State of Scams: Rs 6,117-cr excess spending in 4 fiscals yet to be ratified

Government spending in Maharashtra overshot budgetary provisions by Rs 6,117.57 crore, through 142 grants and 46 appropriations from 2006-07 to 2010-11, but this is yet to be ratified by the state legislature, which is mandatory under Article 205 of the Constitution that deals with supplementary, additional or excess grants.

In another extreme, in spite of going for supplementary demands of around Rs 14,000 crore over and above the plan size of 45,000 crore for 2011-2012, the state could not spend the amount.

In between these wide swings, the relatively small Rs 20 crore, announced for the Yashwantrao Chavan Mukta Vasahat Yojna for uplift of Vimukti Jati and Nomadic Tribes was not allocated in 2011-12.

The Rs 20-crore outlay was proposed in 2011-12 and the Social Justice and Special Assistance department finalised the scheme — aimed at raising living standards of Vimukti Jati and Nomadic Tribes and bringing them into the mainstream — only by December 2011, when only three months were left of the fiscal.

By the time a new budget head could be opened, it was May 2012, the next fiscal, and the provision made was Rs 10 crore, half of the Rs 20 crore proposed by Deputy Chief Minister and Finance Minister Ajit Pawar.

The report also shows excess expenditure of Rs 1,272.28 crore, through 31 grants/ appropriations authorized by the legislature, for 2011-12.

Departments such as irrigation, power, agriculture, rural development, industry, transport and cooperation showed an excess expenditure of Rs 68.83 crore in 139 sub-heads though the 2011-12 fiscal closed with overall savings of Rs 262.48 crore.

Interestingly, capital expenditure for irrigation showed an excess expenditure of Rs 20.87 crore in 54 sub-heads but the fiscal closed with an overall saving of Rs 813.03 crore. Schemes for welfare of SC, ST and OBC showed an excess expenditure of Rs 21.90 crore, in 35 heads, but there was overall saving of Rs 694.33 crore, the report states.

The report points out all this mismatch as an overall portrayal of poor functioning within departments and the failure of the finance department in disciplining them.

The report states, "Timely review and proper planning could have avoided these excesses through re-appropriation."

There were some other variations. The report states that Rs 151 crore was spent in 33 cases without budgetary provision, which is against the Budget Manual, and that the reason for this expenditure has not been intimated by the various administrations. In 17 out of these 33 cases, it was observed that Rs 44.07 crore was reduced to "nil" through re-appropriation, the report states, and adds that it proved injudicious in view of excess expenditure of Rs 13.98 crore in these cases.

For welfare of SC/ ST / OBC, a supplementary provision of Rs 580 crore made, but it was unnecessary as the expenditure of Rs 4,641.74 crore fell short of the original provision of Rs 4,755,51 crore. Similarly, in the general education, a supplementary demand of Rs 124 crore was unnecessary as the expenditure of Rs 22,448 crore was below the original provision of Rs 26,665 crore.
COURTESY:
Express news service : Mumbai, Sat Apr 20 2013, 06:01 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rs-6117cr-excess-spending-in-4-fiscals-yet-to-be-ratified/1105221/0

Irrigation Scam : Vest investigators with effective powers

Mumbai: The special investigation team appointed to probe the irrigation scam will be ineffective if it is not invested with sweeping powers to question ministers, bureaucrats and contractors allegedly involved in the multi-crore swindle.

By most accounts, almost half the Rs 70,000 crore spent on irrigation projects over the past decade may have been siphoned off or wasted on dud projects.

TOI presents its wish list on how the SIT should work and what it should go after:

• Investigate irregularities and criminal conspiracy, including roles of ministers, officers and contractors
• Estimates for every tender above Rs 1 crore must be thoroughly probed. Compare rates given for major tenders (Rs 50 crore) with smaller tenders (Rs 10 crore) for discrepancies
• Investigate if costs of estimates were updated or increased as per department schedule rates (price levels) and laid-down rules
• Analyse estimates for works awarded without calling tenders and their legality
• Probe transportation lead rates paid by irrigation corporations for various projects
• Investigate projects where, in violation of well-established principles and various circulars, market rates were used to update costs of tenders. Also examine steps taken to recover extra sum paid to contractors
• Verify if contractors for every tender above Rs 1 crore satisfied enough criteria. 
• Check if due process was followed in awarding contracts
• Find irrigation potential planned, declared and achieved year-wise and project-wise
• Ascertain actual irrigation planned, declared and created year-wise and project-wise
• Conduct physical audit of actual land irrigated and irrigation potential created
• Compare rates of various irrigation corporations in the last ten years and focus on the variance. Particularly rates of pipes for lift irrigation schemes, hearting, casing, concrete and tunnel excavation
• Investigate in every corporation details of advances paid to various contractors along with rate of interest charged and interest waived
• Inquire into details of claims and idle charges paid to contractors and the reasons
• Probe details of total tenders called annually by various irrigation corporations and compare them to budgetary provisions and funds provision
• Examine diversion of funds from one region to another, one district to another, one project to another, names of authorising authorities, and whether sanctions were sought from the state governor
• Seek details of where project costs increased due to disregard of mandatory designs, particularly lift irrigation schemes in Vidarbha
• Probe works that should have been executed by mechanical/electrical body of the state but, instead, tenders were awarded by civil organisations
• Calculate average rate at which tenders were quoted
• Find details of number of tenders allotted in past decade and their status. Investigate if tenders convened under e-tender system were foolproof
• Examine Vadnere committee report, Mendhegiri report, M K Kulkarni report, Kolawale report and departmental enquiries; suggest criminal action
• Suggest steps to recover financial loss incurred to the state due to irregularities
• Examine contractors who were awarded tenders of over Rs 50 crore in a single project
• Check bank accounts of contractors for money laundering.

CM rejects printing error argument
Nagpur: CM Prithviraj Chavan on Monday dismissed R R Patil’s claim that a printing error was behind the assertion in the state economic survey 2010-11 that the irrigation potential has increased by only 0.1%. TNN
Courtesy:
Nauzer K Bharucha | TNN

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2012/12/18&PageLabel=4&EntityId=Ar00402&ViewMode=HTML

IRRIGATION SCAM : NCP may seek judicial probe to keep SIT at bay

Mumbai: In a politically strategic move, the NCP has decided to submit a proposal for a high-level judicial probe into the multi-crore irrigation scam in the state to chief minister Prithviraj Chavan.

Although Chavan declined comment, a senior Congress minister told TOI on Sunday that the NCP had sought legal opinion on entrusting the probe to a panel set up under the Commission of Inquiry Act to end the weeklong stalemate over the scandal in both houses of the state legislature.

The minister pointed out that six public interest litigations against deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar and water resources minister Sunil Tatkare were pending before the Bombay high court, while leader of opposition Eknath Khadse is in the process of filing two more PILs on gross misuse of power and corruption in the irrigation department.

“The NCP fears that the court may order setting up of a special investigation team (SIT) or entrust the probe to the CBI as urged by the petitioners. In that event, the NCP will be at the receiving end. To avoid such a situation, the NCP itself will propose a judicial probe. If the proposal is accepted, then it will inform the court accordingly. In that event, the chances of setting up a SIT will be lower,’’ the minister said. Irrigation white paper has ‘outdated, misleading’ stats

Mumbai: Lies, damned lies and statistics.
The controversial white paper on irrigation projects produced by the state water resources ministry is littered with outdated, confusing and allegedly misleading statistics. Data pertaining to over half a dozen major projects are at least a decade old and widely differ from information submitted by the ministry to the state assembly eight months ago.

Most projects are in drought-prone Vidarbha region. A senior department official said the white paper seems to have exaggerated the irrigation potential and actual land which came under irrigation.

A detailed analysis of the two-volume report released by chief minister Prithviraj Chavan on November 29 shows old data was used to boost figures of land under irrigation.

The discrepancies are glaring, as in the case of the Wan project in Akola district of Vidarbha. The white paper boasts that the irrigated land due to this project is 14,428 hectares. It also admits that this figure is for the financial year 2003-04.

However, the programme estimate booklet presented in the budget session of the state assembly early this year,issilenton theirrigated land and shows it as ‘nil’. “Even if the figures in the white paper are correct, it is misleading to give data whichis a decadeold,’’ sources said. The department has to give updated figures every year, they added.

In the Upper Wardha project in Amravati district, the white paper shows a total irrigated area of 36,119 hectarestill2007-08.On theother hand, the programme estimates booklet pegged the figure at 31,760 hectares in 2010-11. “This is a total farce. The white paper relied on fiveyear-old data. Moreover, the figure in the estimates booklet shows a smaller area under irrigation,’’ department officials said.

The Arunavati project in Yavatmal district is another where major discrepancies have been found.

The white paper pegs the land under irrigation at 10,229 hectares, although the programme estimates booklet gives a figure of 670 hectares as on 2009-11.

Differences in expenditure figures have also been found in the Pench project in Nagpur. While the white paper saidonly Rs293 crorewas spent till March 2012, the estimates booklet pegged it at Rs 323 crore till March 2011.

The length of the right bank main canal of the Gosikhurd national irrigation project also varies in the two government documents. The white paper puts its length at 99 km while the estimates booklet shows it at 107 km. TOI had reported how the white paper claimed the quantum of landbroughtunder irrigation by the Gosikhurd project was 5,279 hectares, but the programme estimates booklet puts the figure at1,582hectares. Similarly, the white paper claimed expenditure on the Gosikhurd project was Rs 6,073 crore, but the programme estimates booklet puts the figure at Rs 6,609 crore.

Interestingly, the white paper does not reveal the actual figures of land under irrigation in western Maharashtra. It only gives the irrigation potential (where canals are ready, but water hasn’t reached fields) these projects have created.

The target irrigation potential of many projects in western Maharashtra is pegged on a lower side in the programme estimates compared to the white paper.

“If figures in the programme estimates booklet are wrong, it will be a fit case for breach of privilege in the assembly,’’ the sources said.

Courtesy:
Prafulla Marpakwar TNN
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2012/12/17&PageLabel=5&EntityId=Ar00105&DataChunk=Ar00501&ViewMode=HTML

HERE’S WHY CM IS SILENT ON IRRIGATION SCAM

WHITE PAPER NAMES SEVERAL CONGRESS POLITICIANS IN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF FORMER AND SITTING LEGISLATORS WHO GOT CHANGES MADE IN ORIGINAL PLAN OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS, WHICH LED TO DELAYS AND COST ESCALATIONS.

UJANI PROJECT (DISTRICT SOLAPUR) Administrative approval given in 1964 ORIGINAL COST: Rs 40.51 crore.
REVISED COST: Rs 1,992.78 crore.
The project is still incomplete and 10 lift irrigation schemes are yet to be completed.
Major changes were made that led to widening of the scope of the project when the then Congress CM S B Chavan in 1986 approved a demand of locals which led to inclusion of 282 villages and irrigation potential increased by 1.38 lakh hectares.

KRISHNA KOYNA LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME (DISTRICT SANGLI) Administrative approval given in 1984 ORIGINAL COST: Rs 82.43 crore.
REVISED COST: Rs 3,042 crore.
Cost escalation happened due to certain demands made by political bigwigs such as Ministers Dr Patangrao Kadam (Congress), R R Patil and Jayant Patil ( both NCP), ex- MLAs Ajit Ghorpade (Congress), Anil Babar (NCP) and others.

URMODI PROJECT ( DISTRICT SATARA ) Administrative approval given in 1993 ORIGINAL COST: Rs 212 crore.
REVISED COST: Rs 1,417 crore.
The scope of the project was changed mainly due to a demand made by then Cooperation Minister and local MLA Abhaysinharaje Bhosle ( Congress) who demanded canal irrigation instead of Kolhapuri type weirs.

WARNA PROJECT ( DISTRICT SANGLI ) Approval for the project was given in 1963- 64 ORIGINAL COST: Rs 31.64 crore.
REVISED COST: Rs 2,149.95 crore.
In 2006 , an increase of Rs 108 crore came in when it was decided to go for geo synthetic lining to canals.
The decision was taken in a meeting chaired by Shivajirao Deshmukh (Congress).

IRRIGATION WHITE PAPER PUTS CONG ON BACKFOOT
CRITICISM is pouring in from all quarters over the white paper on state irrigation projects remaining silent on corruption and steering clear of putting any blame on former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar for delays and cost escalations.

This silence of the Congress-led Democratic Front government can be explained by the fact that demands by a number of former and sitting legislators for changes in the original plan of projects resulted in delays and cost escalations.

The white paper, which was made public yesterday, details the causes for delays and rise in project costs over the years. In this light, it would have been a logically inconsistency to pin responsibility for the maladies in the irrigation sector on Pawar, the NCP strongman who resigned from the government in a huff in September following allegations of corruption in several projects.

The state water resources department, which is led by Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) Minister Sunil Tatkare, has revealed the names of the legislators who made the demands for project modifications and also listed the changes they wanted that led to cost escalations. And many of these names are of leaders from the Congress, a fact that might be the prime reason behind Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan refraining from announcing any high- level inquiry.

The NCP, which has been pushed into a corner for allegedly making a mess of the irrigation department, has revealed these names in the 768- page Volume II of the white paper. The first volume of the white paper runs into 113 pages.

Volume II contains a list of 17 big projects, 19 medium projects and 19 lift irrigation schemes that are alleged to have drained the state coffers as most of them involve large- scale delays.
For the delays and cost escalations, the white paper blames land acquisition problems, rehabilitation of the project affected, paucity of funds and time consumed for detailed design and plans of the project, besides changing the scope of the project midway following demands from locals, projectaffected people and elected representatives.

For the delays and cost increase, the NCP- led water resources department indirectly blames the Congress- led departments, such as the revenue department that is responsible for land acquisition and relief and rehabilitation for project- affected people.

The white paper seeks to clarify that the prime reason behind cost escalations has been changes made in the scope of a project.

SOME BIG PROJECTS THAT HAVE SEEN CHANGES

UJANI PROJECT (SOLAPUR)
Approval given on August 20, 1964 Original cost: Rs 40.51 crore Revised cost: Rs 1,992.78 crore Status: Incomplete , ten lift irrigation schemes pending Projected benefits: Irrigation potential of 2.59 lakh hectares of land Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Major changes to original plan that led to widening of scope of project. In 1986, the then CM S B Chavan (Congress) approved a demand by locals that led to inclusion of 282 villages under project and increase in irrigation potential by 1.38 lakh hectares. Length of canals also saw increase by a few kilometres.
Project cost rose by Rs 518 crore for these changes, besides other cost escalations like Rs 124 crore for command area development

KUKDI PROJECT (PUNE)
Approval given in 1966 Original cost: Rs 31.18 crore Revised cost: Proposal for cost increase is Rs 2,184 crore and has been submitted to the government Projected benefits: It will cater to needs of parts of Pune, Ahamadnagar and Solapur Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/Cost increase: Changes in district scheduled rates (DSR), land acquisition problems, and widening of scope of project following certain demands made by locals and MLAs that would cost Rs 255 crore. In 1986, demands made by local MLA Nandkumar Zawre (Congress) were approved in a meeting chaired by the then minister of state for irrigation Annasaheb Mhaske. In 2004, demands made by the then minister for tribal development Madhukar Pichad and the then energy minister Dilip Walse Patil ( both from NCP) also approved. Al this also led to cost escalation.

WARNA PROJECT (SANGLI)
Approval given in 1963- 64 Original cost: Rs 31.64 crore Revised cost: Rs 2,149.95 crore, proposal is awaiting government nod Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Land acquisition problems, DSR issues and expenditure on establishment. Public demand for change in site of the hydropower project led to increase in cost. In 2006, cost increase of Rs 108 crore followed decision to go for geo synthetic lining for canals taken in a meeting chaired by Shivajirao Deshmukh, chairman of the legislative council.
Changes in water distribution system added another Rs 176.82 crore to cost.

NIRA DEOGHAR PROJECT (PUNE)
Approval given in 1983- 84 Original cost: Rs 61.84 crore Revised cost: Rs 1,334.35 crore ( approved in 2009) Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Scope of the project changed when local MLA, ex- minister Anantrao Thopte (Congress) demanded 21- km canal and lift irrigation scheme. Ex- MLA Madanrao Pisal (Congress) and former Dy CM Vijaysinha Mohite Patil (NCP) also demanded benefits of the project for their constituencies, Wai and Malshiras respectively, leading to cost escalation of Rs 123.15 crore and increase in dam length from 1,608 metres to 2,330 metres and height from 46 metres to 58.8 metres.

URMODI PROJECT (SATARA)
Approval given in 1993 Original cost: Rs 212 crore Revised cost: Rs 1,417 crore Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Scope changed as then Cooperation Minister and local MLA Abhaysinharaje Bhosle (Congress) demanded canal irrigation instead of Kolhapuri- type weirs

TARALI PROJECT (SATARA)
Approval given in 1995- 96 Original cost: Rs 194.32 crore Revised cost: Rs 1.57.63 crore Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Scope changed when then chief minister Manohar Joshi of Shiv Sena approved a lift irrigation scheme as a special case, which led to a cost escalation of Rs 110.49 crore

SINA KOLEGAON PROJECT (OSMANABAD)
Approval given in 1992 Original cost: Rs 70.88 crore Revised cost: Rs 455.28 crore Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Scope saw an increase of Rs 76 crore when a meeting chaired by then Water Resources minister Ajit Pawar, Minister for Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ramraje Nimbalkar and local MLA Rahul Mote (NCP) approved inclusion of a new lift irrigation scheme.
Change in designs caused cost increase of Rs 106.62 crore

KRISHNA KOYNA LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME (SANGLI)
Approval given in 1984 Original cost: Rs 82.43 crore Revised cost: Rs 3,042 crore Status: Incomplete Reason for delay/ Cost increase: Cost escalated because of certain demands made by Ministers Dr Patangrao Kadam ( Congress), R R Patil and Jayant Patil ( both NCP), former MLAs Ajit Ghorpade (Congress), Anil Babar (NCP) and others.
Dr Kadam demanded inclusion of some villages, which led to cost increase of Rs 22.17 crore.
Demands made by R R Patil and Jayant Patil increased cost by Rs 28 crore.
Cost escalation of approximately Rs 48 crore came about due to various demands by the former minister Ajit Ghorpade. He was also part of a demand that was made by then minister Shivajirao Deshmukh, former MLA Umaji Sanmadikar and Minister Laxman Dhoble, which led to cost increase of Rs 336.73 crore. A demand by Anil Babar resulted in cost increase of Rs 11 crore
Courtecy:
RAVIKIRAN DESHMUKHhttp://epaper2.mid-day.com/showtext.aspx?boxid=12032753&parentid=187598&issuedate=01122012&edd123=Mumbai
http://epaper2.mid-day.com/showtext.aspx?boxid=12653878&parentid=187630&issuedate=01122012&edd123=Mumbai

 

MAHARASHTRA IRRIGATION SCAM: BJP MP’s co got 1,350cr dam deals illegally

Firm Was Also Given Advances Against Rules
Mumbai: A non-existing company owned by BJP Rajya Sabha MP Ajay Sancheti bagged irrigation projects worth Rs 1,350 crore in Maharashtra in 2007-08.

The firm, Shakti Kumar M Sancheti Ltd, was renamed SMS Infrastructure in November 2005. Yet, Sancheti was awarded contracts by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) under the name of the old company. “Once the name of a company is changed, the old name ceases to exist and the new name comes into existence. The Sancheti group used the old name as well as the new
name concurrently to obtain more contracts than permitted,’’ said officials. Government sources said VIDC’s norms permitted a maximum of three contracts to a single contractor. Its tender condition clearly stipulated that in case of violation, the contractor would be blacklisted.

Sancheti is a close aide of BJP president Nitin Gadkari and his family has RSS links for the last three generations. His uncle, Chainsukh Sancheti, is the BJP MLA from Buldhana district.

Documents accessed by TOI reveal that the now defunct firm (Shakti Kumar) went on to bag four contracts; two in Gosikhurd in Bhandara district, one in Amravati district and another in Yavatmal district collectively worth Rs 1,350 crore. (VIDC later cancelled one of the tenders because it was awarded at an exorbitant rate.)

Simultaneously, SMS Infrastructure also procured projects worth an additional Rs 389 crore between 2006 and 2009.

Sancheti was not available for comment despite several attempt.

TOI BLEW LID OFF IRRIGATION SCAM

In a series of reports starting April 25, TOI exposed the politician-official-contractor nexus in irrigation projects that is bleeding the state dry. Last Tuesday, deputy chief minister and former water resources minister Ajit Pawar resigned over the allegations. On Sunday, in his first public appearance after quitting the government, he claimed in Akola that he was the victim of a conspiracy to malign him and that it was a tactic to deflect attention from the Coalgate controversy.

Advance paid as ‘special case’ to Sancheti firms

Mumbai: Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation’s (VIDC) benevolence towards BJP MP Ajay Sancheti went beyond giving illegal contracts to his company. The contractor received a mobilization advance of Rs 121 crore despite various government circulars which prohibited such advances. These circulars were later scrapped by the then water resources minister Ajit Pawar in 2008.

Interestingly, resolutions signed by Pawar and VIDC executive director D P Shirke stated that the advance was paid to Sancheti’s two firms as a special case. Strangely, the resolution also said that there was no provision in the tender for such advance payment. These resolutions were not signed by the secretary of water resources department, who is the ex-officio managing director of VIDC.

TOI has also learned that in 2010, the VIDC’s governing council stayed the rule granting three works per contractor. In March, the central water commission chairman, R C Jha, visited the Gosikhurd project and observed that the right bank main canal being executed by Sancheti had either collapsed or tilted by nine metres at various spots. But VIDC engineers defended the work, stating that this was due to geological conditions. Sancheti’s SMS Infrastructure claims to be one of the largest infrastructure companies in Central India with an employee base of over 1,300 people and a turnover of around Rs 1,100 crore.

MPS PROTEST 250% DAM COST HIKE

In November 2011, two MPs wrote to Union water resources minister Pawan Kumar Bansal about the unusual increase in the cost of the Purna barrage-2 (Ner Dhamana) irrigation project.

The work was awarded to Sancheti. BJP’s Haribhau Jawale and Shiv Sena’s Nandrao Adul complained that its cost had shot up from 182 crore to 638 crore.

“The design finalization was done way ahead after the tender was awarded. This resulted in excess expenditure by more than three times,’’ said Jawale’s letter.

He further said that the original 2008 administrative approval was obtained without following due procedure. “If tender had been awarded post-finalization of design, it would have saved a lot of money and resources.

As a result, cost of irrigating the land is estimated at 9.19 lakh a hectare whereas the normal cost is around 2 lakh a hectare,’’ he added.

The Centre had imposed a condition that the project be completed within the sanctioned amount. “However, reality seems to be far different as the project cost is revised drastically.

Definitely, there seems to major manipulation causing undue benefit to certain vested interests,’’ said Jawale. He urged the minister not to sanction the revised estimate as it was an “unrealistic’’ one.

COURTECY:
Nauzer K Bharucha TNN
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2012/10/01&PageLabel=1&EntityId=Ar00100&ViewMode=HTML