VIDC defends graft charges

VIDC opposed demand for a CBI probe and said it had initiated action against 26

The Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), the nodal agency for 38 projects in the midst of a controversy, has defended graft allegations. In a 527-page affidavit submitted before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, it said approvals to projects were granted legally and not in a hurry.

The affidavit was filed before the court hearing a petition filed by NGO Janmanch. The petitioner had argued that within seven months, in 2009, the cost of 38 irrigation projects escalated by Rs 20,050.06 crore, from Rs 6,672.27 crore.

VIDC said the costs rose due to genuine reasons. Cost of a project may increase with passage of time due to various reasons, including extending the project to cover a wider area, it said. “The cost escalations have not accrued in seven months in 2009, nor was such increased expenditure made within these seven months. Merely approvals to the revised cost were granted within these seven months.”

Janmanch had also demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by a competitive probe agency. It also wanted the erring officials, bureaucrats and contractors blacklisted and made to pay for the losses.

VIDC opposed the demand for a CBI probe, and said it had initiated action against 26 officials. It has appealed to the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was misconceived.

Approvals for the increased costs were given when the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar was the water resources minister.

VIDC’s affidavit comes at a time when the water resources minister Sunil Tatkare on Monday announced formation of a special investigation team led by water expert Madhav Chitale. The terms of reference and its members would be decided by December 31.

Furthermore, VIDC said after grant of approvals to the projects the cost of project may increase with the passage of time generally due to the various reasons including due to change in scope of project, in some projects in order to cover the areas beyond the originally benefitted area or beyond the original command of the project and thereby to increase the irrigation potential of the project. Canals are further extended or linked to irrigation schemes is additionally introduced.

According to VIDC, the delays in the project implementation and cost escalation were due to increase in schedule rates, increase in land acquisition cost, increase in rehabilitation grant for project affected persons (PAPs) and rise in quantities of some items due to changes in detailed designs. Besides, rise in the cost of construction material, sand metal, rubble also led to rise in costs.

Moreover, VIDC explained that the time overrun was also due to time taken in seeking forest clearance (minimum two to three years are required for the same), the decreased speed of construction, paucity of funds and strong opposition from PAPs. “There was increase in rate of alternative afforestation as the forest department does not allow to construct the project over the forest land unless the cost of afforestation in the alternate land are paid,” VIDC added.