It is a double whammy for the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC): A state government probe and a high court order to file an affidavit.
The Maharashtra government has ordered an inquiry against 45 officials of VIDC for their role in the issuance of work orders and advances to contractors for several irrigation projects. The government’s decision comes at a time when the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court last week asked VIDC, which is a nodal agency for all irrigation projects in Vidarbha region, to file an affidavit in six weeks to a petition filed in the multi-crore irrigation scam by Jan Mach, an NGO.
The petition states that within seven months in 2009, cost of 38 irrigation projects escalated by Rs 20,050.06 crore, from Rs 6,672.27 crore to Rs 26,722.33 crore. Thirty out of the 38 projects were granted hurried approvals in just four days. Cost of these projects went up with the revised administrative approval granted at the level of VIDC. Cost of six projects rose by six times to 33 times of their original cost. In case of 12 projects, the cost shot up by more than twice the original estimates.
The officers facing the departmental inquiry include six top-level chief engineers, eight superintendent engineers and 31 executive engineers. Seven of them have retired. One of the officers under the scanner is Devendra P Shirke, who is the Water Resources Secretary and former executive director of the VIDC.
Shirke is believed to be close to the Nationalist Congress Party leader Ajit Pawar, who recently resigned as deputy chief minister following allegations of involvement in the irrigation scam during his tenure as irrigation minister between 1999 and 2009.
Shirke was not available for comment while VIDC officials declined to comment on the grounds that matter was subjudice.
According to the petitioners, most of the administrative approval were revised citing reasons that they did not call for such a massive hike. In some cases, reason of meeting expenditure for net present value was cited. In other cases, just a mention of “justifiable” conditions served as the basis for upward revision in administrative approval to estimated cost of projects. However, in many cases, payment of mobilisation advance to contractor concerned was shown as a reason to effect hike.
