Speaking to Express Newsline on condition of anonymity they said this wasn't the first time that Vantage had failed to meet its commitments and that it had done nothing to deserve the `special treatment'. In fact, the BEST committee had awarded the lucrative contract to Vantage disregarding administration's adverse observations. Earlier, Vantage had failed to furnish a bank guarantee against a contract for exclusive advertising rights on bus shelters. Also, the department had pointed out that Vantage had not paid additional rental of Rs 21 lakh on its earlier contract.

``In the first place, the contract should not have been awarded to Vantage in view of its poor record.And now, there is evidence to show that the company has been granted undue favours in violation of the standing rules and guidelines,'' a senior BEST official said.

BEST Chairman Arvind Nerkar is, however, unperturbed by such criticism. He said after a contract is awarded, it becomes the responsibility of the administration to ensure that all the prescribed conditions are adhered to.

``If we find that Vantage is unable to fulfil the conditions, we will not hesitate to cancel the contract,'' he added. However, Vantage has flouted the conditions and nothing has been done to cancel its contract.

BEST had put forth three conditions when the contract was awarded to Vantage: 1. The contract would start from March 11. 2. The company would pay a security deposit of Rs 1.10 crore. 3. Rs 56.06 lakh towards monthly rental would be paid in advance. It now turns out that Vantage has flouted all three conditions and proof of this lies in the official correspondence.

In a letter written to Vantage on April 15,Assistant General Manager (AGM, Traffic Operations) said: ``This is to inform you that the advance monthly rental amounting to Rs 56.06 lakh for the month of April 1998 is due as per the general terms and conditions of the tender for display of advertisements on kiosks affixed to street lighting poles belonging to BEST and Mumbai Municipal Corporation. However, as per our records, you have still not paid the above mentioned outstanding bill. You may please note that you are liable to pay interest at the rate of 21 per cent for the delay in payment.''

From the records, it is clear that Vantage had failed to pay the deposit of Rs 1.10 crore too. ``It appears that Vantage has not paid Rs 1.10 crore in security deposit till March 18. Instead, it has submitted two letters, seeking permission to pay the deposit in April and undertake the contract from May 1 instead of March 11,'' said another letter from AGM written this time to his general manager.

Later, the AGM permitted Vantage to defer its payment ofdeposit, but turned down its second request of undertaking the contract in May instead of March, as agreed earlier. Vantage representatives subsequently met General Manager Vinay Mohan Lal on May 19 and pleaded that in view of the recession in the publicity market and the resultant cash crunch, they were unable to make the required payments. In this meeting they managed to get more concessions.

On the arrears of rentals for April and May, it was decided that the same would be recovered in three equal installments along with the monthly rentals for September, October and November. From the minutes of the meeting, it is quite clear that Vantage had been given substantial relief.

``While concluding the meeting, the GM mentioned to Niyogi (Chief Operating Officer, Vantage) that substantial amount of relief had been granted to Vantage and there should be no further dispute in the matter and henceforth there should be no default in payment of monthly rentals. Even after this, if any issue was disputed, thetender would have to be cancelled and all other consequences of such cancellation would follow including forfeiture of earnest money deposit and security deposit,'' minutes of the meeting note.

Though Vantage Manager, Salman Yusuf, admits the company defaulted on payments, he says the matter has been sorted out. ``We are not as bad as have been made out to be. It is true that we were unable to pay the rentals owing to overall recession. But subsequent payments have been made in advance as per the tender conditions.''