Criminal action threat runs into rough weather
Hyderabad:The irrigation department appears to have painted itself into a corner over enforcing its will to make the Kaleshwaram contractors to pay for repairs required at Annaram, Sundilla, and Medigadda barrages.
Though the department last month sent showcause notices to the companies asking them why criminal proceedings should not be launched against them for their actions leading to problems at the barrages, it is learnt that the companies have doubled down on their stand that there was no wrongdoing on their part, and problems at the barrages were a result of a combination of design faults, and poor management decisions.
In their responses to the latest showcause notices, the companies are learnt to have again cited findings of the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) that the irrigation department used the barrages as dams, and that there were design faults. They maintained that any action can be taken only after it is proved that their work was defective, putting the irrigation department in a piquant position.
On the one hand, the irrigation department warned the contractors of strong action, but, on the other, it still needs to conclusively prove that defective construction caused the problems at the barrages.
The contractors, Navayuga, Afcons and L&T, which built the Annaram, Sundilla and Medigadda barrages respectively, are learnt to have informed the irrigation department that there was nothing wrong with the works executed by them and any repairs that are required have to be taken up as additional works, and with fresh contracts.
It is also learnt that the agencies made it clear that the notices were ‘one-sided’ as they left out crucial correspondence between them and the irrigation department during the construction, post-construction, operation & maintenance, and defect liability periods. The companies were learnt to have said that precipitate actions by the department could result in lengthy legal battles and that could even provide them with an opportunity to recover pending dues for the completed works.
In the meanwhile, sources in the irrigation department maintained that the companies had ‘informally agreed’ to attend to any defects that emerged during their ‘defect liability period’ after an expert agency – AFRY India, which is reported to have been selected to study the problems and suggest remedial measures – submits its report with designs and the required work.
While the government maintains that any defects established as resulting from poor work will have to be repaired by the companies at their cost, the companies are showing no signs of buckling down from their claims of no wrongdoing, resulting in a stalemate situation, at least for now, it is learnt.
