Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 73, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'catslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]Code Context
trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);
}
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.' $stackFrame = (int) 1 $trace = [ (int) 0 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php', 'line' => (int) 2421, 'function' => 'deprecationWarning', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.' ] ], (int) 1 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ], (int) 2 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php', 'line' => (int) 610, 'function' => 'printArticle', 'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 3 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 120, 'function' => 'invokeAction', 'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller', 'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ], (int) 4 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php', 'line' => (int) 94, 'function' => '_invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {} ] ], (int) 5 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php', 'line' => (int) 235, 'function' => 'dispatch', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 6 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication', 'object' => object(App\Application) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 7 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 162, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 8 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 9 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 88, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 10 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 11 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php', 'line' => (int) 96, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 12 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 65, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware', 'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {} ] ], (int) 13 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php', 'line' => (int) 51, 'function' => '__invoke', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 14 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php', 'line' => (int) 98, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {}, (int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {}, (int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {} ] ], (int) 15 => [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php', 'line' => (int) 39, 'function' => 'run', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {}, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [] ] ] $frame = [ 'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php', 'line' => (int) 74, 'function' => 'offsetGet', 'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest', 'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) { trustProxy => false [protected] params => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] cookies => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _environment => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343/print' [protected] base => '' [protected] webroot => '/' [protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343/print' [protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] _input => null [protected] _detectors => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] _detectorCache => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {} [protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {} [protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {} [protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] emulatedAttributes => [ [maximum depth reached] ] [protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]] [protected] protocol => null [protected] requestTarget => null [private] deprecatedProperties => [ [maximum depth reached] ] }, 'type' => '->', 'args' => [ (int) 0 => 'artileslug' ] ]deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311 Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421 App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74 Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51 Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]Code Contextif (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 8242, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 8242 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition' $metaDesc = ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />“We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />“This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.”</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $maxBufferLength = (int) 8192 $file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php' $line = (int) 853 $message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]Code Context$response->getStatusCode(),
($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')
));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 8242, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 8242 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition' $metaDesc = ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />“We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />“This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.”</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $reasonPhrase = 'OK'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]Code Context$value
), $first);
$first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) { 'status' => (int) 200, 'contentType' => 'text/html', 'headers' => [ 'Content-Type' => [ [maximum depth reached] ] ], 'file' => null, 'fileRange' => [], 'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {}, 'cacheDirectives' => [], 'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680698f64d47a-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">> </span></span></code> <span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/> </span></code></span> <code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/> </span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680698f64d47a-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 8242, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> &nbsp; </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> &ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo; </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 8242 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition' $metaDesc = ' -The Telegraph &nbsp; The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify">&nbsp;</div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed &ldquo;procedural doubts&rdquo; about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers&rsquo; Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers&rsquo; sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed &ldquo;convincingly&rdquo; that the law department had &ldquo;meticulously&rdquo; studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was &ldquo;nothing to worry about&rdquo;. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: &ldquo;Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.&rdquo;<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers&rsquo; official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers&rsquo;. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />&ldquo;We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,&rdquo; Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker&rsquo;s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance &ldquo;unconstitutional&rdquo; since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning&rsquo;s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />&ldquo;This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,&rdquo; an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor&rsquo;s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: &ldquo;Let us see, possibly.&rsquo;&rsquo;<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: &ldquo;I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.&rdquo;</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343.html"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="all"/> <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts | Im4change.org</title> <meta name="description" content=" -The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any..."/> <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem var pic_real_width, pic_real_height; $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues .attr("src", $(img).attr("src")) .load(function () { pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images. }); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> @media screen { div.divFooter { display: block; } } @media print { .printbutton { display: none !important; } } </style> </head> <body> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center"> <tr> <td class="top_bg"> <div class="divFooter"> <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0" alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="topspace"> </td> </tr> <tr id="topspace"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%"> <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal"> <strong>Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts</strong></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3"> <div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />“We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />“This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.”</div> </font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;"> <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page " onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form> </td> </tr> </table></body> </html>' } $cookies = [] $values = [ (int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' ] $name = 'Content-Type' $first = true $value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'header - [internal], line ?? Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181 Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55 Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141 [main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp' $dataForView = [ 'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> “We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> “This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.” </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ [maximum depth reached] ], '[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]], '[repository]' => 'Articles' }, 'articleid' => (int) 8242, 'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'metaKeywords' => 'Land Acquisition', 'metaDesc' => ' -The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...', 'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />“We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />“This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.”</div>', 'lang' => 'English', 'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/', 'site_title' => 'im4change', 'adminprix' => 'admin' ] $article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) { 'id' => (int) 8242, 'title' => 'Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts', 'subheading' => '', 'description' => '<div align="justify"> -The Telegraph <br /> </div> <div align="justify"> </div> <div align="justify"> The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /> <br /> The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /> <br /> Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /> <br /> But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /> <br /> Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /> <br /> The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /> <br /> After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /> <br /> One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /> <br /> Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /> <br /> Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /> <br /> The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /> <br /> “We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /> <br /> Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /> <br /> When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /> <br /> The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /> <br /> “This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /> <br /> <em>Bill date open<br /> </em><br /> Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /> <br /> Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.” </div>', 'credit_writer' => 'The Telegraph, 12 June, 2011, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110612/jsp/frontpage/story_14103282.jsp', 'article_img' => '', 'article_img_thumb' => '', 'status' => (int) 1, 'show_on_home' => (int) 1, 'lang' => 'EN', 'category_id' => (int) 16, 'tag_keyword' => '', 'seo_url' => 'govt-glossed-over-governor-doubts-8343', 'meta_title' => null, 'meta_keywords' => null, 'meta_description' => null, 'noindex' => (int) 0, 'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {}, 'most_visit_section_id' => null, 'article_big_img' => null, 'liveid' => (int) 8343, 'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {}, 'edate' => '', 'tags' => [ (int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {} ], 'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {}, '[new]' => false, '[accessible]' => [ '*' => true, 'id' => false ], '[dirty]' => [], '[original]' => [], '[virtual]' => [], '[hasErrors]' => false, '[errors]' => [], '[invalid]' => [], '[repository]' => 'Articles' } $articleid = (int) 8242 $metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts' $metaKeywords = 'Land Acquisition' $metaDesc = ' -The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any...' $disp = '<div align="justify">-The Telegraph <br /></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.<br /><br />The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers.<br /><br />Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed.<br /><br />But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said.<br /><br />Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.”<br /><br />The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them.<br /><br />After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions.<br /><br />One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that?<br /><br />Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session?<br /><br />Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said.<br /><br />The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres.<br /><br />“We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session.<br /><br />Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill.<br /><br />When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance.<br /><br />The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening.<br /><br />“This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said.<br /><br /><em>Bill date open<br /></em><br />Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’<br /><br />Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.”</div>' $lang = 'English' $SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/' $site_title = 'im4change' $adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8 Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413 Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374 Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927 Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885 Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126 Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94 Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96 Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65 Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
![]() |
Govt ‘glossed over’ governor doubts |
-The Telegraph The Raj Bhavan secretariat had expressed “procedural doubts” about the now-discarded Singur ordinance on Thursday and the governor had signed it only after an assurance from minister Partha Chatterjee that the law department had not come across any potential red flags, Writers’ Buildings sources said today.
The government had to drop the ordinance yesterday because it is unconstitutional to promulgate one while the Assembly is in session. It decided to reconvene the House ahead of schedule on Monday to pass a bill allowing the Singur plot to be taken over from the Tatas and returned to disgruntled farmers. Writers’ sources said the Raj Bhavan secretariat had raised some queries about the ordinance on Thursday evening when Chatterjee took it to governor M.K. Narayanan to get it signed. But the commerce and industries minister, who also holds charge of parliamentary affairs, conveyed “convincingly” that the law department had “meticulously” studied all the legal aspects of the ordinance and assured the officials there was “nothing to worry about”. It was only then that the governor agreed to sign the document, the sources said. Despite repeated attempts, Chatterjee could not be contacted for his response to the disclosure made by the sources. However, hours before the sources spoke to The Telegraph on Saturday, Chatterjee had said in response to a question if the flip-flop on the ordinance had embarrassed the government: “Our government would never do anything unconstitutional. That is why we have done what we have done.” The sources said Chatterjee had arrived at the Raj Bhavan around 6pm on Thursday, accompanied by three law department officials. He was asked to wait as the governor had visitors. After some time, Chatterjee and the others were ushered into the room where Narayanan was waiting for them. After explaining the purpose of his visit, Chatterjee handed the document over to Narayanan, who read it and summoned a few officials from his secretariat to seek their opinion. These officials had two main questions. One, why was the commerce and industries department moving the ordinance when procedural rules demanded that the land and land reforms department do that? Two, why was the state government seeking to promulgate an ordinance when the Assembly was in session? Chatterjee appeared to have come prepared. He gave prompt replies and the law department officials accompanying him backed him up, a Writers’ official said. The minister then carried the signed ordinance back to Mamata Banerjee at Writers’. The chief minister announced before the media that the governor had signed an ordinance that would allow the government to annul the Singur lease agreement and take back the 997.11 acres. “We have brought this ordinance since the Assembly is not in session,” Mamata had said on Thursday evening, her words making it clear she had not been told explicitly that the Assembly had merely been adjourned after the May 30 Speaker’s election and was still in session. Later that night, Mamata was told that CPM state secretary Biman Bose had dubbed the ordinance “unconstitutional” since the Assembly was in session. She replied she still had the option of not notifying the ordinance, reconvening the Assembly ahead of schedule, and introducing a bill. When the governor read these reports in Friday morning’s newspapers, he called state chief secretary Samar Ghosh to seek a way out of the mess. It was decided that Mamata would be advised not to notify the ordinance. The unforeseen change in the House timetable has had an unintended fallout, too. Raj Bhavan sources said the speech prepared by the government for the governor to read out in the Assembly on Monday had not been delivered till this evening. “This will give the governor very little time to make changes if he wants any,” an official said. Bill date open Other sources said the governor’s approval was sought today on the Singur-related bill but the government appeared not to yet have fixed the day on which it would be tabled. Asked whether the bill would be placed on Tuesday, Mamata said this evening: “Let us see, possibly.’’ Speaker Biman Banerjee said: “I am yet to receive the copy of the bill. It will be introduced in this session. But I am not sure whether the government would table it on Tuesday as scheduled earlier.” |