DoT, IOC cross wires over exchange

There is a 1,000-long waiting list for phone connections in this exchange; some of those on the list applied more than four years ago. Till 1997, the DoT had managed to clear waiting list numbers up to NOYT/KOY/1956, which application was filed by March 31, 1995.

Those interested in acquiring phones have been told that there was no chance of a connection unless the exchange was expanded. However, no expansion work has been undertaken here in the past five years.

Explaining why, a senior DoT official said on condition of anonymity, “The Gujarat Refinery itself is planning to expand and has asked to relocate the exchange. However, they have not come up with any formal offer for an alternative site”.

But Refinery Executive Director P S Rao claims otherwise. “Following the announcement of our expansion plans, we formally requested the exchange and the State Bank of India, among others, to move from their present offices near the Refinery’s main gate as the entire area would come under our security cover. We also offered the DoT an alternate site some eight months ago. But they have not communicated with us”, he said.

“Why would we create unnecessary trouble for the exchange when we all know that a telephone is an essential facility. After all, we too are subscribers”, he reasoned.

Telephone-hopefuls would have had some cause to cheer had the electronic exchange the construction of which began three years ago showed any signs of completion. However, the `Site for Electronic Exchange’ near the IPCL Sports Complex has been abandoned for two years now. A sort of an impasse between the IPCL and the DoT seems to be the reason.

A senior DoT official accused the IPCL management of impeding the development of the new exchange. “The land was legally acquired by us following an agreement between the GIDC, IPCL and DoT. However, IPCL has refused to let us dig the land and barred entry to our trucks, saying that a new exchange would create a nuisance for the township and its residents,” he told Express Newsline.

The deadlock, which began in September, shows no signs of an end. The official said that though IPCL had offered DoT an alternate site, it had been found unsuitable.

However, C M Lamba, director of IPCL’s personnel department, appeared to be nonplussed by the charges.

“I do not know of any problem between the DoT and IPCL. If people here have applied to the DoT for telephone connections, it is the department’s responsibility to give them the connections. I don’t understand why they are accusing IPCL of impeding the development of the Koyali Exchange,” he told Express Newsline.

Meanwhile, the township residents, who were given to understand the exchange would be commissioned within a year and the lines allotted, can’t figure out why they have to suffer. “Many of us haven’t been able to shift from one quarters to another because of the inordinate delays involved in transferring existing telephone connections,” said a resident.

On April 7, 25 IPCL officers signed a memorandum submitted to DoT General Manager Rakesh Babu, who said he would re-negotiate the matter with IPCL Chairman and Managing Director K G Ramanathan.

He also promised to release some more connections to clear the backlog till March 31, 1996, in the year ending March 1999.