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

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

 

ACB seeks nod to probe irrigation minister in irrigation scam

Mumbai: The Anti-Corruption Bureau has sought the state government’s okay to launch an “open inquiry” against irrigation minister Sunil Tatkare over allegations of land grab and disproportionate assets.

A “discreet inquiry” against the senior NCP leader, sources said, is already complete. The ACB now wants authorization for the second stage of the investigation—“open inquiry” —so that it can call for official files and, if required, summon Tatkare for questioning.
“We have forwarded the request to the general administration department. It will follow the usual course (to the concerned department and chief secretary) before landing up at the CM’s table for the final nod,” said a home official.

With the latest appeal, the pending ACB requests for investigating sitting ministers has risen to three.

Discreet inquiry against Congress min nearly over Mumbai: As the Anti-Corruption Bureau sought the state’s nod to probe Sunil Tatkare, the total tally of pending ACB requests for investigating sitting ministers rose to three. The bureau sought a goahead to probe public works minister Chhagan Bhujbal three months ago and medical education minister Vijaykumar Gavit three years ago.

ACB sources said the agency is about to complete a discreet inquiry against a fourth minister: a Congress leader facing allegations for his role in the Coalgate scam. “A requestfor a fourthopen inquiry will be forwarded to the state soon,” said an ACB official.

A close aide of former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, Tatkare is accused of cornering 7,500 acres of farmland by creating front companies. He is accused of misusing his power and authority, as the statewater resources andirrigation minister, to grant arbitrary sanctions for irrigation projects. “I do not want to speak on the matter (either the inquiry or allegations) right now since it is in court,” Tatkare told TOI.

The request on Tatkare is bound to add to the worries of the government as it dithers on the previous two appeals. ACB sleuths said the prolonged official inaction shows lack of political will in the government. As it is, a sanction file needs to travel through a long, winding route—first through the home department to the general administration department to secretaries of the departments concerned to the chief secretary and finally to the chief minister. Worst of all, thereis noindependent mechanism to expedite or assist in the process.

“We expect the government’s nod to ideally come in less than two months, which is enough for the government to study a case properly. Beyond this, if the government takes time, it only shows a deliberate attempt to sit on the inquiry application,” said a senior ACB official.

The permission for a probe against Gavit, sources pointed out, is pending before the state since May 14, 2009. In the case of Bhujbal, the ACB filed the request letter on July 18, 2012, and it is said to have reached the chief minister’s table. “The departments (including the PWD, home and chief secretary) have given their view. It is now awaiting the CM’s green signal,” said an official.
UNDER THE SCANNER
Sunil Tatkare | The NCP leader faces allegations of land grab and disproportionate assets. The opposition says Tatkare and his family cornered 7,500 acres of farmland by creating front companies. The irrigation minister, he is also accused of granting arbitrary sanctions for irrigation projects

Vijaykumar Gavit | The state medical education minister is alleged to have amassed assets beyond his means of income. The properties were bought, it is claimed, in the name of his family members. The ACB sought permission for inquiry on May 14, 2009

Chhagan Bhujbal | The PWD minister is accused of receiving ‘favours’ when he gave out a contract for the construction of Maharashtra Sadan in New Delhi. The ACB sought permission for an open inquiry on July 18, 2012

STEP BY STEP | Rules mandate that the ACB follow these steps while investigating a government official (class I) or minister

Discreet Inquiry | The ACB, upon receipt of a complaint or allegation, conducts a discreet inquiry. It verifies documents without informing the accused person or department. A decision is then taken on whether to further probe the case. All cases do not necessarily undergo a discreet inquiry

Open Inquiry | Once the discreet inquiry is over (or if it is eschewed), an open inquiry is set up. In this, files can be sought from a department and the accused persons asked to present their side. For officials, rules are clear. But for ministers, ambiguity persists on who takes a final call
Sanction For Prosecution | Once an open inquiry is okayed, the ACB can proceed with a full probe, registering an offence and filing of charges. But during this process, it needs a sanction for prosecution from the government

WINDING ROUTE | At present, the power to accord sanction for prosecution of a sitting minister lies only with the chief minister and the governor. A sanction file needs to travel first through the home department to the general administration department to secretaries of the departments concerned, to the chief secretary, and finally to the chief minister. There, however, exists no independent mechanism to assist the process.

Courtecy:
Sharad Vyas TNN http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2012/10/06&EntityId=Ar00106&AppName=1&ViewMode=HTML