be desirable that the MPs suggest individual works costing not more than Rs. 25 lakh per work. Proposals costing more than Rs. 25 lakh are required to be considered by the two MPLADS Committees for approval on case to case basis. As the instant proposal of the hon’ble Member (RS) exceeds the permissible ceiling of Rs. 25 lakh per work, it is requested that the proposal may please be placed before the Committees on MPLADS (Lok Sabha) for their consideration and recommendation.” It would be passed on thereafter to Rajya Sabha Secretariat for being placed before the Committee on MPLADS. Recommendation

19.4 The Committee consider the proposal of Shri Mohd. Azam Khan, MP (RS) and approve the same as it relates to the basic needs of the local people. Moreover, Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS envisages that the limit of Rs. 25 lakh per work should not be too rigidly construed and an amount higher than Rs. 25 lakh per work could be spent depending upon the nature of the work after obtaining the specific clearance from the Committee as earlier decided by them.

XX

Proposal for allotment of funds for installation of computers in libraries under MPLAD Scheme

20.1 Shri P. Rajendran, MP (LS) addressed a letter dated 15 October, 2001 to hon’ble Chairman, Committee on MPLADS regarding proposal for allotment of funds for installation of computers in libraries in his Parliamentary constituency in Kerala under MPLADS.

20.2 The hon’ble Member, in his letter stated as follows:-

“I write this to seek your kind help in the implementation of a scheme of providing computer for selected libraries in my constituency under the LADS that I have proposed.

As part of our efforts to propagate the use of computer to the rural mass, I have proposed a scheme of installation of computers at selected libraries in the constituency. The libraries selected have the necessary infrastructure and technical ability to operate and maintain the equipments. The libraries were selected by the District Library Council, a Government Organisation. The intention is to help the villagers to continue with their informal education under the National Literacy Programme since all our important libraries are centres for continuing education. My proposal was processed by the District Administration and all the formalities such as floating of tenders, formation of expert committee for selection of supply firms etc., was completed as per Government norms and orders. The Government firm Keltron was selected for the procurement and supply of the computes and accessories. The project was well publicized and a District based inauguration was also conducted. It was then that stop orders were received from the Ministry on the ground that the project was not admissible as per the Guidelines of the MPLAD Scheme. The reversal, after having completed all the formalities, has caused great embarrassment to all concerned, particularly to the Government. You will kindly appreciate that the Guidelines prescribed vide Appendix-I is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The prohibitions does not include supply of a computer to the Village Library. On the other hand, there is provision of supply of radios and other electronic devices for the use of villagers. Judging by the same standards, I see no objection in supplying a computer to the Library after taking the usual precautions of making it a valuable asset. Most of the libraries to which the computer is supplied to are beneficiaries of the LADS, as their building was constructed by using the LADS fund. Our aim is to popularise the use of computers, and it is my considered view that the best beginning is the villae library. In view of the circumstances explained by me, may, I request you to be kind enough to examine the issue, concur with my proposal, and accord special sanction of the Ministry as a special case, for the implementation of the scheme and issue suitable instructions to all concerned.” 20.3 In this regard, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in their communication dated 6 November, 2001 have stated as follows:- “The undersigned is directed to forward herewith a copy of letter dated 11 October, 2001 received from Shri P. Rajendran, hon’ble MP (LS) regarding his proposal for allotment of MPLADS funds for installation of computes in libraries in his constituency. The details regarding status of such libraries, functioning etc., are contained in his letter.

As per existing instructions, computers can be installed in Government and Government aided schools/educational institutions only.” The proposal of the hon’ble Member is placed before the Committee on MPLADS, Lok Sabha. After considering it in Lok Sabha Committee on MPLADS, the request will be placed before the Committee on MPLADS of Rajya Sabha for their consideration.

Recommendation

20.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding allotment of funds for installation of computers in libraries under MPLAD Scheme and do not approve it, as the existing Guidelines on MPLADS provide that computers can be installed in Government and Government aided schools and educational institutions only.

Dr. BOLLA BULLI RAMAIAH

Chairman, Committee on Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme

New Delhi

12 December, 2001 / 21 Agrahayana, 1923(S)

APPENDIX-I

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

1.4 The Committee consider the proposal of Shri Ramdas Aggarwal, MP (Rajya Sabha) regarding giving permission to contribute Rs.25 lakhs towards Orissa flood relief from his quota of MPLADS funds. The Committee note that under Para 1.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, MPs can recommend works outside their Constituencies/States for construction of assets that are permissible in the Guidelines for rehabilitation measures in the event of a natural calamity of rare severity in any part of the country for an amount not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs for each calamity. However, keeping in view that the amount being given is for rehabilitation measures for the people affected by floods in Orissa recently, the Committee permit the hon’ble Member to contribute an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs towards Orissa flood relief as a special case.

2.7 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding construction of Kolhapur Type weir (water storage) on Rangavali River at Navapur District, Maharashtra under MPLADS and approve it, as the construction of water storage would cater to the demands of water supply and also help in checking soil erosion in the area of Navapar city in Maharashtra.

3.6 The Committee note the proposal regarding permission to give financial assistance for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of funds collected under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat. The Committee keeping in view the welfare of local people, allow financial assistance of Rs. 50 lakhs for medical and Rs. 25 lakhs for educational purposes for construction of building to Shri Jain Medical and Educational Trust, Bhuj-Kutch, out of the funds collected from the Members of Parliament, Lok Sabha under MPLADS for earthquake affected areas of Gujarat.

4.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding purchase of tele- medicine system with video conferencing unit from MPLADS fund and disapprove it, as the Guidelines on MPLADS do not contain any provision for making retrospective orders for such payments for the items already purchased without the recommendation of the MP. Moreover, the Guidelines on MPLADS specifically prohibit grants.

5.5 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member and approve it as the Guidelines on MPLADS permit construction of a building for a Government College, vide Item No. 1 of Appendix-I of the Illustrative List of works that can be taken up under the Scheme. Accordingly, the Committee agree to allow relaxation of upper limit of Rs.25 lakhs for construction of a building for a Government College at Chavara in Kerala under MPLADS as a special case.

6.4 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas of Orissa under MPLADS. The Committee while keeping the humanitarion aspect and local felt

41

42

needs in view, recommend the purchase of motor boats for flood and cyclone affected areas in general under MPLADS.

7.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding giving relaxation for the limit of Rs. 25 lakhs for construction of auditorium for Jawahar Lal Darda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Yavatmal under MPLADS and approve it as it related to an educational institution in a predominantly tribals dominated area. Moreover, Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS envisages that amounts higher than Rs. 25 lakhs per work can be spent depending upon the nature of the work, for example, a single check dam to provide minor irrigation or water supply or a sports stadium may cost more than Rs. 10 lakhs. In the case of such works higher amount can be legitimately spent.

8.5 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member Shri E. Ahamed, regarding contribution from MPLADS funds for construction of a hospital block at Mangeri, district Mallapuram in Kerala and approve the same for contributing Rs. 50 lakhs for two years in succession from his MPLADS quota as it was within the purview of the Guidelines on MPLADS.

9.5 The Committee note the proposal of Shri Sikander Bakht, MP (Rajya Sabha) regarding relaxation in the upper limit of more than of Rs. 25 lakhs as cost of works for construction of three bridges at a cost of Rs. 50 lakhs each in Gwalior district with MPLADS funds and approve the same as Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS inter alia also envisages that in case of such works higher amount can be legitimately spent.

10.5 The Committee consider the proposal of North East MPs’ Forum regarding waiving of condition pertaining to ownership of assets created under MPLADS. The Committee note that these conditions which stipulate that the ownership of assets created under MPLADS should belong to the government are necessary for accountability of public funds. Therefore, the Committee do not approve the proposal for waiving of these conditions, in order to have uniform set of Guidelines in various regions of the country.

11.7 The Committee consider the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding waiving of the cost towards stamp duty and other charges for beneficiary institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS. The Committee while taking into account the poor financial condition of small institutions which cannot afford creation of durable assets by itself and thereby approach their respective MP for assistance, recommend that the stamp duty and other conveyancing charges should be waived and replaced with other viable option like notorial registration of the agreement under the Notorial Magistrate, hence saving for the beneficiary organisations/institutions while effecting transfer of assets created under MPLADS.

43 44

12.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding allowing Rajya Sabha Member to spend 25 percent of development fund for their allotment in any part of the country under MPLADS. The Committee do not approve it, as under the extant Guidelines on MPLADS, Rajya Sabha MPs cannot spend MPLADS funds in any State other than the State from where they have been elected. Only nominated MPs of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can spend in one or more districts anywhere in the country.

13.3 The Committee note the provisions of Para 2.3 of the Guidelines on MPLADS. The Committee after having considered the implications of the provisions of this para recommend that any number of projects can be taken up jointly under MPLADS. Accordingly, they desire that the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation should carry out necessary amendment in the aforesaid para making it broad based so that various projects could be taken up jointly under MPLADS including food for work programme etc.

14.6 The Committee consider the proposal regarding release of MPLADS funds direct to Head of the educational institutions for construction of buildings or entrust the construction/ renovation/repair of school and colleges to their management committees/governing bodies under MPLADS and do not approve it as in accordance with Para 2.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS, works under the MPLAD Scheme are required to be implemented by the District Head by following the established procedure laid down by the respective State Governments/U.Ts. The Committee feel that there is specific restriction at Item-4, Appendix-2 of the existing Guidelines on giving grants and loans and if the MPLADS funds are released directly to the beneficiary organisations, the same would amount to giving grant to them, which is not permissible under the Guidelines. Moreover, no accountability on the District authority can be fixed if funds are given directly to beneficiary organisations.

15.7 The Committee note the proposals of Railway Board to carry out “accommodation works” as “deposit works” only after receiving in advance the cost of the work in question along with maintenance charges etc., and of Shri Kirit Somaiya, MP (LS) for construction of a foot bridge in his Parliamentary constituency near Govandi, Chambur in Mumbai as they relate to locally feel needs under MPLADS.

16.5 The Committee note proposal of hon’ble Member and do not approve it as the Guidelines on MPLADS do not permit purchase of vehicle of any type except ambulance for Government hospitals/reputed service organisations like Red Cross, Ramakrishna Mission etc.

17.4 The Committee consider the proposal of Shri Brahmakumar Bhatt, MP (RS) regarding construction of Physiotherapy Building within the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad under MPLAD Scheme and approve the same with the condition that the name of school of Physiotherapy in the premises of Vadilal Sarabhai General Hospital, Ahmedabad should not be kept in the memory of his Late Son (Suresh), as vide Item-5 of Appendix-2 of the Guidelines on

45

MPLADS, construction of memorials and memorial buildings are not permissible under MPLADS.

18.5 The Committee consider the proposal of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, MP (RS) regarding construction of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samudaya Bhawan and decide to approve it with the condition that the community centre proposed to be constructed under the MPLADS funds should not be named after anybody, as it is against the Guidelines of the Scheme.

19.4 The Committee note the proposal of Shri Mohd. Azam Khan, MP (RS) and approve the same as it relates to the basic needs of the local people. Moreover, Para 4.1 of the Guidelines on MPLADS envisages that the limit of Rs. 25 lakh per work should not be too regidly construed and the amount higher than Rs. 25 lakh per work could be spent depending upon the nature of the work after obtaining the specific clearance from the Committee as earlier decided by them.

20.4 The Committee note the proposal of hon’ble Member regarding proposal for allotment of funds for installation of computers in libraries under MPLAD Scheme and do not approve it, as the existing instructions of the Guidelines on MPLADS provide that computers can be installed in Government and Government aided schools and educational institutions only.