Cancellation of work order not enough, says Delay Namgyal demanding that illegal allocation of road project be investigated

GANGTOK, 26 April: Delay Namgyal Barfungpa has claimed victory in the State Government’s cancellation of a road project which he had challenged in the Sikkim High Court. Informing that he had come upon the illegality from an RTI application, he also held it up as proof of the effectiveness of RTI Act, stating that this was the first time that information gathered from an RTI application had come to a logical end in Sikkim. However, he has now demanded the Chief Minister and his government not end the process with the cancellation of the work order, but also initiate strict action against the officials involved.
It may be mentioned here that the Road and Bridges Department had issued a work order for up-gradation, carpeting including protective works and drainage along Sangkhola Sumin Road of 6th to 12th KM at a total cost of Rs 7.08 crore to a Singtam-based contractor. This work was amiss in two facets, one, the same work had already been done by RMDD under PMGSY and second, no tenders were called for it.
Addressing a press conference today, Mr Barfungpa informed that when he came to know about it he filed an RTI application and then a petition to the High Court.
Following this, a legal notice was served to the concerned department on 18 July 2011. On 16 April 2012, the Roads and Bridges Department took out an order cancelling the work order.
Mr Barfungpa mentioned that the work was awarded without any tendering process. He further said that the initial cost of the work was Rs 6.16 crore but then the rate was increased by 15% and total cost of the work then went up to Rs 7.08 crore. On the same, he questioned that without any tendering process how was the cost of work even worked out in the first place and then increased.
Thanking the High Court, Mr Barfungpa stressed that he was not against development in the State but definitely against corrupt practices in the name of development.
He stressed that the contractor is not accountable for such practices but those who issue work orders are to be held responsible. Adding that it is a serious issue he stated that the government needs to take strict legal action against such individuals.

High Court stays Rs. 7 crore road construction project

COURT TAKES STERN VIEW OF AWARD OF WORK WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
GANGTOK, 01 Apr: The High Court of Sikkim has taken a stern view of the manner in which the contract for a road construction work in the East District was handled by the State government, particularly the Roads & Bridges Department. The Court has termed the awarding of the work by the Department as “illegal and arbitrary”, and in the process, has also stayed further execution of the project.
This order of the High Court came in the last week of March, 2012 on a petition filed by Delay Namgyal Barfungpa who has drawn the Department for Development of North East Region (DoNER), the North Eastern Council (NEC) as well as the state government and the Roads & Bridges department to the court in his petition.
The project is the Sangkhola-Sumin Road construction which the Cabinet had sanctioned for Rs. 7,08,46,979 some months back. The construction was sanctioned under a Central government scheme for the NE Region.
Chief Justice P Kohli observed that it was “absolutely clear” that the respondent contractor had been allotted two different contracts without advertisements. The two works included upgradation and premix carpeting, including protective & drainage works, on Sangkhola Sumin Road, 1st km to 5th km, and the new cutting, including pavement works, carpeting, protective works, on Sangkhola Sumin Road from 6th km to 12th km. Only the latter work was advertised. This contract had been awarded to the respondent contractor.
However, the Court noted that before the said contractor could commence the work allotted to him, it was found that the said work had already been advertised and allotted by the department to another agency under a different scheme of the Central government. Thereafter, the officials decided to execute the work on another stretch of land for construction of the road along with Sangkhola Sumin Road from KM 15 to KM 19 and still another work comprising 3 kms of road from Sangkhola Sumin to Mangthan.
It was noted by the Chief Justice that both these works are totally different contracts. The plea of the state respondents that this was not a new contract, and that only the alignment in the road had been changed was rejected by the Court.
In fact, the Court further noted that the allotment of the two different works to the respondent contractor without advertisement is prima facie arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the department and has ordered a stay on further execution of the works by the respondent contractor.
Earlier, the Court had demanded from the State government whether formal agreement had been executed between the department and the contractor to whom the work had been allotted. Also demanded was information on the amount of work done so far, amount of bills paid to the contractor along with a certificate from the engineer in charge of the work as to how much works had been executed and the amount of payments made and also the progress report submitted to the NEC.
With the documents made available, it was observed that work to the tune of Rs. 46,39,880 out of the total cost had been executed, which comes to only 6.5%. This submission was made by Additional AG, JB Pradhan, who also sought that the court permit re-tendering of the work by the department, if so desired. This was granted.
Appearing for the petitioner was advocate Sudesh Joshi and Manita Pradhan.