Sir, I will now try to reply to the various points made by several hon. Members during the course of the debate. The hon. Member Shri Kadam, who moved the Cut Motion, referred to the question of rates, transport, procurement, prosecutions and so on. I should think that he was dealing with such cases in his capacity as a lawyer. It would have been better if the hon. Member had approached me with the material facts of the cases. He had approached me in one such case, and, speaking subject to correction, he was defending the accused in that case in a court of law. I am glad that he is defending them in this House also.

When the position was brought to the notice of the Government, the parties were informed that if they were prepared to pay to the Government the remaining quantum of levy that was expected of them, the Government would be prepared to withdraw the cases. The Collector had a sort of an understanding with the hon. Member who moved this Cut Motion, but I do not know what happened afterwards and why he withdrew from that position. That is the position according to my information, and Sir, I have taken the first opportunity to explain the position in regard to these prosecutions to the House. I agree with the hon. Member that when questions of this nature are to be tackled, they should be tackled, as he himself emphasised, in a non-political manner. May be a certain set of propositions is going to help a certain political party and its ideology. But it is better for him, it is better for me, and it is better for all concerned that political considerations should not be allowed to enter in this matter.

Then, Sir, the hon. Member made some reference to the godown at Katur. I might here remind the House of a short notice question tabled by the hon. Member Shri Bharucha, and in reply thereto I had made a reference to certain damage done to rice in the Karwar district. I had then in view this particular godown. As far as my information goes, there were only three instances brought to my notice: one in Bombay, the second in Belgaum and the third in Karwar, and I have tried to deal with them as was necessary under the circumstances.

Then, Sir, the hon. Member referred to the hardships caused to the Bhandaris and fishermen living near the sea-shore. I can assure the hon. Member that if he comes to me with particular cases which have some merit in them, I will certainly try to consider them with all the care that those cases would need and demand.

Next to him followed the hon. Member Shri Bharucha and I must, first of all, express my thanks to him for pointing out a certain mistake regarding the storage capacity and the construction programme undertaken by Government. He suggested that there must be something wrong with the policy of the Government in regard to the construction programme. I may assure the hon. Member that there is nothing wrong with the construction programme of the Government, but there is something wrong with the printing. As he stated, the information given is that with the expenditure of Rs. 89 lakhs the capacity provided for storage is only 18,000 tons! I may inform the hon. Member and the House that in printing the figure one '1’ was dropped, which really ought to have been at the third place from the left thus making the storage capacity to 1,81,000 tons. For the information of the House, I may also state that this year we have a programme under construction costing Rs. 6 lakhs and we propose to have a storage capacity of 10,000 tons. I hope the correction which I have made now will remove all doubt or misunderstanding that might have been entertained by the hon. Members of this House.