Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday rejected the plea of Congress leader Nagam Janardhan Reddy seeking a CBI to probe into alleged irregularities in the increase of estimates for the purchase of electromechanical equipment for the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy lift irrigation scheme. He had claimed that about Rs 2,400 crore of public funds had been lost due to the increase in cost of motors and pumps.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice V. Ramasubramanian felt there was no foundation to Dr Reddy claims. “We are unable to accept the plea of the petitioner that there was fraud in the matter of finalising the contract,” the bench said.
Dr Reddy had moved the High Court as a party-in-person with a public interest litigation, alleging that commissions were involved in the escalation of cost of the 145-MW motors and pumps, which were procured by the state governrmnemt for packages 1,5, 8 and 16 of the project. He told the court that although he had made written complaints on this issue to various authorities, no action was taken and was forced to approach the court. He sought an interim direction to stop payments to the contractors relating to the equipment. The court examined the tender process and found no technical or financial irregularities. The details that Dr Reddy submitted did not convince the court to come to a conclusion that there was a fraud in finalising the joint venture (JV) contract between BHEL, Megha Engineering and Navayuga Engineering.
The court commented, “We are unable to uphold the plea of the petitioner that price break-up of packages of the project demonstrates that there were malpractices by the official respondents in collusion with Megha Engineering and Navayuga Engineering.” The bench opposed Dr Reddy’s contention that the cost of each such pump and motor was estimated by the Engineering Staff College of India (ESCI) at Rs 118 crore but the government had paid Rs 179 crore resulting in an avoidable loss to the public exchequer.
Rejecting the plea, the court said the issues raised are solely on the basis of the pricing and value fixed for the work and it cannot be taken the criteria to hold that there was any activity which could be treated as fraudulent revision of the value of the E&M equipment for the project.
