E-Paper
60% smart city projects in Karnal, Faridabad faced delays: CAG report
The Union ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA) launched the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) in June 2015, under which, two cities in Haryana – Faridabad (May 2016) and Karnal (June 2017) – were selected for a duration of five years (2015-16 to 2019-20), but was extended up to March 2025 by the Centre
Nearly 60% of the 112 developmental projects under the Haryana Start City Mission implemented in Karnal and Faridabad experienced delays ranging from a few days to more than four years due to lack of encumbrance-free sites, site clearance, and drawing revisions, revealed comptroller and auditor general of India (CAG) report, tabled on the first day of the budget session of the Haryana Assembly on Friday.
The Union ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA) launched the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) in June 2015, under which, two cities in Haryana – Faridabad (May 2016) and Karnal (June 2017) – were selected for a duration of five years (2015-16 to 2019-20), but was extended up to March 2025 by the Centre.
The Mission aimed to develop cities focused on core infrastructure, resident well-being, environmental sustainability, and the integration of smart solutions.
The report states that the nodal agencies for implementing the mission in Karnal and Faridabad are the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) created specifically for each city – Karnal Smart City Limited (KSCL) and Faridabad Smart City Limited (FSCL) – which functioned under the administrative control of the urban local bodies (ULB) department.
Against planned funds of ₹3,896 cr, actual mobilisation of funds was ₹1,825 cr
The agency noted that against planned funds of ₹3,896.82 crore, the actual mobilisation of funds was ₹1,825.86 crore for two cities leaving a shortfall of ₹2,070.96 crore (53.15%). FSCL and KSCL could raise ₹980 crore (37.67%) and ₹845.86 crore (65.27%) primarily through government grants against proposed funding of ₹2,601.01 crore and ₹1,295.81 crore, respectively.
According to the report, Karnal had identified an area-based development (ABD) area of 720 acres around Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Kunjpura and Mughal Canal Market with state of art smart amenities and transformed it to a light house for the city. The SPVs also planned to implement ₹253.22 crore projects under convergence with schemes of Centre/state government, but KSCL was able to implement only four projects of ₹12.86 crore under convergence with Karnal municipal corporation (MC).
The report also highlighted that Faridabad and Karnal failed to raise any funds against planned receipt of ₹12.13 crore from debt and ₹82.74 crore from additional contribution from Karnal MC.
SPVs could complete only 45 of 112 projects on time
The timelines for completion of 152 projects (FSCL: 48 and KSCL:104) out of total 167 projects were decided by both the SPVs and for remaining projects, the timeline was not fixed as the same were under planning stage.
Further, out of the 112 completed project, the SPVs could complete only 45 projects (FSCL: 7 and KSCL: 38) as per the timelines and there were delays in completion of the 67 (60%) projects (FSCL: 28 and KSCL: 39) ranging from three to 1,506 days, the report stated.
The department in its reply said that the projects were brownfield projects and retrofitted in the existing infrastructure created before the implementation of SCM, which encountered several challenges such as shifting of existing utilities, consultation with various departments, Covid lock down and CAQM directions. It was also stated that the issue of delay was acknowledged by the Union government and consequently completion period was extended to March 2025.
Flagging the delay in construction of commercial complex at old Anaj Mandi in Karnal on MC land at a cost of ₹30.80 crore (September 2021), the audit observed that the project was awarded without finalisation of drawings and design, and the same could be finalised only in November 2023, and accordingly excavation of work could start only in October 2023.
The CAG also flagged that monitoring mechanism was deficient at city level as both held only 10 meetings of the monitoring committee as against the requirement of 133 meetings. The SPVs also failed to appoint any agency for carrying out third-party review/impact assessments of the projects executed and did not carry out any assessment in terms of success parameters. The department said that the assessment would be carried out after completion of the Mission.
