CAG raps DMRC for 'avoidable expenditure' of Rs 481.6 bn on MIA station

National auditor CAG today rapped the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for incurring an "avoidable expenditure" of Rs 481.6 million on the construction of the integrated MIA metro station.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) said despite substantive changes in the scope of work planned in the detailed project report (DPR) and additional expenditure of Rs 481.6 million, the DMRC management did not seek the approval of the Board of Directors, which is required in such matters.

In its report that was tabled in Parliament today, the CAG flagged failure on part of the DMRC while entering into an agreement with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to incorporate a provision that the additional expenditure on the integrated Mundka Industrial Area (MIA) station would be met by the authority.

The DMRC had received a proposal in October 2013 from the DDA for shifting the MIA metro station planned in Phase-III (Green Line) and integrating it with the future metro station on a proposed metro line at the junction of NH-10, Urban Extension Road and bus stops at BRT corridor, according to the report.

The proposal involved least movement of DMRC and BRT users to change from one service to other.

"The integrated MIA metro station was not part of the original plan of the DMRC, but was executed at the request of DDA.

"However, no agreement or MoU, stipulating that DDA would bear the additional expenditure to be incurred on the integrated MIA station, was entered into with DDA," the CAG said in its report.

It stated that the DMRC continued with the construction work despite DDA declining to bear additional cost on construction of integrated MIA metro stations, without resolving the issue with the authority.

"Thus in the absence of an agreement/MoU with DDA, DMRC had incurred an avoidable expenditure of Rs 48.16 crore till November 15, 2017..." report also stated.

The report also included the reply of the DMRC management which stated that as provision of the station was beyond the contractual provisions, the managing director approved the variation in the contract considering the DDA's acceptance to bear the additional cost beyond the present scope.

However, the CAG did not accept the reply of DMRC management.