ACB’s too much affection and favouritism for super built up area is Illegal.
In public private partnership (ppp) all approvals viz. at proposal stage and tender stage are in accordance by infrastructural committee of cabinet. This committee is headed by chief minister along with ministers/chief secretary and various secretaries when it was approved by INFRA committee, where does the question of collector’s permission arise?
ACB says super built-up area was considered while calculating probable income of developer in the feasibility report which benefited Indiabulls. Basically, feasibility report is estimated based on assumptions by competent authorities as per assumptions report complaint filed by officers of department. Feasibility reports are initial estimation of the project.
Developer is appointed after the completion of bidding. Therefore, the question doesn’t arise of keeping any developer in sight or mind at the time of feasibility report. ACB’s understanding is weak or they are not guided properly.
Furthermore, “super builtup concept” is not based on any government rules or regulations or any specific guide lines. In the past too, chief architect was instructed to add super built up area of (25% to 35%) on and above actual built up area to calculate the probable earning of the developer, so in some of projects PWD department followed it.
Later on while submitting latest feasibility report of Kalina project it was noticed that government was very aggressive on superbuilt up concept and decided to put builders behind bar for three years if they were found adding super built up area on actual built up area. Even during public accounts committee many such issues were never discussed or solved, may be because super built up area as per rules is not an issue.
One of the PWD’s learned officer told me Maharashtra Government lost about 50 crore on account of non-consideration of super built up area, which is not only baseless but against the law if that become issue now for no reason.
ACB points out that tender papers were approved by changing technical criteria.
For drafting tender papers for approval chief engineers are fully competent authority, he can make any change in the criteria etc. This DTP (Draft tender paper) goes to chief engineer for approval, so even in this Kanina case the draft of tender was read and approved by the then chief engineer Mr. S B Tamsekar.
DTP (Draft tender paper) was approved by Tamsekar, after receipt of “India Bulls” tender which was found much more beneficial for the government. That tender was recommended by Tamsekar to government for acceptance, but this chief engineer Mr. S B Tamsekar’s name is nowhere in the FIR why? Is ACB trying to act against only OBC candidates?
The said “India Bulls” tender was processed by G M Kandhare, secretary to INFRA Committee but even his name doesn’t exist in FIR, why?
Chief Engineer those who process tenders are not mentioned in FIR but on account of not considering super built-up area in feasibility report three officers names are mentioned one who is bed ridden and about to leave this world, and other two who work on the instructions of mentioned names and ministers. What the ACB is trying to prove?
The feasibility report is internal document and it is not known to prospective developer. His role comes after open tendering, till then all these details remains inside department. Moreover, feasibility document is not to calculate losses or profits etc. Once bid is received through competitive bidding with wide publicity, question of loss/profit decided.
- ACB’s too much affection and favouritism for super built up area is Illegal. No government rules/ regulations against it.
- ACB’s insistence for highest property rules of times property- no government rules regulations
- ACB questioning and alleging chief engineer’s competency to approved DTP but not including Chief engineer’s name in FIR shows bias
- ACB also missed the name of Secretary Mr G M Kandekar, who has processed the tender.
- Indiabulls’s sister concern has given 2.50 cr to Bhujbal foundation…interestingly the firm is not questioned or accused anywhere.
- ACB needs to know, that the tender papers were purchased by 11 developers but only four were submitted, they should have investigated why 7 developers didn’t submit bid.
- Sub engineer who is neither preparing nor approving authority is suspended to give eye wash by leaving all big people why?
Former Maharashtra Minister Chhagan Bhujbal’s homes and offices were searched on Tuesday by the state’s anti-corruption bureau. Sixteen properties belonging to Mr Bhujbal and his family members – including a bungalow with a helipad and 65 acres of land – were searched in various locations across Mumbai, Thane, Nasik and Pune.
Mr Bhujbal is being investigated for alleged corruption in contracts worth Rs 100 crore awarded for a Maharashtra Sadan or state government guest house in Delhi. He was the minister for Public Works Department in the NCP-Congress Democratic Front government in Maharashtra at the time.
An FIR or police complaint was registered on June 8 against Mr Bhujbal and five others. The former minister has denied any wrongdoing and has accused the state’s BJP-led government of politics of revenge.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said there was no political motive behind the searches. “An FIR has been filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the raids are part of the investigation. The probe is monitored by the High Court and hence, there is no question of political interference. There is no political vendetta,” he told reporters.
In April, the Bombay High Court had observed that there was evidence of corruption and an FIR can be registered. The High Court’s order came on a petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party alleging that Mr Bhujbal had favoured one company, Chamankar Enterprises, for the Maharashtra Sadan contract.