Dimapur, Oct. 1 (EMN): The Nagaland Public Rights Awareness and Action Forum (NPRAAF) has charged the state’s Finance department of releasing on two occasions a total amount of Rs 20.72 crore for the “construction of RCC Bridge across Tizu River in Mini-Laluri Link Road.”
“On 13 January 2017, an amount of Rs 10.09 crore was released through Drawal Authority (DA) no. 32 of 2016-17 under demand no. 54 – Geology and Mining while on 1 May 2017, Rs 10.63 crore was released through DA no. 1 of 2017-18 under the same demand number.
“The most astonishing point in this matter is, how was it possible for the FD to release Rs 10.09 crore under State Plan (Additional Fund) and Rs 10.63 crore under State Plan (RE) for the same project! What does State Plan (Additional Fund) and State Plan (RE) mean? This further brings out of the issue of still using the nomenclatures Non-Plan, State Plan etc despite the direction of the central government against its usage of such, as per FD’s own stand. All such usage of nomenclature indicates that the government is running short of vocabularies to be used in Drawal Authorities,” a statement from NPRAAF stated.
It asked the department of Finance to clarify under which scheme – whether it is NEC, NLCPR etc – Rs. 20.72 crore was sanctioned. “Besides these points, the concerned authority (sic) (FD and G&M) is urged to state the total cost of the project, how much amount has been released so far and name of the contractor/firm.
“There are reports that the project cost had already been released before also and the latest two DAs of Rs 20.71 crore is an additional cost over and above the original cost released purportedly as adjustments of contractors, politicians and bureaucrats. NPRAAF expects FD to provide a clear clarification in the interest of the public and not issue hollow statements like before.”
The NPRAAF also wondered if the department of Geology and Mining was ‘the nodal department or authorized to carry out construction of bridges while Roads and Bridges department was already in place.’
“In the first DA, the name of the road is mentioned as “Mini-Laluri Link Road” while in the second DA, it is mentioned as “Nimi-Laluri Road.” This variation in names (Mini and Nimi) makes it appear like the projects are different whereas it is the same project. Is this another ploy to confuse the public or just a clerical error again – a technique which the government departments often resort to in order to cover up any misgivings?”
