MARGAO
The South Goa Sessions Court has said there’s no prima facie evidence to show that former PWD Minister Churchill Alemao and PWD executive engineer Pundalik Parkar and did anything to go above and beyond the scope of functions and duties to ensure that the works contracts were particularly awarded to certain person or party as claimed by the prosecution.
Additional Sessions Judge Vincent D’Silva was categorical in saying that, in the absence of any evidence to show express demand or acceptance of any benefit, or any evidence to show the usage of any corrupt means to awarding of the contract, the allegation falls flat on its face. “It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that accused had taken the money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the accused under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act”, the Judge said.
On the prosecution’s allegation that the Minister had move a note to subvert the order of the Under Secretary, PWD, the Judge said there is nothing shown in the charge sheet or otherwise to establish that issuance of such an order was not within the competence of the Minister.
“Secondly, while it has been alleged to be a suspicious circumstance that the note was moved with an intention of awarding contracts to a particular contractor, there is nothing on record shown in the charge sheet that prima facie sets out that the accused No 2 had directly awarded any tender to any particular favourite person without that person having followed the tender process.
Thirdly, even if the accused No 2 made recommendation in favour of any particular contractor, there is nothing on record that shows that the contractor was awarded the tender without issuance of short tender notice, receipt of application and consideration as the selected tenderer for execution of the work, bypassing any other tenderer.
“Suspicion is not enough. There should be material on record in furtherance of the alleged intention, failing which the prosecution would fail in proceeding to establish the intention and consequently, the entire substratum of the case of the prosecution to seek to implicate the accused No 2 would collapse”, the Judge said.
He added: “There is absolutely no material evidence produced by the prosecution to prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. The place of demand, time of demand, quantum of demand, date of demand, act of demand, mode of demand, manner of demand is not forthcoming. Even a simple ingredient like who demanded from whom is also not forthcoming. The recovery is conspicuously absent. There is no material on record to indicate that the tender process was manifestly bad or that the contractors chosen were patently incompetent to carry out the works. Further, there is no material on record to indicate that the accused had favoured a particular contractor as claimed by the prosecution. There has been steady approval throughout and procedures for the approval process have been followed”.
As far as PWD engineer is concerned, the Judge said there is no material on record to indicate that there is any abuse of position by him. “On the contrary, the accused No 1 has managed to save money for the Government. The costs of the works were valued as per the GSR of 2008. However, the works were completed in 2010 and 2011. Further, the security deposits have not been refunded to the contractors and can no longer be claimed. There is a difference of 26% between the cost of works as per the 2008 GSR and the 2011 GSR. Even in this, the full payment has not been made to the contractors and can no longer be claimed. All in all, contrary to making a loss to the Exchequer, the accused has managed to save money for the Government. The works have been completed in time and have not been questioned for lack of quality or utility. Therefore, there has been public benefit derived from the same”, the order stated.
The Judge further said there’s also no prima facie evidence on record to show that the tender was tailor made or changed to ensure that a few select people got the work contracts. Further, the contractors who did get the work also have said in their statements that they bid after seeing the tender notice on the notice board, the order added.
