Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission upon Decentralization in Bengal of witnesses serving directly under the Government of India, volume 10 ([London?]: [House of Commons?], 1908)

)

ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.

99

State. Projects sent up by the provincial Govern-
ments are scrutinised, and if found in order are
transmitted to the Secretary of State with a cover-
ing despatch in which the Government of India
communicate their views. If not in order, the
estimate would be returned to the Local Govern-
ment for revision, but it is seldom necessary to
return more than once.
44-161. The Government of India deal with all
schemes of re-organisation, and with the pro-
motions of Superintending and Chief Engineers?—
Yes.
44462. Is there a separate cadre for each pro-
vince ?—So far as the number of Chief and Superin-
tending Engineers is concerned, they form a part
of a general cadre for the whole of India, except
Bombay and Madras, on which the Government of
India make promotions. In the case of Executive
and Assistant Engineers there is a purely local
cadre.
44463. But the officers who make up the cadre are
liable to be transferred at the pleasure of the
Government of India?—Only Superintending and
Chief Engineers. But the transfers of the former
are rare, and of the latter comparatively seldom.
In all cases of transfers the wishes of Local
Governments are consulted.
44464. Do Executive Engineers remain in a pro-
vince ?—Yes.
44465. Superintending Engineers, who are there-
fore more or less under the cognizance of the
Government of India, have less powers in the
matter of sanctioning contracts and estimates for
imperial works than they have in sanctioning pro-
vincial works ?—They are not under the cognizance
of the Government of India, but are entirely under
the orders of their Local Governments.
44466. But those powers are much less in the
matter of imperial expenditure than in the matter
of provincial expenditure ; what is the reason?—
Local Governments have less power of sanction in
the case of imperial expenditure, but at present
the powers of Superintending Engineers for pro-
vincial and imperial are the same.
44467. But if the Government of India have the
power of removal of a Superintending Engineer,
and presumably would do so in the case of any
lache in the matter of careful inspection and con-
sideration of imperial expenditure, why should
not the Superintending Engineer have the same
technical power of sanctioning estimates and con-
tracts for imperial works as he has in the case
of provincial works? Has not the Government
complete control over him except in Madras and
Bombay?—The Government of India have no
control over the Superintending Engineers, and
could only remove such officers at the request of a
Local Government. They would not be in a
position to know a Superintending Engineer had
committed any lache unless the Local Government
reported it. So far as the Government of India are
concerned, the powers of Superintending Engineers
for imperial or provincial expenditure are the
same. I am not aware whether in any particular
case a Local Government has differentiated.
44468. Therefore, if the Imperial Government
control them, and control their promotion (and
of course their knowledge of technical details is
the same whether the work is imperial or provin-
cial) why should they not have the same power of
sanctioning estimates and contracts for imperial
expenditure as they have for provincial expendi-
ture?—They have the same technical powers of
sanction in either case. The Government of
India do not control Superintending En-
gineers ; they control promotions, but are guided
by the recommendations of Local Governments.
44469. But the Imperial Government controls
the Engineer?—No. He is under the orders of
the Local Government to which he is attached.
44470. Will you tell us exactly what the “ open
capital account ” is ?—When an irrigation work is
completed the project estimate is closed ; anything
further spent on the canal is then charged to what
33383

is called the “ open capital account ” ; that is to
say it is charged to the “ open capital account ” of
the canal, and not to the original project estimate
for its construction.
44471. Then the difference between productive
work and protective work is that a productive
work is carried out by means of loans, and the
protective work by means of revenue received from
the Eamine Insurance Grant?—These two classes
of works are fully defined in Public Works Code
II., Chapter XV., 2121, and Chapter XIX., 2199,
2200 respectively. Productive public works are
those the capital cost of which has been wholly or
mainly provided from loan funds in the expecta-
tion that they would prove directly remunerative,
and that the net revenue will repay the annual
interest on the capital invested within ten years
after completion. (See Public Works Code H.,
2123.) Protective works are those which have
been sanctioned in consideration of their protec-
tive value, but without any expectation of their
becoming directly remunerative. The cost of
their construction is met from a moiety of the
Eamine Insurance Grant of 150 lakhs, which is
set aside annually for the purpose. (See Public
Works Code II., 2199 and 2200.)
44472. You say that it is essential that the
power of dispensing the insurance grant should
be vested in a central authority ; would you say
that while it was essential that the central
authority should assign funds to a province, the
amount which that province should spend and the
details of that expenditure might well be left to
the provincial Government?—It might at any time
happen that there were a great many protective
projects coming up from the different Local
Governments for which we could only sanction a
fraction of the sums required. We only get a
moiety of the Famine Insurance Grant, which is
75 lakhs.
44473. But the central authority, having
assigned to a province the amount which it could
spend from the Famine Insurance Grant, might
not the province be left to spend that block grant
upon the work as it thought best, without having
to go for details to the Government of India?—I
think their projects should come up to the
Government of India, so that we may see how a
small sum can be most profitably spent over the
whole country. For instance, when we have only
75 lakhs at the most for a year for the whole of
India, Bombay alone might send up a project (in
fact it has) amounting to 200 lakhs of rupees, so
that they might want the whole of the grant.
44474. If you gave the whole 75 lakhs to the
Government of Bombay might you not leave them
to spend it on the work as they thought best?—If
we gave 75 lakhs to Bombay it would not mean
any powers of sanction, but only a grant of money
for the execution of a work or works sanctioned
by the Government of India or the Secretary of
State—generally the latter.
44475. Do you think the Government of Bombay
ought not merely to send you up the general out-
line of the scheme on which they want to spend
money, but all the details of it?—Certainly, in the
case of all works which the Local Government
wishes to charge to the limited protective grant.
44476*. Has the demand for returns and infor-
mation from Local Governments increased of
recent years? If so is this due to the require-
ments of the Secretary of State or to those of the
Government of India? Will you kindly give the
Commission a list of the periodical returns which
your department (a) calls for from provincial
Governments or (b) furnishes to the Secretary of
State with a column showing which of these (if
any) are in your judgment unnecessary ?—As a
matter of fact in 1902, the question of reducing
the number of returns from Local Governments
was taken up, and a considerable number were
done away with. Since then there has been prac-
tically no increase in the number of periodical
returns. I submit the required flists, in which
I have added a column to show whether the re-
turns are necessary or not.
f Vide Appendix He.
'N 3

Mr. L. M.
Jacob.
4 Apr., 1908.