Former Canacona MLA Vijai Pai Khot is not quite the unlikelysaviour of the PAC report on illegal mining which Speaker Rajendra Arlekar has“accepted”.
While the Speaker says that he accepted the report which wassubmitted, there is a huge grey area whichthat needs to be traversed, beforeassigning constitutional legality to the report, which was, in a large sense, aprecursor to the Shah Commission report on illegal mining.
The last PAC chairman (who succeeded Parrikar) before theassembly elections, former Canacona MLA Vijay Pai Khot told The Goan “I waschairman for a very short time. There was no meeting of the PAC. When electionswere announced, I handed over all the papers to the speaker since the PAC comesunder the office of the Speaker”
Former Deputy Speaker, Mauvin Godinho asks “The PAC reportwas never tabled in the House and once the assembly is dissolved anything that is not put before the House tooautomatically lapses. How has the successive Speaker accepted the same?”
Now let’s read carefully what Speaker Rajendra Arlekar toldThe Goan. “I sent the report lying in the Speaker’s office. Pratapsingh Rane wrongfully did not take upthe then PAC Chairman Manohar Parrikar’s report and returned it back to thePAC. By that time the PAC chairman’s tenure too had come to an end. So the newChairman (Vijay Pai Khot) presented the same report to the Speaker which I haveaccepted,” Arlekar explained.
The moot point here is whether “lying in the speaker’soffice”, tantamounts to constitutional submission, since all papers of the PACwere naturally “lying” in the Speakers office when the term of one assemblycame to an end and should have gone back to the new PAC which was constituted.
It may be recalled that the previous Speaker did not acceptthe report on October 5, 2011 when Manohar Parrikar submitted the PAC report onillegal mining. Prior to the meeting, the then Calangute MLA, Agnelo Fernandeshad actually walked away with a copy ofthe report, refusing to sign it, as the contents of the report weighed heavilyagainst then Chief Minister Digambar Kamat.
When Parrikar went to submit the report, Speaker Ranerefused to accept it citing that four out of the seven PAC members, three fromCongress and one from Maharastrawadi Gomantak Party had not signed the report.
“Agnelo Fernandes, Victoria Fernandes, Pandurang 'Deepak'Dhavalikar and I had not signed the the report, while BJP members Damu Naik,Francisco D'Souza and committee chairman Manohar Parrikar were outnumbered fourto three,” said former St Andre MLA, Francis Silviera.
However constitutional experts opine that the signature ofthe Chairman is enough. Subhash C Kashyap who has also served as SecretaryGeneral of Lok Sabha for three consecutive terms says, “The Chairman of PAC isthe representative of the Committee. His signature is enough to validate thereport as it is assumed that he represents the unanimous decision of thePAC”.
While the Speaker’s acceptance has given validity to thereport for now, his act will be met with challenges, the biggest of which willbe the question ‘Can you accept a report that has not been submitted?”. Clearlythe PAC report on illegal mining, like the industry itself, is jinxed.
