CAG raps Meghalaya assembly secretariat for wasteful expenditure

Shillong: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has rapped the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat for a wasteful expenditure of Rs 2.14 crore for construction of the Assembly building at the New Shillong Township which does not exist. Terming the award to construct the proposed building as ‘irregular’, the CAG report, which was tabled today in the Assembly, said, “not only did the Assembly secretariat commit a gross irregularity by awarding the work to the firm which was totally outside the scope of the tender but paid Rs 2.14 crore to the firm for the work claimed to have been executed by it, for which no proof exists.” [caption id=“attachment_1163099” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Shashi Kant Sharma. PTI. [/caption] “The entire expenditure of Rs 2.14 crore incurred on the purported construction has been rendered waste,” the CAG report stated. Following the destruction of the heritage Assembly building at Khyndailad in the heart of the city in January 2001, a High Powered Committee (HPC) invited tenders for ‘Consultancy for Re-construction of Meghalaya Legislative Assembly’ in July 2001. The scope of consultancy work inter alia included detailed survey of the building site and approaches, preparation of master plan, site plan, layout plan architectural, structural and all related drawings and submission of soil testing report, the CAG stated. The report said that in October 2002, the Assembly secretariat issued a ‘Preliminary Work Order (PWO)’ to the firm to carry out the consultancy assignment. However, in December 2002, the Assembly secretariat issued another PWO to the firm to construct the Assembly building at Khyndailad at a cost of Rs 26.62 crore and to be completed within three years. This was followed by a Final Work Order (FWO) issued to the firm in January 2003. In August 2004, the HPC changed the site of the Assembly building from Khyndailad to Mawdiangdiang. It further informed that in November 12, 2004, the Assembly secretariat issued another FWO to the firm to construct the building at the new site at a cost of Rs 20.55 crore with the stipulation that the work was to start in consultation with the Chief Engineer (CE), PWD and should be completed within March 31, 2007. An agreement was also signed during the same month between the Assembly secretariat and the firm stipulating that the works were to be executed as per programme approved by the Executive Engineer PWD, Building Division, Shillong. “The agreement also prescribed for subsoil investigation, contour survey, preparation of concept design, preparation of detailed working drawings and obtaining permission from Meghalaya Urban Development Authority (MUDA) before commencing construction,” the report said. It was on January 13, 2005, the HPC again change the site of the Assembly building from Mawdiangdiang to PWD Complex at Barik Point, Shillong and on January 17, 2005, the Assembly secretariat directed the firm to stop work at Mawdiangdiang. “The firm on March 10, 2005 submitted a bill of Rs 2.14 crore for works it had executed at Mawdiangdiang before stoppage of work on January 17, 2005. This amount was paid by the Assembly secretariat to the firm in December 2009,” the report said. The CAG report further pointed out several irregularities as there were no records with the Assembly secretariat to indicate that the work of subsoil investigation, contour survey, preparation of concept design and detailed drawing were carried out by the firm. The PWD was also not consulted before commencing of work, the firm had failed to obtain permission from MUDA before commencing construction. Stating that the total area of the Mawdiangdiang site as per the tender notice issued by the Assembly secretariat in July 2001 was 10,000 sqm, the report revealed, “The firm, however, billed an amount of Rs 10.34 lakh for making a trace-path in an area of 13,425 sqm” adding “The firm billed Rs 12 lakh for parking of JCBs (earth movers) at the site for 60 days, while no excavation work was undertaken.” The Assembly Secretariat on July 2012 stated that payment was made to the firm based on physical verification made at site. This contention was “unacceptable as there was nothing on record to show that the Assembly Secretariat had measured or physically verified the works executed by the firm at Mawdiangdiang,” the report stated. PTI