DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0091
ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
85
16488. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Have you lived all
your life in Calcutta ?—Nearly all my life : when I was
about 10 or 12 years of age I came to Calcutta. I
practically live in Calcutta all the year round.
' 16489. (Mr. Meyer.) Is not what you have said as
to village communities and district organisations, and
the rest of it, based upon hearsay ?—Yes.
16490. (Mr. Dutt.) When you spoke of village
communities as being in existence, were you referring
to the chaukidari panchayats ?—Yes.
16491. Is anything left of the old village communities
in Bengal ?—No.
(The witness withdrew.)
Maharaj-
Kumar
Kristo
, Das Law.
31 Dec., 1907.
Mr. Frederick George Dumayne was called and examined.
16492. (Chairman.) You are one of the members of the
Port Trust of Calcutta ?-—I am Vice-Chairman of the
Calcutta Port Trust. I was appointed by the Local
Government. I am the principal Executive Officer of
the Trust. There are various matters which I would
like to represent on behalf of the Trust.
Section 31, clause (3) of the Calcutta Port Act
(Bengal Council) 1890, requires that the Commis-
sioners’ rules regarding the granting of leave, leave
allowances, acting allowances, regulation of period of
service, pension, gratuities and compassionate allow-
ances to their officers and servants shall be confirmed
by the Governor-General in Council. But under
sections 32 to 34 the power of appointing, promoting,
suspending, dismissing, fining, reducing, or granting
leave shall be exercised by the Vice-Chairman in the
case of officers whose monthly salary does not exceed
two hundred rupees, and in any other case by the
Commissioners in meeting, subject to the previous
sanction of the Local Government as regards every
order relating to officers whose monthly salary exceeds
Rs. 500. It would appear to follow that the Local
Government should also be the final authority in
respect to the rules referred to. Port Trust officers
and servants are not Government officers and servants,
and the conditions which obtain in Government ser-
vice are not necessarily suitable to the special condi-
tions of service in the Port Trust. There does not,
therefore, appear to be any reason for the rules to be
confirmed by the Governor-General in Council. These
rules, like the appointments, should be subject to the
approval of the Local Government only. They are
not of such general importance as to require the con-
firmation of the Government of India.
With reference to section 24, clause (3) of the
Calcutta Port Act 1890, the Trustees should be allowed
to invest the sinking funds in the public securities de-
fined in section 20 of the Trusts Act, II. of 1882, and
not be restricted to Government promissory notes and
Calcutta Port Trust debentures, as at present. The
Commissioners for example, in 1903 and 1904, could
have invested their sinking funds in the debentures of
the Rangoon Port Trust bearing interest at 4| per
cent, at favourable rates. The Calcutta Port deben-
tures should also be held to be available for investment
of trust funds as is the case with the Bombay Port
Trust, the law on the subject being made uniform and
amended accordingly. Enquiries were quite recently
made by two Insurance Companies as to whether Port
Trust debentures were funds in which trustees could
invest.
As regards sections 32, to 34 the Commissioners
propose that they should only be required to obtain
the previous sanction of the Local Government so far
as orders relating to the Chief Accountant, Deputy
Conservator, Chief Engineer, Traffic Manager or
Secretary, in the matter of appointments, leave, leave
allowances, pensions, gratuities, compassionate allow-
ances, dismissals, &c., but that they themselves should
dispose of the cases of all other officers. The Com-
missioners will then deal with all officers excepting the
five principal officers above referred to. They are in a
better position than the Government to deal with these
cases as they are better acquainted with each officer’s
service, and will deal with the cases under rules
approved by the Local Government.
In section 40, clause (1), the clause as to meetings
should be altered as the Commissioners now meet once
a week, and it should be open to them to meet at such
intervals as they may from time to time determine.
As regards section 48, the Commissioners should not
be required to obtain the sanction of the Local Govern-
ment to enter into contracts, when such contracts are
for the carrying out of works sanctioned under the
Act. This sanction to enter into contracts by the
Local Government seems to be quite unnecessary if Mr. F. Q.
when the Local Government sanctions the carrying Dumayne.
out of works it has the expenditure for such work -
before it and sanctions that expenditure. As matters 3! Dec., 1907.
stand at present the Commissioners may get sanction
to the building of a warehouse for, say, Rs 5 lakhs,
and then they have to apply to Government for
sanction to enter into contracts for the iron-work,
bricks, mortar, or other materials required in carrying
out the work, although the amounts of those contracts
in the aggregate are less than the sanctioned estimate
for the whole work.
Section 49 should be held to refer to capital works
only as the budget estimates provided for under
Part V. of the Act should be sufficient authority for
carrying out the ordinary revenue works of the Trust.
This was understood to be the intention of the
Legislature, and the Commissioners have all along so
construed the section. Section 50 should likewise be
held to apply to capital work only, as above.
Under section 51 (1) the limit of the cost of works
which may be carried out without the plan and
estimate being submitted for the approval of the
Local Government should be extended from Rs. 50,000
to Rs. 2,00,000.
Under section 51 (2) the limit of sanction to the
Local Government should be increased to Rs. 5,00,000.
In explanation of the proposed extension of the limits
provided in section 51 above referred to, it may be
stated that the revenue of the Trust has, since the Act
of 1890 was passed, risen from Rs. 17,82,531, to an
estimated income this year of Rs. 1,09,00,000, and the
operations of the Trust are on a much larger scale.
As regards section 55, the period for which the Com-
missioners may grant leases of any immovable property
with the previous sanction of the Local Government
should be extended to 50 years, as in Bombay. This is
absolutely necessary, as the period of 10 years, now
provided, is too short to induce lessees to spend any
large sums of money in buildings, etc. If 50 years be
a suitable term for Bombay it should certainly not be
less for Calcutta.
Section 73 should be held to apply to expenditure
for revenue purposes only.
Regarding section 74, such excess expenditure should
be reported by the Vice-Chairman to the Commis-
sioners in meeting and not to the Local Government,
as it would be included in the supplementary estimate
submitted to the Local Government under section 72.
At present supplementary estimates are submitted to
the Local Government for every deviation from, or
addition to, the sanctioned estimates, whether they
exceed Rs. 5,000 or not, which involves an immense
amount of trouble. In tact, in view of section 72, the
provisions of section 74 appear to be superfluous.
Section 75 is exceedingly troublesome in regard to
matters of a very trivial nature, such, for instance, as
the employment of a few tally clerks, or of a tem-
porary typist for a few days when there is a rush of
office work. The Commissioners should be left free to
make any such appointments as may be necessary in
the course of a year, subject to the submission, before
the end of the year, of a supplementary estimate to
the Local Government under section 72. The neces-
sity of employing more staff arises quite suddenly in
consequence of the fluctuation of trade and other
causes, which cannot be foreseen and provided for at
the time of preparing the budget.
Under the provisions of section 83 of the Calcutta
Port Act, 1890, no condition can be made by the Local
Government in assenting to the erection of a private
jetty, and in many cases the erection of such jetties
without certain conditions would be objectionable from
the Commissioners’ point of view. It is proposed to
amend the Act so that assent may be given to the
85
16488. (Sir Steyning Edgerley.) Have you lived all
your life in Calcutta ?—Nearly all my life : when I was
about 10 or 12 years of age I came to Calcutta. I
practically live in Calcutta all the year round.
' 16489. (Mr. Meyer.) Is not what you have said as
to village communities and district organisations, and
the rest of it, based upon hearsay ?—Yes.
16490. (Mr. Dutt.) When you spoke of village
communities as being in existence, were you referring
to the chaukidari panchayats ?—Yes.
16491. Is anything left of the old village communities
in Bengal ?—No.
(The witness withdrew.)
Maharaj-
Kumar
Kristo
, Das Law.
31 Dec., 1907.
Mr. Frederick George Dumayne was called and examined.
16492. (Chairman.) You are one of the members of the
Port Trust of Calcutta ?-—I am Vice-Chairman of the
Calcutta Port Trust. I was appointed by the Local
Government. I am the principal Executive Officer of
the Trust. There are various matters which I would
like to represent on behalf of the Trust.
Section 31, clause (3) of the Calcutta Port Act
(Bengal Council) 1890, requires that the Commis-
sioners’ rules regarding the granting of leave, leave
allowances, acting allowances, regulation of period of
service, pension, gratuities and compassionate allow-
ances to their officers and servants shall be confirmed
by the Governor-General in Council. But under
sections 32 to 34 the power of appointing, promoting,
suspending, dismissing, fining, reducing, or granting
leave shall be exercised by the Vice-Chairman in the
case of officers whose monthly salary does not exceed
two hundred rupees, and in any other case by the
Commissioners in meeting, subject to the previous
sanction of the Local Government as regards every
order relating to officers whose monthly salary exceeds
Rs. 500. It would appear to follow that the Local
Government should also be the final authority in
respect to the rules referred to. Port Trust officers
and servants are not Government officers and servants,
and the conditions which obtain in Government ser-
vice are not necessarily suitable to the special condi-
tions of service in the Port Trust. There does not,
therefore, appear to be any reason for the rules to be
confirmed by the Governor-General in Council. These
rules, like the appointments, should be subject to the
approval of the Local Government only. They are
not of such general importance as to require the con-
firmation of the Government of India.
With reference to section 24, clause (3) of the
Calcutta Port Act 1890, the Trustees should be allowed
to invest the sinking funds in the public securities de-
fined in section 20 of the Trusts Act, II. of 1882, and
not be restricted to Government promissory notes and
Calcutta Port Trust debentures, as at present. The
Commissioners for example, in 1903 and 1904, could
have invested their sinking funds in the debentures of
the Rangoon Port Trust bearing interest at 4| per
cent, at favourable rates. The Calcutta Port deben-
tures should also be held to be available for investment
of trust funds as is the case with the Bombay Port
Trust, the law on the subject being made uniform and
amended accordingly. Enquiries were quite recently
made by two Insurance Companies as to whether Port
Trust debentures were funds in which trustees could
invest.
As regards sections 32, to 34 the Commissioners
propose that they should only be required to obtain
the previous sanction of the Local Government so far
as orders relating to the Chief Accountant, Deputy
Conservator, Chief Engineer, Traffic Manager or
Secretary, in the matter of appointments, leave, leave
allowances, pensions, gratuities, compassionate allow-
ances, dismissals, &c., but that they themselves should
dispose of the cases of all other officers. The Com-
missioners will then deal with all officers excepting the
five principal officers above referred to. They are in a
better position than the Government to deal with these
cases as they are better acquainted with each officer’s
service, and will deal with the cases under rules
approved by the Local Government.
In section 40, clause (1), the clause as to meetings
should be altered as the Commissioners now meet once
a week, and it should be open to them to meet at such
intervals as they may from time to time determine.
As regards section 48, the Commissioners should not
be required to obtain the sanction of the Local Govern-
ment to enter into contracts, when such contracts are
for the carrying out of works sanctioned under the
Act. This sanction to enter into contracts by the
Local Government seems to be quite unnecessary if Mr. F. Q.
when the Local Government sanctions the carrying Dumayne.
out of works it has the expenditure for such work -
before it and sanctions that expenditure. As matters 3! Dec., 1907.
stand at present the Commissioners may get sanction
to the building of a warehouse for, say, Rs 5 lakhs,
and then they have to apply to Government for
sanction to enter into contracts for the iron-work,
bricks, mortar, or other materials required in carrying
out the work, although the amounts of those contracts
in the aggregate are less than the sanctioned estimate
for the whole work.
Section 49 should be held to refer to capital works
only as the budget estimates provided for under
Part V. of the Act should be sufficient authority for
carrying out the ordinary revenue works of the Trust.
This was understood to be the intention of the
Legislature, and the Commissioners have all along so
construed the section. Section 50 should likewise be
held to apply to capital work only, as above.
Under section 51 (1) the limit of the cost of works
which may be carried out without the plan and
estimate being submitted for the approval of the
Local Government should be extended from Rs. 50,000
to Rs. 2,00,000.
Under section 51 (2) the limit of sanction to the
Local Government should be increased to Rs. 5,00,000.
In explanation of the proposed extension of the limits
provided in section 51 above referred to, it may be
stated that the revenue of the Trust has, since the Act
of 1890 was passed, risen from Rs. 17,82,531, to an
estimated income this year of Rs. 1,09,00,000, and the
operations of the Trust are on a much larger scale.
As regards section 55, the period for which the Com-
missioners may grant leases of any immovable property
with the previous sanction of the Local Government
should be extended to 50 years, as in Bombay. This is
absolutely necessary, as the period of 10 years, now
provided, is too short to induce lessees to spend any
large sums of money in buildings, etc. If 50 years be
a suitable term for Bombay it should certainly not be
less for Calcutta.
Section 73 should be held to apply to expenditure
for revenue purposes only.
Regarding section 74, such excess expenditure should
be reported by the Vice-Chairman to the Commis-
sioners in meeting and not to the Local Government,
as it would be included in the supplementary estimate
submitted to the Local Government under section 72.
At present supplementary estimates are submitted to
the Local Government for every deviation from, or
addition to, the sanctioned estimates, whether they
exceed Rs. 5,000 or not, which involves an immense
amount of trouble. In tact, in view of section 72, the
provisions of section 74 appear to be superfluous.
Section 75 is exceedingly troublesome in regard to
matters of a very trivial nature, such, for instance, as
the employment of a few tally clerks, or of a tem-
porary typist for a few days when there is a rush of
office work. The Commissioners should be left free to
make any such appointments as may be necessary in
the course of a year, subject to the submission, before
the end of the year, of a supplementary estimate to
the Local Government under section 72. The neces-
sity of employing more staff arises quite suddenly in
consequence of the fluctuation of trade and other
causes, which cannot be foreseen and provided for at
the time of preparing the budget.
Under the provisions of section 83 of the Calcutta
Port Act, 1890, no condition can be made by the Local
Government in assenting to the erection of a private
jetty, and in many cases the erection of such jetties
without certain conditions would be objectionable from
the Commissioners’ point of view. It is proposed to
amend the Act so that assent may be given to the