An RTI activist's efforts to get details on construction of a Rs 189-crore barrage across Cauvery river in Karur district has hit a roadblock with the state information commission (SIC) summarily rejecting his application. The barrage project is stalled for want of funds.
When central funding was not forthcoming, the previous DMK government had allocated state funds for the project. A senior public works department (PWD) official said, "We have stopped state funding. The project can be taken forward only if the Centre sanctions funds."
The activist, T Retna Pandian, general secretary of the Federation of Anti Corruption Teams (FACT) India, is aggrieved that the commission, before which issues such as the alleged suppression of facts and provision of wrong information by PWD officials were pointed out, did not call him for an inquiry.
In the application filed before the public information officer (PIO) in the PWD on September 20, 2011, Pandian raised several queries on the previous experience of the contractor, the initial estimate of the work, revised estimate, various stages set for the completion of the work, stages of payment, inspection report of the adviser to the water resources department (WRD) and whether any sub-contractor was engaged.
The PIO replied that the project was initially estimated to cost Rs 150 crore, but the cost was revised to Rs 189 crore following negotiations with the contractor. As the applicant failed to get replies to many queries, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority in the PWD on November 28, 2011.
In the reply to the appeal, Pandian was informed on December 23, 2011 that about 67% of work was completed and the contractor had been paid Rs 127 crore. Owing to cost escalation, the department had allotted an additional Rs 2.79 crore to the contractor. The appellate authority claimed that all works until then were carried out by the main contractor. The works, as per the initial order, was to be completed by February 9, 2011, which was later extended up to November 30, 2011. However, works are far from over.
Pandian, who was aware of the involvement of a sub-contractor in the execution of the works, filed a second appeal before the SIC, pointing out instances of suppression of facts as well as provision of wrong information by the PWD officials. An inspection report of the adviser to the WRD said the site engineer engaged by the contractor was not able to provide any information about the project.
The WRD inspection was carried out on January 6, 2010. Unfortunately for Pandian, the commission, did not see any merit in his appeal and rejected it even without calling him for inquiry. Asked about this, an official in the SIC said, "The applicant can approach us for a review of the Commission's order. If we see merit in the case, we will review it."
When central funding was not forthcoming, the previous DMK government had allocated state funds for the project. A senior public works department (PWD) official said, "We have stopped state funding. The project can be taken forward only if the Centre sanctions funds."
The activist, T Retna Pandian, general secretary of the Federation of Anti Corruption Teams (FACT) India, is aggrieved that the commission, before which issues such as the alleged suppression of facts and provision of wrong information by PWD officials were pointed out, did not call him for an inquiry.
In the application filed before the public information officer (PIO) in the PWD on September 20, 2011, Pandian raised several queries on the previous experience of the contractor, the initial estimate of the work, revised estimate, various stages set for the completion of the work, stages of payment, inspection report of the adviser to the water resources department (WRD) and whether any sub-contractor was engaged.
The PIO replied that the project was initially estimated to cost Rs 150 crore, but the cost was revised to Rs 189 crore following negotiations with the contractor. As the applicant failed to get replies to many queries, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority in the PWD on November 28, 2011.
In the reply to the appeal, Pandian was informed on December 23, 2011 that about 67% of work was completed and the contractor had been paid Rs 127 crore. Owing to cost escalation, the department had allotted an additional Rs 2.79 crore to the contractor. The appellate authority claimed that all works until then were carried out by the main contractor. The works, as per the initial order, was to be completed by February 9, 2011, which was later extended up to November 30, 2011. However, works are far from over.
Pandian, who was aware of the involvement of a sub-contractor in the execution of the works, filed a second appeal before the SIC, pointing out instances of suppression of facts as well as provision of wrong information by the PWD officials. An inspection report of the adviser to the WRD said the site engineer engaged by the contractor was not able to provide any information about the project.
The WRD inspection was carried out on January 6, 2010. Unfortunately for Pandian, the commission, did not see any merit in his appeal and rejected it even without calling him for inquiry. Asked about this, an official in the SIC said, "The applicant can approach us for a review of the Commission's order. If we see merit in the case, we will review it."
.JPG)
.JPG)
