E-Paper
3 years after audit, GMADA chief seeks report on ₹8.7 crore excess payment to Aerocity developer
A techno-financial audit report in July 2019 has found that GMADA gave undue benefit of ₹8.76 crore to Larsen and Toubro, Chennai, for the development of Aerocity
Over three years after an audit discovered that excess payment of ₹8.76 crore was made to the agency developing Aerocity, the chief administrator of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) has finally swung into action and sought a detailed report from the engineering department.
In July 2019, Hindustan Times had reported that the techno-financial audit report for the development of Aerocity, located along Airport Road, has found that GMADA gave undue benefit of ₹8.76 crore to Larsen and Toubro, Chennai, which carried out various works for the development of the area.
The audit was conducted by Water and Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS), a public sector undertaking under the Union ministry of water resources.
GMADA had allotted the ₹131-crore project to develop the area to the agency in December 2011. As per the 2019 audit report, the agency carried out various development works in the civil, public health, electrical and horticulture sectors.
Initiating action three years later, GMADA chief administrator Amandeep Bansal has sought a detailed report from the engineering department. “Action will be initiated after receiving the report,” he said.
Vinod Sharma, president of the Aerocity Residents’ Welfare Association, who had submitted a representation demanding action, said, “ Taxpayers’ hard-earned money was paid in excess to the agency. They money should be recovered either from the guilty officers or the agency. The GMADA chief administrator has assured us of proper action.”
Audit findings
The audit report had stated that for civil works, the agency was found to have been paid ₹3.66 crore in excess for constructing the roads against lesser paved area. The agency used lesser plain cement concrete (PCC) and bitumen, and no sand. There was variation in road crust thickness as well.
For public health services, the agency got undue benefit of ₹92 lakh, as the water supply line was found 400 mm short, and only eight generator sets were installed against payment of 10. Besides, excessive rates were paid for a failed tubewell.
Under electrical services, the agency did not lay the sand layer over double wall corrugated pipe, which was included in the paid item. Also, energy meters were not installed in feeders, but the agency was paid for them. The agency installed only 57 compact substations, while GMADA paid it for 67. This way, a questionable amount of ₹4 crore was paid to the agency.
Besides, GMADA also paid ₹25 lakh to the agency for horticulture services without completion of the contract.
The report had concluded that GMADA could have avoided expenditure worth ₹1.66 crore by not laying individual house drainage for rainwater, extension of sewerage house connection to each house and construction of road gullies in the parks. Besides, sodium vapour lamps were not replaced with energy-efficient LED lights, even though they were provided in the past.
