Mumbai, Dec 8 (PTI) Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and senior Congress leader Nana Patole sparred in the assembly over the "short" duration of the legislature's Winter session that started on Monday in Nagpur.

When Deputy Chief Minister and Finance Minister Ajit Pawar tabled supplementary demands as listed in the business agenda at the commencement of proceedings, Patole objected and raised the issue of the duration of the session, which ends on December 14, and demanded that it be extended to at least two weeks as per the Nagpur pact.

Patole alleged the government was in a hurry to table supplementary demands and bills on the very first day instead of allowing an in-depth debate.

"Why is the state government in such hurry," Patole questioned in the House.

Intervening in the matter, Speaker Rahul Narwekar said the duration of the session had been decided unanimously in the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee.

However, the exchange intensified when Fadnavis reminded Patole that during the latter's tenure as speaker (during the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi government), the legislature had met only for three to four days, while other states had conducted sessions lasting up to 20 days.

Fadnavis asserted that the longest winter sessions in Nagpur were held during his term as chief minister.

"When you were speaker, no session lasted long. The average period of the sessions in those days was 4-5 days. Only during my tenure Nagpur sessions have been of longer duration," Fadnavis said.

The CM further said tabling government bills and supplementary demands on the first day of the session was in accordance with procedure, and debates were subsequently held before approval.

Fadnavis added that the session duration had been planned keeping in view the possibility of the model code of conduct being announced for upcoming local body elections.

The CM told the assembly that Winter sessions in the future will be held for an appropriate duration. PTI ND BNM

Legislature session duration disputed after immediate tabling of supplementary demands; scheduling defended as Business Advisory Committee decision. A contested six-day Winter session provoked objections that immediate tabling of supplementary demands and bills on day one curtailed thorough debate; the government maintained that first-day tabling accords with procedure and that debates occur prior to approvals. The session timetable was defended as a unanimous decision of the Business Advisory Committee and tied to contingency planning for the potential application of the model code of conduct for local body elections.