In Bihar, cost of a campus surges Rs 488 crore, CAG flags lapses; findings not final, says varsity

The university, for its part, termed the report preliminary audit observations and not final findings.

The audit report, by the Principal Director of Audit (Central), is from April 2023 to March 2025. The report identifies Rs 8.17 crore in quantified financial irregularities and excess payments, alongside a Rs 488.83 crore cost escalation for campus construction. While there’s a proposed permanent campus, it currently functions from four temporary camp locations across Motihari.

MGCU’s official spokesperson Prof Prasoon Dutta Singh told The Indian Express: “These are preliminary audit observations and not final findings. The University has already submitted a detailed comprehensive 256-page, point-wise reply in April 2026, supported by relevant records, documentary evidence and annexures to the Audit authorities….”

He said, “(As for) Campus Cost/delay, the figure of Rs 850 crore was never the final approved DPR cost. The Rs 1,338.83 crore estimate was prepared by CPWD after detailed consultation with teachers, officers and students of the University and was passed by required Statutory bodies and submitted to the Ministry of Education for approval. This includes all necessary infrastructure too.”

He said, “There is no communication from the Ministry to keep the cost under Rs 1,000 crore. Our designs are as per our requirements and UGC, AICTE and DBT rules.”

Parliament’s Estimates Committee chairperson and BJP MP Dr Sanjay Jaiswal told The Indian Express: “The CAG report has flagged a very serious matter. We are examining it.” He said it was mandate of the Estimates Committee to look into such matters and make necessary recommendations.

Here are its major findings:

Proposed campus delay: According to the audit objection, the estimated project cost rose from around Rs 850 crore to Rs 1,338.83 crore in a matter of months — an increase of approximately Rs 488.83 crore — or nearly 58%. The steep increase raises questions regarding project planning, cost estimation and delays in obtaining Detailed Project Report approvals.

According to audit records, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) initially estimated construction at approximately Rs 850 crore and requested Rs 1.25 crore for a DPR. MGCU deposited this sum with CPWD on February 6, 2025. However, when CPWD submitted the DPR to the university on May 30, 2025, the estimated cost had surged to Rs 1,338.83 crore for construction across 261.83 acres.

Competitive Tendering Bypassed: The audit notes that several identical works were split into smaller contracts, keeping them below the monetary threshold required for open tendering. “In one tender, two of the three participating agencies were technically disqualified, leaving only one technically qualified bidder who was awarded the work,” the report stated, questioning why competitive bidding was bypassed.

About splitting of works, Singh said: “No work was deliberately split. Requirements arose separately, on different campuses at different times, based on urgency and actual need.”

Irregular Expenditure & Excess Payments: The report flags irregular expenditure of about Rs 86.42 lakh on repair and maintenance work, along with an excess payment of Rs 3.35 lakh. The audit specifically highlights a payment of Rs 20.79 lakh, calculating a Rs 3.31 lakh overpayment on a single item due to mismatched quantity-rate calculations. “The excess payment arose from a clerical error… No excess payment or loss to the exchequer occurred…” said Prof Singh.

Missing Work Orders & Paper Trails: The audit found that work orders, agreements and completion certificates were missing for multiple projects. In several cases, Measurement Book entries and required satisfaction certificates were absent. Prof Singh said, “Work orders and Completion Certificates existed and were attached with payment vouchers; the issue related only to filing/indexing, since rectified.”

Seminars and Workshops: The audit notes that 10 seminars, workshops and conferences were organised during March 2024 at a total cost of Rs 58.45 lakh. However, an integrated plan was not prepared, and the events were submitted separately. The audit identified Rs 9.73 lakh paid towards refreshments across five events to an L1 bidder, flagging inconsistent per-unit rates and questioning procurement transparency.

For one event, three quotations were submitted, but one agency’s GST registration had already been cancelled. Another vendor was selected and paid without a work order.

Multiple event payments lacked original invoices, taxi bills, boarding passes, GST details or work orders. Prof Singh said, “The MGCU’s seminars/refreshments expenditure arose from actual participation exceeding tentative estimates and time-bound academic requirements. Necessary compliance measures have since been strengthened.”

The university management responded to auditors stating that “issues are being actively pursued or examined with relevant sections.” However, audit authorities have requested concrete action-taken reports and evidence of recovery.

The findings were shared on September 9 by the Office of Principal Director of Audit (Central), Lucknow, following an RTI query by Akash Kumar, an East Champaran resident.