Write back

With reference to the story on the Sujalam Sufalam Scheme the PAC examined the scheme while discussing the CAG report of 1993-94.

With reference to the story on the Sujalam Sufalam Scheme July 23 the PAC examined the scheme while discussing the CAG report of 1993-94. Instead of discussing paras pertaining to the period when the Congress was the ruling party, the PAC scrutinised the Sujalam Scheme started in 2004. Also, the scheme traverses seven districts and involves excavation of large quantities of hard and soft rock. Hence it can be appreciated that public participation, though ideal, is not practicable and poor farmers cannot be asked to contribute 20-40 percent of excavation costs. The loss to the government of Rs 42-84 crore is, therefore, not factually correct. As regards the issue of contracts, the total cost of earth work is not Rs 458 crore but around Rs 210 crore. The work has not been distributed only to 8-10 contractors, as your report says, but to more than 70 of them.

Indravijaysinh Jadeja, Minister, Government of Gujarat

Our correspondent replies:

While preparing the report, the PAC scrutinised the Sujalam Sufalam scheme and the records of Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpasar Department since 1993-94. In the 32-page report Sujalam Sufalam irregularities are mentioned only in three pages. In the PAC 2005-2006 that prepared the report citing irregularities in the Sujalam Sufalam scheme, 10 of the 14 members were BJP MLAs. The story clearly says the PAC found that Rs 210 crore spent on earth work did not involve public participation and did not adhere to rules of the tendering process either. The report mentions that 8220;in total Rs 458 crore worth of earth work contracts were given to a few chosen contractors purposefully to increase government expenditure8221;. The report also stresses that 70 contractors appeared only on paper, and that 8220;only 8 to 10 contractors were awarded the contracts8221;. In fact, the report wondered why no senior officer took notice of the fact that the names of the same contractors were cropping up again and again.