Punjab govt should ‘remove the mask’ of being ‘pro-farmer’: HC
Friday, 15/05/2015
http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab government faced the Punjab and Haryana high court’s ire for the second consecutive day on Thursday on issues pertaining to farmers. The high court division bench, comprising justice SK Mittal and justice HS Sidhu, observed that the state government should “remove the mask” of claiming to be “pro-farmer”.
Punjab advocate general Ashok Aggarwal tried to pacify the court as the high court pulled up the state government during the open court hearing, saying “you (state) are doing nothing”.
‘DON’T HAVE RESOURCES TO PROCURE MAIZE’
The high court bench was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking procurement of crops covered under the minimum support price (MSP) by the government.
Punjab told the court that the state neither had the required resources to procure maize, nor could it bear the loss in its procurement.
“It is for the Government of India to empower the state agencies financially, technically and logistically to undertake the procurement of maize on the pattern it does for wheat and paddy,” the state had recorded in its meeting called after the high court order during the previous hearing to take a decision on the central government’s offer of availing a scheme for procurement of these crops.
Punjab said both the schemes were offered by the Centre in which offers of either compensation or paying for the losses on the procured grain could not possibly be adopted in Punjab.
Petitioner’s counsel JS Toor pointed out to the facts that these officials were asking the court to issue directions to the Centre on crop procurement, whereas it had been recorded that the chief minister and agriculture minister were the competent authority to take decision on the issue and they could not attend the meeting.
He added it had been stated in the affidavit that the chief minister and agriculture minister were out of the state around May 8 when the meeting took place, whereas the fact was that they were in the state.
Later, the high court, on the AG’s intervention, gave the state time to take a decision on the Centre’s proposal on procurement of the MSP-covered crops and posted the matter for hearing for May 20.
