By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, July 26: The much-debated KHADC toll gates are once again hogging the spotlight as the VPP-led Executive Committee (EC) in the Council maintains that they are legal establishments but the clamouring opposition to such claims refuses to die down.
Leader of the Opposition in the KHADC, Titosstarwell Chyne, has called upon the VPP led EC to clarify to the public how the toll gates set up along national highways are considered legal. “The EM in charge had, during the last session, clearly stated that all toll gates are legal. It is now up to them to explain how these toll gates meet legal requirements,” Chyne said.
The Voice of the People Party (VPP) had earlier called for a dialogue between the state government and the KHADC to ease tensions regarding the establishment of toll gates on national highways.
Recently, the Ri-Bhoi District Magistrate ordered the closure of a KHADC-operated toll gate for failing to obtain prior permission from the state government. The KHADC, however, responded that the toll gate was set up under its Trade Department, as permitted by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, Chyne strongly criticised the conduct of the recently concluded budget session, describing the actions of the VPP-led EC as “undemocratic” and in violation of established rules and procedures.
Expressing dissatisfaction, he stated that the opposition had raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which the supplementary expenditure for 2024–2025 was introduced.
He argued that the approach taken rendered the budget dysfunctional and was contrary to democratic norms.
According to him, there was a clear breach in the legislative process, and the matter was handled in a manner inconsistent with the Council’s rules.
The controversy intensified when KHADC Chairman Strong Pillar Kharjana allowed the VPP-led EC to present the full budget for 2025–2026, despite strong objections from opposition members.
The situation led to an unprecedented moment in the Council’s history, where the House had to be adjourned before the budget could be tabled. According to the opposition, Rule 111 of the Council’s procedures stipulates that any supplementary expenditure must be presented only after the main budget has been passed. The EC was accused of trying to push through what the opposition described as an illegal insertion of expenditure under the pretext of a supplementary provision.
Chyne maintained that the budget presented on that day was “defunct,” even though the ruling EC claimed it was a surplus budget. He questioned the validity of that claim and said the opposition would wait and observe how the matter develops
Commenting on the overall performance of the current Executive Committee, Chyne refrained from passing personal judgment but stressed that the ultimate verdict lay with the people.
He added that all MDCs are elected by the public and must strive to fulfil their aspirations and protect their interests—an obligation he said the opposition takes seriously.