CBI may question Kalmadi in CWG consultant appointment

Last month, the CBI had registered a case against Kalmadi, former chairman of the Organising Committee, and its other officials for alleged irregularities in contracts given to Event Knowledge Services (EKS).

"The investigation in the case is on. Kalmadi may be questioned again," a source said.

CBI sources said Kalmadi, who represents Pune constituency in Lok Sabha, would be asked on the selection criteria and procedures followed in the award of contract to the Swiss firm.

According to a report by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh appointed high-powered Shunglu Committee, EKS was given three contracts of over Rs 70 crore by the OC to extend consultancy services for venue development and management, games workforce, and games planning and project management services.

The agency probe was initiated after receiving a reference from the Prime Minister Office on the basis of the Shunglu Committee report which recommended investigations into the role of the consultant.

"Department of Sports may forward, to the CBI/ED, for action as appropriate, relevant extracts of the report pertaining to the matter of EKS and the clear cases of forgery, falsification, record creation etc, mentioned in case of other highlighted irregularities," the letter from the PMO to the Sports Ministry last year had said.

The committee, in its report submitted to the PMO on March 28, 2011 had alleged that the contract was awarded to EKS on a single source basis of CEO of CGF Mike Hooper.

"CEO, CGF made every effort to ensure award of these contracts to EKS. The CEO not only personally testified the credentials of this firm but also justified the reasonableness of rates and maydays utilisation and also attended the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) meetings," it said.

The panel also found indication of "personal interest" by Kalmadi, currently on bail, in giving the contract to EKS.

However, the allegations levelled by the Shunglu Committee were refuted by EKS which had said in a statement that charges were "incorrect and without foundation".