Nation Current Affairs 02 Oct 2019 Vig tells Kerala Hig ...

Vig tells Kerala High Court flyover tenders tampered

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Oct 2, 2019, 1:52 am IST
Updated Oct 2, 2019, 1:52 am IST
The tender was awarded to RDS Limited violating the conditions and manipulating the tender register.
Kerala High Court
 Kerala High Court

Kochi: The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on Tuesday informed the Kerala High Court that large-scale manipulations had taken place in the tenders and tender register related to Palarivattom flyover construction.

The tender was awarded to RDS Limited violating the conditions and manipulating the tender register. The officials of the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Kerala (RBDCK) and KITCO could be behind this, said the Vigilance. The single bench observed that this could not be taken lightly.

 

The bench made the observation when the bail petition of former PWD secretary T.O. Sooraj and four other accused in the case came up for hearing. The court later put off the case for further hearing to Thursday.

The Vigilance said that though RDS had given a quote of `47.68 crore to overtake the Cheriyan Varkey Constructions...
, which had quoted the lowest amount of Rs 42 crore, the documents were tampered with. On the last page where the tender amount was quoted, a rebate of  13.43 percent was added to bring down the quote of RDS effectively to Rs 41.27 crore. The manipulation was effected in the tender register also. However, there is difference between the amount manipulated in the register and the tender. In the register, the amount of RDS is entered not in the handwriting with which the amounts of other companies are entered.

The flyover design had to be prepared by RBDCK and the government’s sanction was needed to overcome this. However, this did not happen. The design was prepared by Bangalore-based Nagesh Consultants. Their work experience was not mentioned in the tender. Though the tender can be rejected if this condition is violated, RBDCK didn’t do that. Sooraj had directed to give the mobilisation advance directly to the bidders instead of giving it to RBDCK. The court asked why this happened.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT