CAG picks holes in Simhastha expenses
THE COMPTROLLER and Auditor General (CAG) Report for the year ending March 31, 2004, has pointed out several irregularities and unauthorised expenditure during Simhastha, 2004.Updated: Jan 06, 2006 18:43 IST
THE COMPTROLLER and Auditor General (CAG) Report for the year ending March 31, 2004, has pointed out several irregularities and unauthorised expenditure during Simhastha, 2004. The report tabled in the State Assembly during the ongoing winter session says an unauthorised expenditure of Rs 26.50 crore was incurred on 114 works without sanction of ministerial sub-committee.
It says an amount of Rs 2.76 crore was drawn in March 2004 of which only an amount of Rs 54 lakh was utilised by the time of completion of Simhastha Mela and the balance of Rs 2.22 crore has not been returned to the government.
The report says executing the pumping main with costlier DI pipe instead of PSC pipe resulted in enhancement of capital cost by Rs 8.48 crore. There was extra expenditure of Rs 3.62 crore due to allotment of work at higher rates.
The report says there was unfruitful investment of Rs 26.22 crore in construction of 8 roads owing to inadequate quality surveillance.
The report has pointed out inadequate quality control and lack of supervision in construction of Unhel-Ujjain (26.6 km) road constructed at a cost of Rs 4.05 crore between June 2002 and April 2004 which resulted in the road not lasting its designed life. The government also incurred extra expenditure of Rs 1.04 crore due to non-adherence to the specifications.
Further the report says about Simhastha that there was undue financial aid of Rs 3.10 crore to contractors on account of payment of secured advances on maxphalt and downgraded metal without provision in agreements.
On the construction of roads, poor quality of which raised hackles in the political circles leading to inquiry by the government last year, the report says the commissioner Ujjain had recommended that administrative sanctions for various works should be issued so as to leave at least a span of three years for their timely execution.
First Published: Jan 06, 2006 18:43 IST