CAG flays Delhi govt for overspending

New Delhi, Apr 27 | Updated: Apr 28 2007, 07:36am hrs
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has castigated the flood control and irrigation department of the Delhi government for incurring wasteful expenditure of Rs 18.31 lakh due to improper evaluation of a project.

In its annual report for 2005-06, the CAG cited the unfruitful expenditure relating to the work of re-modelling the Bawana Escape.

The executive engineer awarded in May 2002 a work of Excavation of drain and making banks to a contractor at the tendered cost of Rs 26.43 lakh with stipulated dates of start and completion of June 7, 2002 and December 6, 2002 respectively. The work was meant to enable additional discharge from Bawana industrial complex and the Narela sub-city by excavation of the drain and making banks in a length of 1,695 metres of the drain.

A test check of the audit revealed that the work was awarded without ensuring the availability of clear site as envisaged in the codal provision, the report said.

The contractor intimated to the division in September 2002 that he had completed the work on the portion of the site remaining awarded to him and work on the remaining portion could not be taken up due to existence of a compound wall as their machines could not be operated without removal of the wall. The work was finally foreclosed in July 2004 with retrospective effect from December 2003. At the time of the foreclosure, 88.79% of the work valued at Rs 18.31 lakh had been completed. Non-completion of the entire length affected the purpose of the work of enabling additional discharge in the drain and rendered the expenditure incurred unfruitful.

On the matter being referred to the government in June 2006, the department stated in October 2006 that the compound wall was part of works undertaken under the Maily Yamuna project, which were under investigation by the Anti-Corruption branch and permission for its dismantling could not be given till the investigations were completed.

The hindrance was thus known to the divisional authorities at the time of the preparation of the estimates itself and, therefore, the awards should not have been awarded, the CAG said.