The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has launched a probe against former top officials of SEEPZ, a special economic zone (SEZ) in Mumbai for allegedly allotting major structural repair work to an ineligible agency. Moreover, the multi-crore work order was issued without any competitive bidding or nod from higher authorities.
Based on a complaint filed by SEEPZ’s current assistant development commissioner, Haresh Dahilkar, the CBI on Tuesday booked the then Development Commissioner NPS Monga and former joint development commissioner and estate manager VP Shukla, said sources. Prima facie, it appears that the duo ex-officials abused their position to obtain undue advantage for an ineligible agency, the CBI official said.
The case revolves around the work undertaken in 2016-17 to fix SEEPZ buildings and do waterproofing of roofs slabs. The official said that not only the work order was issued without the authority’s nod but it also went beyond the approved expenditure of Rs 40.48 crore, including 5% contingency for structural repair and allied civil works. “However, the work order issued was for Rs 44.58 crore. Further, an additional Rs 7.77 crore was sanctioned for structural repairs without the authority’s permission,” said the official.
An audit revealed that SEZ authority had awarded the works to the agency in February 2017 and even made advance payment in crores up to December 2017, said the official. “The audit found that the said firm was not on the list of agencies notified by the ministry of housing and urban affairs hence its selection was also against the general financial rules, he added.
Sources pointed out that even a weak mech.sm for quality control was adopted by the SEEPZ-SEZ for monitoring of the repair works. After an inspection in November 2017, the disaster management advisor submitted a report, which highlighted major structural discrepancies like defects in columns, beams apart from incomplete work, noted the audit.
“Though the authority took up the matter with the agency several times, no action was taken by the latter till the date of audit. Neither a memorandum of understanding was signed with the agency nor any bank or performance guarantees were taken. Hence, the authority could not enforce action against the agency,” the official said.
