MAPUSA
The Anjuna panchayat is in the news for all the wrong reasons, with questions being raised over its decision to float a tender for works that had allegedly been completed months before the tender was issued.
The panchayat issued a tender notice on July 30 for 28 works, but at least three works listed in the tender had already been completed before the tendering process began.
The tender was opened at the panchayat office on August 17, but work orders have not been issued so far following objections raised by a local resident.
Among the works under scrutiny is the supply and installation of RCC slabs from Raj Garage to Melvin House in Ward XI, estimated at Rs 4.80 lakh. The work was reportedly completed months before it appeared in the tender.
Similarly, the construction of collapsed bandh protection walls at Malbar Bandh in Wards VI and VII, each estimated at Rs 4.82 lakh, had also allegedly been completed before the tender was floated.
A fourth work – beautification of a spot at Pequen Chivar in Ward VII, estimated at Rs 4.82 lakh – had also been taken up before the tender, though it remains only partly completed.
There could be other works among the 28 listed in the tender that were taken up before the tender process, warranting a work-by-work verification of the panchayat records.
Local challenges tender
Local resident Pradeep Harmalkar has challenged the tender, questioning the legality of carrying out works before inviting bids.
In a letter to the BDO and the Anjuna panchayat dated August 14, Harmalkar sought cancellation of the tender, alleging that works included in it had already been completed.
He alleged that the execution of such works without following due procedure amounted to “misappropriation of public money without following due procedure through illegal means” and alleged a criminal conspiracy.
The allegations have not been established and would require verification by competent authorities.
However, instead of ordering an immediate inquiry, BDO Pratamesh Shankardas termed the complaint vague and unsubstantiated. “The complaint is vague and unsubstantiated in nature. Cancelling the tender notice in its totality on the basis of unspecific allegations would be highly unfair, administratively improper and detrimental to the ongoing public infrastructure and development works of the panchayat,” Shankardas stated.
He asked Harmalkar to submit details identifying the specific works that had already been completed.
Sarpanch denies allegation
Sarpanch Surendra Govekar said, to the best of the panchayat’s knowledge, none of the works listed in the tender had already been completed.
But at the same time, he said the panchayat will write and ask Harmalkar to identify the works he claimed had been completed.
More significantly, Govekar said some works are taken up before tenders are issued and post-facto approval is subsequently obtained from the BDO.
This admission raises a larger question over whether such a practice has become routine and under what circumstances works are permitted to begin before the prescribed tender process is completed.
The chronology of the works – with execution allegedly preceding the tender – also raises questions about the purpose of inviting bids after the physical work has already been carried out.
The matter can be established through the panchayat’s work orders, administrative approvals, technical sanctions, measurement books, bills and payment records, besides site inspections. With work orders yet to be issued, the panchayat and the BDO now face pressure to verify all 28 works before proceeding further.
At the heart of the controversy is a simple but serious question: if public works are completed before tenders are floated, what remains for contractors to bid for?
