GHUGUS: Allegations of irregularities involving ₹7.09 crore under the Amrut scheme have surfaced in Ghugus, with two complainants accusing the Ghugus Municipal Council of attempting to divert funds sanctioned for lake rejuvenation to a plot of land owned by Western Coalfields Limited (WCL).
Senior journalist Anjayya Anaparthi and social activist Ibadul Siddiqui have submitted complaints to the Environment Department, Divisional Commissioner, District Collector and other concerned authorities. They have sought directions to prevent the opening of the financial bid and cancel the tender, alleging that the proposed work does not concern the actual lake for which the funds were sanctioned.
The complainants have enclosed 7/12 land records and other documents to support their claims.
Land Records Raise Questions Over Project Site
According to the complaints, the original lake in Ghugus is located behind a mosque and is recorded under Survey No. 10/1. The 7/12 extract reportedly identifies the land as a lake and records traditional usage rights for residents and cattle.
The complainants have demanded that the district administration acquire the lake land through the prescribed process and utilise the Amrut scheme funds for its rejuvenation.
They argue that the restored water body could serve several public purposes, including non-drinking water requirements, fishing, cattle watering, water chestnut cultivation, religious activities and recreation.
However, the Municipal Council has allegedly proposed work on WCL-owned land under Survey No. 322, located behind Siddiqui’s residence.
The complainants contend that the land records describe the plot as “Baliraja Shet” and “Pandan Road” and contain no reference to a lake. They claim the site is merely a waterlogged pit containing stagnant and unhygienic water.
They have argued that WCL should maintain its land using its corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds rather than having public money spent on it under a lake rejuvenation project.
The complainants have alleged collusion between municipal officials and certain contractors, claiming that government funds are being diverted from their intended purpose. These allegations are yet to be independently established.
Councillors’ Objections Allegedly Ignored
The complaint alleges that the Municipal Council proceeded with the project without obtaining the necessary general body approvals for appointing a project management consultant and undertaking the tender process.
According to the complainants, councillors were not provided with the project plan, the basis for selecting the lake, land availability details, cost estimates or tender conditions.
They further claim that two councillors learnt about the process on September 23, 2026, just two days before the deadline for submitting bids.
Following this, some councillors allegedly met the Chief Officer and demanded cancellation of the tender and preparation of a revised proposal after wider consultation. The complainants allege that the process continued despite their objections.
Questions Over Work Order Deadline and Election Code
The complaint also raises questions over the timeline for issuing the work order. According to the complainants, the applicable government resolution required the work order to be issued within 45 days, but this was allegedly not done.
They have sought clarification on whether an extension or the necessary approval was obtained from the Urban Development Department after the stipulated period expired.
The complainants have also pointed to a requirement that the project be completed within 12 months of the work order, alleging that the tender notice listed the work duration as “Not Available”. They contend that the absence of a clearly specified timeline could complicate the fixing of responsibility for delays.
Additionally, they have alleged that the technical bids were opened while the Model Code of Conduct for the Graduate Constituency elections was in force.
Eligibility of Two Bidders Challenged
The complaint identifies two participating bidders: M/s Saburi Construction Company and M/s Parvesh Subhan Sheikh.
Citing the Municipal Council’s technical evaluation report, the complainants claim that neither bidder possessed the experience required under the tender conditions.
Despite this, they allege that preparations were underway to open the financial bids and award the contract to Saburi Construction Company.
The allegations concerning bidder eligibility and the proposed award have not been independently verified.
Tender Conditions Allegedly Favoured One Contractor
The complainants have further alleged that the tender’s terms and conditions differed from those prescribed under the Amrut scheme and were altered to benefit a particular contractor.
They have demanded a comprehensive investigation into the entire tendering process and the proposed expenditure of ₹7.09 crore.
Demand for Public Consultation
Emphasising the importance of public participation in development projects, the complainants have urged the Municipal Council to invite public suggestions and objections through a formal notice or consultations with affected stakeholders.
They have demanded that this process be completed before a fresh tender is issued and called for public participation to be ensured in all municipal development projects.
The key questions now concern the actual identity and status of the proposed project site, compliance with tender and approval procedures, the eligibility of bidders, and whether the ₹7.09 crore allocation is being used for its sanctioned purpose. An official response from the Ghugus Municipal Council and the concerned authorities would be necessary to establish the facts.
