The Maharashtra government, in a bid to avoid scathing criticism from opposition parties and NGOs, quietly released before the set of new year the terms of reference and the list of members of a special investigation committee (SIT) headed by water expert Madhav Chitale to probe the multi crore irrigation scam in Maharashtra. The committee comprises retired bureaucrat AKD Jadhav, former irrigation secretary VM Ranade and former agriculture commissioner Krishna Lavekar. The committee, which will be headquartered at Aurangabad, has been asked to submit its report within six months. Water resources minister Sunil Tatkare had on December 17 made the announcement in the state legislature on the formation of SIT and had told that the terms of reference and its members would be filled by December 31.
However, the release hurriedly issued by the Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan's public relations office has not mentioned the time period to be covered by the SIT during its investigations. While ruling Nationalist Congress party, which has been under attack for the irrigation scam, wanted that the probe should cover the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance rule during 1995 and 1999 and not only period during 1999 and 2009 when Ajit Pawar was the water resources minister. While the ruling Congress had argued that mere 0.1 per cent of irrigation potential was added during decade despite expenditure of Rs 70,000 crore, its co-partner Nationalist Congress Party claime the actual rise was 27 per cent.
As per the terms of reference, the committee has been asked to fix the responsibility for irregularities if found during investigations and suggest actions against the concerned.
The committee has been mandated to probe the leading reasons for low level of irrigated area, the actual rise in irrigation potential and irrigated area, use of water for non irrigation purposes. The committee would inquire into the cost and time overrun of various projects after they received revised administrative approvals from irrigation corporations. The committee would have examine whether the rise in cost was in tune with the stipulated norms and rules. Moreover, the committee has been asked to look into delays in project implementation.
Furthermore, the committee would have to make suggestions to step up irrigation potential, irrigated area and increase merit of the works undertaken by the water resources department and also about necessity of lift irrigation projects.
Within a span of seven months in 2009, cost of 38 irrigation projects being implemented by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) escalated by a whopping Rs 20,050.06 crore to Rs 26,722.33 crore from Rs 6,672.27 crore. Thirty out of the 38 projects were granted hurried approvals in just four days including 11 projects on August 14, 2009, 10 projects on June 2009, 5 projects on July 7, 2009 and 4 projects on August 18, 2009. The Vadnere committee in its report observed that the cost updating of 37 out of total 137 major tenders were carried as per the government norms. The opposition parties wanted punitive action and expected SIT to recommend it.
The revised administrative approval for the Lower Wardha project was granted on the Independence Day, a national holiday. Interestingly, the cost was revised to Rs 2,356 crore from Rs 950 crore by VIDC executive director on that day.
The cost of the Upper Wardha project in Amravati was revised to Rs 1,376 crore from Rs 661 crore.
Another case is that of the Bembala river project in Yavatmal district of Vidarbha. Its cost was revised from Rs 1,278 crore to Rs 2,176 crore on August 14, 2009. Bembala was one of the 10 projects which got approvals in a hurry.
However, VIDC in its affidavit filed on December 20 before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court had argued that the approvals have been granted with due process of law and with all the requisite aspects and have not been granted hurriedly as alleged by petitioners. VIDC said " The cost escalations have not accrued in a span of seven months in 2009 nor such increased expenditure was made within these seven months. However, merely approvals to the revised cost were granted within these seven months considering the period of several years from the previous sanctioned costs." VIDC added the approvals have been granted with due process of law and with all the requisite aspects and have not been granted hurriedly as alleged by petitioners."