PREVIOUS HOUR

 

PK/SCH/2F/4.00

֮ ֤ (֟): ӟ֤ߵ ֻ ׸ ֣ ׾ , ךև ֜

׻ֵ ֙ ֤õ , ֟ ײֻ ָ ֵֻ֮ , ו֮ ֯ פ, ߻ ִ֬ ï , ָ פ ֵֻ ׮֟ , ִ ֕ ãן և ֜ ִֵ ֣ ֮ ֻ ֤ ָ פ ֙־ ֵ ֮ פ ִ .(և )

ֳ֬ (. ..׸֮): ֯ ׸ Please conclude.

֮ ֤: , ָ, ִ֯ ׸ִ ֻ ֲ ֮ ֡ ֻ֟ , ֜ ָ ֓ ֿ ָ ֮ פ ֱ ִ ֜ ֕ ו֮֟ ן , ן

׾֬ ֵ ֵ , ӿ ֵ ֵ ׻֋, ׾ ׻֋ ֻ ï ֵԙ ֜־ ׻֋ ֲ ֯ ִ ָ פ , ־ ߻ , ו֮ ߓ ֯ ֵ , , ɯ ָ֑ , פ ֙־ פ և , ׻֋ ֱ ־ֿ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֬: ֯ ִ֯ ו֋

֮ ֤: ָ, ִ֯ , ״֮֙ ו֋

ָ ֯ ߕ ֵԾָ Ϥ ו֮-ו֮ ָ֮ ָ פ ̸ , ִ ָ֮ ׮ -ָ Ӥ ָ ֕ פ þֺ ֙־ ֟ ָ ֿ ֮ օ ֵԾָ ™ פ ֱ օ ִ֬ ָ ӟ֤ߵ ֵֻ֮ ֻ֮ ֻ , ו ׸ ֵԙ ֜־ ֟ , ֵ ̲֕ Ϥ֮ ׻֋ פ ֱ ֺ ֛߅

֟ ֣ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ָ : ֯ ֳָ ֮֯ ֯ ײֻ ָ ֮ ָ פօ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI K. CHANDRAN PILLAI (KERALA): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, at the outset, I appreciate the hon. Minister for initiating the Inland Vessels (Amendment) Bill, 2005. There are pressing needs, which have emerged in a big way in our country. The question of utilising the potential of waterways is the background for this amendment. The main Act of 1970 was amended later in 1977. First of all, I wish to make a comment regarding the totality of the amending Bill, the question of extension of our water limits as well as providing flexibility for the classifications and that for the jurisdiction of various zones. Instead of bringing forward this kind of a Bill, they should have brought forward a more comprehensive Bill. This is my opinion. (Contd. by PB/2G)

PB/2G/4.05

SHRI K. CHANDRAN PILLAI (CONTD.): Instead, a piecemeal type of legislation will lead to a situation where immediately after some time, we have to go in for another amendment. Why I am saying this is because while considering the requirement of a vibrant inland water transport system, both for the passenger as well as the goods, we have to see how the new technological advantages can be incorporated in improving the vessel efficiency in a variety of vessels. I think, only with such a broad futuristic view, we can come up with such a legislation. This is my first comment.

Secondly, from the Kerala point of view, I want to say that in ancient times, the utilisation of waterways was far better than the present-day times. For example, in ancient times, in Kerala, from Kasargod to Trivandrum, -- the two extreme districts -- a single-stretch waterway was in operation. Still, we are not able to rejuvenate and revitalise that for the proper utilisation. This is an example. Even between Tamil Nadu and Kerala, up to Kolachal, there was a waterway which is now not operative. So, these types of issues are actually forcing us to look into the matter more keenly in order to see that all such ancient waterways are also being operated for the betterment of the economy at large. But the point is, as many of the previous speakers rightly pointed out, in that regard, the vital issue is dredging, dredging as a challenge. I will put it as a challenge. In that way, it is not incorporated in this legislation also. In Kerala, the National Waterways declared the Kollam-Kottapuram a major waterway. We are now actively involved in that thing and, within one year, we will be able to put that in operation. That is our target. So many problems are there. That is why, the Minister is looking at me. Sir, while saying that, I want to mention that a rehabilitation clause should also be added here in the Bill, rehabilitation of those who are doing fisheries activities there. Large-scale nets are available in all these major waterways. So, while we are widening and deepening the waterways, the rehabilitation of the fisherman community is also an important issue. The removal of sand or mud is also causing some problem. Then, there is the question of encroachment. That problem is also there in a big way towards the banks of all these waterways. So, that part should also appear here in this amendment Bill.

Further, I want to say that certain definitions are to be made more unambiguous. For example, in the case of 'vessels', some definition is here, but, I think, to take stock of the whole situation for the coming years, a more competent, unambiguous and clear-cut definition is required. It is applicable for 'vessel' as well as for 'inland water' itself

My another submission is, in clause 3 (1) (c) and (g), I think, the 'harbour water' should also be included as a specific area to facilitate the transportation between ship to shore. It is not here. That will be better for operating such a thing. We need to provide it from ship to shore.

Another thing that I want to say is regarding the pollution aspects and the penalty clauses. As Ahluwaliaji has rightly said, one thing is lacking in that area. Any strict legislation to address the pollution issues should be welcomed and encouraged. But, at the same time, I want to say that those who are involved in this, either person or a company, should also get an opportunity to be heard. (Contd. by 2h/SKC)

2h/4.10/-pb-skc

SHRI K. CHANDRAN PILLAI (CONTD.): That has not been addressed properly here; that is one lacuna. Pollution of waterways is a big question. We are experiencing that even in our waterways at Kuttanadu. Pollution is a big problem, especially pollution through plastic. But while restricting and discouraging that and while applying the penalty clauses, the persons or companies that are blacklisted should also be given an opportunity to place their points of view. It would be unfair if that is not done.

My next point is regarding Clause 5 which relates to temporary validity certifications. At present, temporary permits are for five days. My opinion is that this period is too short; it could be enhanced a little.

One more thing which has already been mentioned here is about show-cause notices and stay on operations. In Kerala too, industrial goods are mainly transported through barges. When our officials make spot visits and identify certain lacunae or errors, the immediate step taken is to stop the operations of the vessel. That is not right. I totally agree that the right course and procedure needs to be followed, but putting a halt or arresting the operations of the vessel would affect the industries that are operating there and contributing to the economy in a big way. The officials are not very considerate about that. Hence, that point should also be considered seriously and measures taken.

Sir, these are the points I wished to submit. With these words, I conclude my speech. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): Thank you, Mr. Chandran Pillai. Now, Shrimati N.P. Durga; please don't take more than five minutes.

SHRIMATI N. P. DURGA (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, I am very thankful to you for permitting me to speak on this piece of proposed legislation which aims to amend the Inland Vessels Act, 1917.

Sir, India is blessed with many rivers, canals, backwaters, lakes and creeks on which inland water transport has flourished in the past. Sadly, however, the potential and the need for development of the sector were overlooked. Also, with the advent of the rail and road modes of transport, the mode of inland water transport declined. I would not hesitate to say that the successive governments have shown little interest in exploiting the growth potential of inland water transport. This becomes clear if you look at the last amendment made to the above Act. It was done three decades ago. The Government's decision to amend the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, at least now is better late than never, as it could steer the course of the near dormant yet high growth potential of our inland water transport sector. The main thrust of the Bill is to amend the Act from the perspective of developing the sector, enhancing safety of the inland water transport operations and introducing measures to protect the environment, etc.

Sir, the total length of navigable waterways in India is about 14,500 kilometres, of which 5,700 kilometres is navigable by mechanically propelled vessels. This clearly shows that we are not able to use optimally even 40 per cent of the available waterways. For this purpose, we need to develop and declare more and more waterways in the country. So far, we have got only three waterways which have been declared as National Waterways. The last waterway declared as National Waterways was one-and-a-half decades ago, that is, in 1993. Since then we have not declared any waterway in the country as National Waterway even after techno-economic studies by the IWA. In this connection, I just wish to give you an example of my own State of Andhra Pradesh.

(Contd. by 2j/hk)

HK/2j/4.15

SHRIMATI N.P. DURGA (CONTD.): Sir, the State Government has long back submitted a proposal for declaration of river Godavari, between Bhadrachalam and Rajahmundry, along with river Krishna, between Wazirabad and Prakasam barrage and integrating the same with Kakinada canal, Eluru canal, Commanur canal and Bukingham canal as National Waterways. This proposal has already been studied and found viable by the Inland Waterways Authority of India more than two years ago. In spite of IWA's approval, the Government has not declared it as a National Waterways. Now, it is pending before the Ministry for declaring the above as National Waterways and taking up the developmental work. So, this is only an example which shows how Government is lethargic in taking decisions and jeopardizing the potential that we have in this sector.

The second point I wish to make is this. The development of this sector will ultimately depend on the flow of investments, both public and private. And, attracting investments in the sector is a crucial step for all-round development. The NDA Government had decided to permit automatically for FDI up to 100 per cent in this sector. But, if you look at the investments in this sector, it is miniscule. So, I would like the hon. Minister to put more emphasis on attracting FDI in this sector so that the left out 8000 and odd Kms. of waterways could be developed.

Sir, clause 3 explains about 'inland vessel' or 'inland mechanically propelled vessel' as mechanically propelled vessel. But it has barred fishing vessels and ships that have been registered under the Merchant Shipping Act as inland vessel or inland mechanically propelled vessel. So, I request the hon. Minister to explain the reasons behind not including fishing vessels and ships under clause 3 of the Bill.

Sir, clause 6 of the Bill proposes to amend Section 19-I of the parent Act and wanted that the owner or master of the vessel be allowed to submit his application for transfer after 36 months from the present period of 12 months. I fail to understand the rationale behind this. I request the hon. Minister to explain the reasons behind this and justification for increasing the period to 36 months.

The Standing Committee on Transport also observed and I wish to reiterate that the amendments brought by the Government are too little and there is an urgent need for overhaul of the parent Act for the development of inland waterways. So, I request the hon. Minister to bring before the House a comprehensive bill to overhaul the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI T.R. BAALU: Sir, first of all I thank all the Members of Rajya Sabha who have participated in this discussion, especially Shri Ahluwaliaji, Shri Shantaramji, Shri Krishna Yadavji, Shri Chandran Pillaiji and Madam Durga. In fact, I am rather honoured for having received so much of inputs while discussing the matter in this august House. Hon. Members made elaborate explanations. Some of the suggestions made by them may not be relevant to this Bill, but they are, at the same time, good inputs for on-going amendments or may be taken up for Inland Vessels Act. If need arises, we will include all these things. First of all, why is this Bill? This Inland Vessels Act was enacted in 1917 and the first amendment was taken up in 1977. Sir, some of the hon. Members have asked whether the Indian Maritime Policy is in place. Yes, we have already drafted a new National Maritime Policy and it is about to be approved by the highest competent authority of India. I am not waiting for the approval but we are making a lot of developments even before the approval because if we lose a day the developments will not be as expected by our UPA Government as well as by the nation. So, the development has to take place simultaneously. Definitely, it is going to be approved by the competent authority and will be placed before the Parliament also. (Contd. by 2k/KSK)

KSK/AKA/4.20/2K

SHRI T.R. BAALU (CONTD): Sir, to commensurate the developmental activities in a particular sector, it is necessary to get this Bill passed by both the Houses of Parliament. Sir, with the considerable increase in inland waterways activities since the last Amendment in 1977, and also taking into account the operational difficulties in the present scenario, and need for prevention and control of pollution in inland waters and compatibility of vessels for insurance against third party risk, there is a felt need to amend Inland Vessel Act, 1977. Sir, there are 68 amendments in 14 categories. This Bill includes extension of inland water limits to cover smooth and partially-smooth water. Previously, the limit of inland water was up to river water plus tidal effect at the confluence of the river and sea. Hitherto, the Indian Vessel Act had jurisdiction for river water plus the tidal water area, but beyond that, we wanted to extend the limit, the jurisdiction, of inland water. So, we are extending it into the sea up to the smooth and partially-smooth area. That is the crux of the Amendment.

Next, it will help dividing inland waterways into three zones. First zone is up to 2 metres of wave-height; second zone is up to 1.2 metres; and third zone is up to 0.6 metre. Why have these zones been divided? Sir, if we give a licence to a particular vessel, we have to see that stability-wise, strength-wise and construction-wise, the vessel should be capable of sailing in a particular area. If wave height is 0.6 metre, to that extent, we can permit the vessel. If it is 1.2 metres, the vessel should have more strength and construction should be sturdier. If it is 2 metres, vessel should be further strengthened. That is why, all the zones have been cited out in this particular Amendment.

Then, it will help induction of trained manpower from the Army, the Navy and the Coast Guard. Hitherto, it was not available. It will facilitate making provisions for insurance of vessels against third party risk compatible with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980. Hitherto, this provision was not there. That is why, this Amendment is necessary.

Insertion of new Chapter in the Act on pollution of Inland Waterways by inland vessels and to regulate discharge made by the vessels, it is the most important Amendment that we need. In the same way, we have got so many amendments, which were not there till now, or not given proper importance.

Sir, I want to reply to the queries of some of my friends one by one. Mr. Ahluwalia has raised some of the most important issues. He mentioned about...(Interruptions).

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Mr. Ahluwalia is not here.

SHRI T.R. BAALU: Whatever it is; he used to be like that only. He will speak and go. That is his nature. He specifically mentioned about dredging. Dredging of waterways is the most important...(Interruptions).

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, hon. Minister is replying to the query of a Member who is not present here.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): See, whether a Member is here or not, whatever reply the Minister wants to give, he can do that.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Sir, a Member represents millions of people. So, the Minister is answering to the nation.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: The Minister is already replying...(Interruptions).

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Is it not the duty of a Member of Parliament to listen to the reply of the Minister?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Narayanasamyji, hon. Minister is replying. Please, sit down...(Interruptions).

. ִ ӛָ : , ֯ ػ ָ , reply ִֵ ֤ ã֟

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Whether the Member is here or not, whatever he spoke is already on record. The Minister is replying. Please, don't create a problem.

SHRI T.R. BAALU: Sir, including Mr. Ahluwalia, there were other Members also who insisted upon dredging. (continued by 2l - gsp)

GSP-NB/4.25/2L

SHRI T.R. BAALU (CONTD.): Dredging is the most important thing. As and when the particular river water is silted, the proper draught will not be available. If the proper draught is not available, the vessels cannot sail. So, it is the most important point raised by Mr. Ahluwalia, for which I am thankful to him. Definitely, it is the most important point. Previously we were having seven dredgers. Now, the Government of India has already indented for six more vessels so that the depth that we require is available in all the areas, in all the water bases, whether it is the monsoon period or whatever. Whenever erosion or silting is there, definitely, these vessels will be put into operation and the proper waterways draught will be maintained.

Mr. Shantaram Laxman Naik made many important observations. Firstly, he mentioned about the delay and said that the Bill has taken two years' time. You are correct. It was introduced in December, 2005. So, it is delayed by three years' but this delay is not on the part of the Department. I will give you all the facts in serial order so that you can identify what went wrong. On 8th December, 2005, the Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha. It was then referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. On 21st March, 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee submitted the report with eleven recommendations. Some eleven recommendations were examined by the Ministry and were circulated for the Inter-Ministerial consultation. The meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Consultation concluded on 23rd November, 2006. It was sent to the Cabinet on 28th February, 2007. The Cabinet approved it on 15th March, 2007. Now the Bill has been reintroduced. The delay was due to all this. I don't think that the department has taken more time.

THE VICE CHAIRMAN (PROF. P.J. KURIEN): We are also responsible for the delay.

SHRI T.R. BAALU: Sir, he said that the DG (Shipping) is harassing the barge owners. It needs to be corrected or redressed. Sir, actually, this observation is not at all correct. There is no provision in the Bill for stoppage of any vessel. Suppose, if it is the case of pollution and the particular vessel is polluting the particular waterways, definitely, it has to be stopped.

As far as NMDP, the National Maritime Development Programme, is concerned, I have already said that this programme is in place. The policy is in place but it has not yet been approved by the competent authority. In the National Maritime Development Programme, we have identified about 286 projects and 111 shipping projects, and, both taken together, around 387 projects have been identified. You should not think that we have only identified the projects and we have not executed them. More than 20 to 25 projects are ongoing projects. We are developing these projects simultaneously. Even before proper approval, we are developing the projects. All the projects are ongoing. Many projects are ongoing. At the same time, an amount of Rs. 13,000 crores has been identified by the particular sector alone.

Next is the discharge of oil, oily mixture in the inland water. Section 54(e) deals with hazardous environmental pollution. Sir, we will take steps through rules that there is no harassment, but as far as the pollution control is concerned, we will be very, very strict. There is no second opinion at all.


(MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair)

As far as section 54(g) is concerned, concerns have been expressed about the inspector raj. Sir, the reception facilities are to be made available at the inland ports. It is to be necessarily checked and if the port has not made any efforts, there is every justification in stopping the operation of particular port. There is no compromise on this issue. Shri Nand Kishore Yadav made some valuable suggestions.

(Contd. by 2m-tmv)

-GSP-TMV-VNK/2M/4.30

SHRI T. R. BAALU (CONTD.): Shri Nand Kishore Yadav has expressed some general concerns about the pollution of the rivers, especially, about those which are crossing the cities. I have already mentioned about adequate water dumb maintenance. We have to make use of the dredges. We have to dredge the particular waterways. Definitely, we will consider all your requests.

Shri Chandran Pillai made many attempts to convince me to do something for Kerala. I will definitely try. I met consecutively three Chief Minister, especially, with regard to Kollam-Kottapuram Waterways. There are a lot of things to be addressed by the State Government. I met three Chief Ministers and had requested them. In fact, all the three Chief Ministers tried to do something. But the fishermen who are spreading the nets on the waterways, they are not removing them. Where is the chance for any vessel to ply on these waterways? There is no waterway at all. That is why it is for the State Government to come forward and help me. Money is not a problem. There is no paucity of funds, as far as implementation of the National Waterways is concerned. It is an existing waterway. I want to help them. But in spite of my three trips to Kerala for this purpose alone, it has not yielded very good results. I request the State to do the needful. Once again, I will meet the Chief Minister.

PROF. P. J. KURIEN: What is it that the Kerala Government has specifically to do?

SHRI T. R. BAALU: They have to specifically help me to interact with the fishermen community in order to remove the fishing nets right across the waterways. That is the problem.

Madam Durga has mentioned something about the declaration of Mettur Waterways. It has been approved by the Cabinet and, I think, it is before the Parliament. Both the Houses have to approve it. From Kakinada-Yelluru up to Tamil Nadu-Puducherry, we are going to do more than 1,000 kilometres of waterways. It has to be notified. The Cabinet has already approved the notification. Both the Houses have to approve the Bill. The Bill is before the Parliament.

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Is there any time-bound programme? It is a long-pending request.

SHRI T. R. BAALU: I can't assure. I can only submit before the Parliament. I can only submit before the Cabinet. As far as the Ministry is concerned, I have got the approval from the Cabinet. I got it approved. If it is before the Parliament, only the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman can decide when it should be taken up.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is the Bill before the Standing Committee?

SHRI T. R. BAALU: The Standing Committee has examined it and submitted its Report. We are in the process of reintroducing it in the Parliament. The system is there. It has to be activated. We have to accept it.

In this case, I thank all the Members who have participated in this discussion and all the valuable suggestions will be taken into consideration during the course of its implementation. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The question is:

That the Bill further to amend the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, be

taken into consideration.

The motion was adopted.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We shall now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 were added to the Bill.

Clause 5 - Insertion of new Section 9A

Temporary Permit

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In clause 5 there is one amendment (No.3) by the Minister.

SHRI T. R. BAALU: Sir, I beg to move:

            That at page 2, line 34, for the words "thirty days" the words "forty-five days" be substituted.

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

Clause 5, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 14 were added to the Bill.

Clause 1 - Short Title and Commencment.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In clause 1 there is one amendment (No.2) by the Minister.

SHRI T. R. BAALU: Sir, I beg to move:

            That at page 1, line 2, for the figure "2005" the figure "2007" be substituted.

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

Clause 1, as amended, was added to the Bill.

Enacting Formula.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is one amendment (No.1) by the Minister.

SHRI T. R. BAALU: Sir, I beg to move:

            That at page 1, line 1, for the word "Fifty-sixth" the word "Fifty-eighth" be substituted.

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

(Contd. By VK/2N)

.-TMV/VK-ANK/2N/4.35

The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill.

The Title was added to the Bill.

SHRI T.R. BAALU: Sir, I move:

That the Bill, as amended, be passed.

The question was put and the motion was adopted.

(Ends)

 

THE WAREHOUSING (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) BILL, 2007

----------

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (DR. AKHILESH PRASAD SINGH): Sir, I move:

That the Bill to make provisions for the development and regulation of warehouses, negotiability of warehouse receipts, establishment of a warehousing development and regulatory authority and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, as passed by Lok Sabha, be taken into consideration.

 

Sir, the Government introduced the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Bill in the Lok Sabha on 7th December, 2005. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution for its examination on 19th December, 2005. The Standing Committee submitted its recommendations to the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 31st October, 2006. The recommendations of the Standing Committee were examined in consultation with State Governments, Central Ministries and experts. The official amendments were moved in the Lok Sabha during consideration of the Bill. The Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2005, along with the official amendments was passed by the Lok Sabha on 15th May, 2007.

The Bill intends to introduce a negotiable warehousing receipt system in the country to make warehousing receipts a fully negotiable instrument. The main objective of the Bill is to ensure proper returns to farmers by encouraging scientific warehousing of goods, lowering the cost of financing, ensuring a shorter supply chain, enhancing rewards for grading and quality and providing for better price risk management. The introduction of a negotiable warehouse receipt would increase liquidity in rural areas and would give a safety net to farmers against distress sale. Though, the Minimum Support Price operations take care of a number of crops, the ability of the farmer to keep his surplus goods in scientific warehouse and obtain institutional credit on the basis of such receipts has been hampered due to absence of an appropriate legislation which enables the same.

I would like to apprise the hon. Members about the need of introducing the negotiable warehouse receipt in the country.

At present the term "warehouse receipt" means a receipt in the prescribed form, issued by a warehouseman to any person depositing in the warehouse.

So far, the use of warehouse receipt has remained confined to be a collateral security for grant of loans by the commercial banks against the goods stored in warehouses. The warehouse receipt has not yet gained its acceptability so as to make it freely transferable from one person to another, as there is no legal back up at present.

The possibility of including the negotiability of warehouse receipt within the ambit of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was explored in consultation with the Ministry of Law. But the latter opined, "It may not be advisable to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act for the purpose of that Act. It would be better to enact a new legislation in concurrence with the Ministries/Departments concerned."

The warehouse receipt cannot be brought under the purview of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881, which deals only with the monetary transactions through the specified instruments viz. promissory notes, bill of exchange, cheques and Hundi.

In view of the legal advice, it was decided to have a separate Central legislation for making the warehouse receipt fully negotiable, so as to give full enforceability and transparency to the warehouse receipts.

The need for introduction of negotiability of warehousing receipts has arisen as the warehouse operators, at present, do not enjoy the fiduciary trust of depositors and banks. Even if the banks wish to finance against warehouse receipts, they are either limited to those operators whom they trust or they have to incur high costs in screening out suitable warehouse operators. (Contd. by RG/2O)

RG/SC/4.40/2O

DR. AKHILESH PRASAD SINGH (contd.): Sir, this will be accomplished by setting up policy and legal framework for making the warehouse receipt a fully negotiable instrument. The Warehouse Development and Regulation Act is proposed to be enacted.

The Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2007, has been drafted in consultation with concerned Departments/Ministries and other stakeholders. The proposed legislation inter alia seeks (i) to provide the regulation of such warehouses which intends to issue negotiable warehouse receipts through a process of registration; (ii) to provide accreditation of warehouses through approved accreditation agencies; (iii) to define liabilities and duties of warehousemen; (iv) to define liabilities and duties of warehousemen; (iv) to define the condition for negotiability of warehouse receipts by delivery and endorsement; (v) to establish an authority to be called the Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority to regulate and ensure implementation of the provision of the proposed legislation and defining the offences and penalty in respect of any offence committed.

The Standing Committee had gone through the Bill in great detail and made a number of suggestions. I am grateful to the Chairman and Members of the Standing Committee for the detailed analysis and the recommendations on the proposed legislation. The Government has been greatly benefited by these recommendations and has accepted most of the suggestions of the Committee. The Government feels that the passing of this legislation will bring about a marked improvement in the lives of farmers and the warehousing scenario of this country.

Sir, I move the motion for consideration of the Bill and request the House to pass the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2007.

The question was proposed.

(Ends)

׻֟ ֟ (֕ã֮) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , - ֮֮ߵ ֕ ӡ 'The Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2007' ֳ פ , ֮ ֤ ֕ ֳ ׸ ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ָ ו ӓ ׸֟ ײֻ ֲ ֟ Ԯ ֵ ו ֓ օ "It is a Bill to make provisions for development and regulation of warehouses, negotiability of warehouse receipts, establishment of Warehousing Development and Regulatory Authority." ` ܵ ו ֓ , ָ ܵ ׸ߙ , ׸ߙ ׿֋ײ׻֙ ֵ֮ ֋ ֟, ֲ ײֻ ֳ ֮ ֤ Ù؛ ֵ Ù؛ ִ֮ ֓ ӡֵֻ , ӡֵֻ ן׮׬ , ׿֋ײ׻֙ ֮֮ ָ ׸ߙ 6 ֵ֤ ֻ - ִ ר, ֻ ׮ ޛָ , ׾֢ߵ ֟ , ׬ ֵֻ ٟ֯ ֻ, ־֢ ׻֋ ָ ר, ָ ߴ֟ ϲӬ֮օ ו ܵ ײֻ ϴֵ֟: ֵ ֵ , ׸ߙ ׿֋ֻ ֮֮ ָ 6 ֳ ֓ ֵ (2-ߋ ָ ֟)

MCM-KS/2P/4-45

׻֟ ֟ (֟) : ו ֓ Ù؛ ָָ ן׮׬ֵ ߅ ֯ ִ֬ ׾ָ֓֬߮ ׾֬ ٟ ָ ״֟ ֣ ӛָ ָ ֟ ִ֟ ֵ , ӡ ֮ ޛָ ִ֟ ֵ, ޛָ ֟Դ֮ ִõ֋, ִ ֮ ֻ ׾־֤, ޛָ ֳ ֟: ״ֻ, ־ã ߴӟ ֮ ֳָ , ׾֬ ֟ ӳ߸ ׾ָ֓ ֵ - ֟ ָ ײֻ , ײֻ ֋ ִ ֟ ϴ , ֟ , ָ ָ֛ ֤ ָ ֮, Ӥ ֮, ֮օ ֟Դ֮ ׾֬ ֵ , ޛָ ו֮ ִõֆ ו , ִõ֋ ֮ ֻ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֵ , ֻ ֤ ֮ և ֮֮ߵ ֳ֬ , ֮֮ߵ ӡ ޛָ ִõ֋ և ִ 50 ׾׳֮ ָ ϵ ֋ ֕ ޛָ ׮֕ ޛָ ׾ ϵ֟ ֋, ׮֕ ׻֋, ޛָ ֮֮ ׻֋ ָ ׾֬֋ ָָ 껛Ù ã֮֯ և ֵ֤ ֮ ֤ ד֟ ߴ֟ ״ֻ߅ ֲ Ù؛ ׾ֵ ֵ Ùכ ֟և ָ™ ޛָ ִ֟ ֮ ֵ ? 45 ָ ֵ ֵ֟օ ԙ ֻ 50 ָ ֵ ֵ֟օ ֲ ߵ ޛָ ׮ִ ֟֓ߟ , ֕ ָָ ֵ֟ 40 ָ ޛָ ֵ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ״ן ޛָ ָָ ֟Դ֮ ӓ ֯ ֆ ٟ - ֲ ֯ ׸ ֜ ֟ ָ פ ֵ ֻ פ ֵօ ׻֋ ֟ ޛָ ֮ ׻֋ ׻֋ ֮֋ ֋ ֵ ־ã ֋ ָ ֮ 40 ָ ޛָ ֵ ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ׮־ ޛָ ֵ , ֳ 90 ָ ײ֓׻֋ ֵ ֻ֟ ָ Ӆ ֯ ָ Ù ׸ Ù ֿ֟ ׾֬ ֟ ׿ֿ ֵ ײ֓׻֋ (2q ָ ֿ:)

TDB-GS/2Q/4.50

׻֟ ֟ (֟) : ײ֓׻֋ ֵ , ֵ ׮׿֟ ߴӟ ֮ ָ , ײ֓׻֋ ֻ ָߤ , ֻ ִֵ ߴ֟ , , ߴ֟ ֜ ֲ ׮ֻ֟ 90 ָ ֡ ֵ ײ֓׻ֵ ָ ֵ֤ ֮ , ִõ ֮ , ׻֋ ֮ ֮֟ ִֵ, ׾֬ ֟ ִֵ, ֟ ؓ֟ ֮ , ו ؓ֟ ֵ

֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׮־ ֲꌙ ִ־֟ ׾ֵ ֲꌙ , ֮ ß׾֟ ֲ ֓ ֵ , ״ן ڛ ֜ , ״ן ִ ӡֵֻ ï™ ׾֬ ӲӬ ֕ ָָ ֻ ֵ, ֯ ָ ֮ ? ӛָ , ־ã ִ־֟ ֺ , , ֕ , ֕ ׬ָ ֮ ־ֿ , ױ ׻ֵ ֮ ׻֋ - ֟ ׮ פݬ ֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֟ ָ ׾ָ֓ ׾ָ֓ ֤ ãן ֕ ָָ ֣, ֮ ֮֮ ֤ conflict ָ ֛ , ֲ ֯ ֯ ãן ִ־֟ ׻֋ ֕ ָָ ױ ׻ֵ ֮ ֮ , ׾֬ ֮֮ ׻֋ stake holders, ֕ ָָ, ӛָ ׮ִ, ׮֕ ӛָ ׮ִ, ֳ ֣ ׾ß ֓ ֮ ׾ß ֓ ֤ ִ ׾֬, ־ וֻ֮ ֮ ־ֿ , ֮֟ , ו ָ ׾ָ֓ ־ֿ

ֳ֯ן , ֟ ӛָ ׮ִ ß ֟ , ֻ֟ , ֛ ֓ ׾ֵ , ו ָ ׾ָ֓ ־ֿ ָָ ָ ןֿ֟ ֕ ֮ ݵ , ֵ ֿ ֪ ֟, ֡ ӛָ ִ ֕ ߻֮, ߙ ָ ֲָ ֟ ֯ ֮֟ ָ ֕ ֲָ ֟ , ֯ - ןٟ֯ ? ׻֋ ֯ ׾֬ ֮ ֯ ִֵ ןٟ֯ , ו ִֵ ִ ֻ ִ ֵ ִֵ ߴ֟ ֮֮ߵ ӡ , ֻ ִ ֟ ? ו ִֵ ֻ ֟ , ֻ , ִֵ ߴ֟ , ֮֓ ׻֋ ֮ ׌ ִ ֟ , ןٟ֯ ָ ֟ , ֯ ו ִֵ ֻ ׯ ׮ֻ, ִֵ ָ֕ ߴ֟ , ןٟ֯ ֲ ֮ , ׾ ־ֿ ׾֬ Ԯ ׻֋ ו ִֵ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ϟָ , ֯ ֟ ֮ ו ִֵ ִ ֻ ׮ֻ, ִֵ ָ֕ ߴ֟ , ֲ ןٟ֯ ־ã ֵ

׮־ ׾֬ , ֮֯ ־֢ ָ֬ ֓ ֵ (2ָ ָ ָ)

-GS/LP/2r/4.55

׻֟ ֟ (֟) : ֲ ֮֟ ֲ ִ֟ ִ֣Ԯ 滵 ָ ָߤ , ִֵ ־֢ ִ ָ ֮ ™ָ֓ ֻ ߓ ֮ - ֻ ־֢ ֛ ױ ֻ ׻ , ׻ ָ֛ ֻ ֮ - ? ֮ , ֛ ׾ֵ ׾ָ֓ ־ֿ

֮֮ߵ ӡ , ׮־ ֮֯ ו ֟ ָ ־ֿ , ׾֬ ܵ , ׿֋ֻ ֮֮օ פ ָ ׌ ߤ ָߤ ߤ ֿ֟ ָ֬ ָ և - ֟ ִ ׻ , "ָ֛ (׾ ׾׮ִֵ֮)", ִ ֟ ֮֟ ָ ׾֬ ׾ ׮ִ ָ֛ , ִ ֮֯ ݵ ֺ ֮ פ , ֯ ׻֋ ָ ־ã ? ֯ ׾ָ֓ ? ֟ ֤ ֮ ׾ , ָ֛ ׮ִ, ׾׮ִֵ֮ ֻ , ָ ׾ָ֓ ־ֿ

֯ וÙ ֓ ֵ וÙ֮ , ӛָ ? ׿֋ֻ ߤ ֯ ֵ ә ֯ ׾׮ִֵ֮ ׿֋ֻ ׸ߙ ֲֻ֟ ? ָ ֵ ָ֛ ֋ ֋ ׿֋ֻ ׸ߙ ֻ, ו ׾׮ִֵ֮ ׾׮ִֵ֮ օ ָ ָ֛ ֋? ָ ֋ ו֮ ׾׮ִֵ֮ օ ӕ ־ֿ ߅ ߴ ֕ օ ֕ ִ֬ ִ , ™ָ֓ Ͽß ֋օ ֯ ֟ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֋ ֯ ׿֋ֻ ׸ߙ ֮ , ֕ , ֕ ֟ օ ׿ ӡ ״ֻ ֮ , ָ ׮ִֵ֮ ׬ָ ָָ , ׬ָ ֛ ֟ ֛ և ߴ ֟ 껾 ׻֋ ߓ ֮ ֛օ

֮֮ߵ ӡ , ֯ ׮־ ֵ ә ֯ ׾׮ִֵ֮ ָ , ֟ ؓ֟ ו֋ ֵ ִ֮ ֵ ™ߵ ׮ֵ ׮֕ ׮־ ֋Ӆ ֮֯ ׸ִ ׻ֵ ֮ ָ ָָ ֕ ָָ ֮ ֯ և ָ ו֮֟ ֕ , ™ߵ ׮ֵ և , ֮ ָ פ , ׸ִ ? ׸ִ ׮ֵ ָ֛ Ӥ ֋߅ ֮ ִֵ , ֻ ִ , ׮ֻ , , ֳ ֋ ײ֓׻֋ ָ ߅ ָ ߴӟ ֮ - ֟ ֯ ֵ ־ã ו֋ ָ֛ ָ ™ߵ ׮ֵ ׮֕ ֟ Ӥ ߴӟ ֮ ãן ׿ֿ ͅ (akg 2s ָ ָ)

PREVIOUS HOUR