Bridge upshots unused fund of Rs 27.29 lakh

Change in specification led to idle investments

BILAL HUSSAIN

While criticizing various state departments involved in the diverse civil works in Jammu and Kashmir, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report ended March 2009 said, “The incorrect assessment of the department regarding type of the bridge to be constructed resulted in idle investment of Rs 27.29 lakh.”
For providing connectivity to eight19 villages, the Executive Engineer (EE), R&B Division, Udhampur had proposed (August 1997) construction of a 48 metre span foot suspension bridge over river Ujh at Sai Merry at an estimated cost of Rs 32.66 lakh.
Without obtaining administrative approval and technical sanction, the EE took up (October 1997) construction of left side abutment and anchor block of the bridge and got it completed through a contractor at a cost of Rs 11.99 lakh, the report said.
“It was seen in audit (December 2008) that after the construction of the abutment and anchor block had been completed, the specification of the bridge was changed (November 2002) from that of foot suspension to a motorable one due to demands of the local population. The change in specifications, interalia, required construction of the right side abutments as per the revised drawings and strengthening of the abutment already constructed, which necessitated revision of the project cost to Rs 68.69 lakh,” the report mentions.
These works were got completed (July 2006) through another agency at a cost of Rs 15.30 lakh which included Rs 2.25 lakh released in 2006-07 and 2008-09 which had been utilized for clearance of the past liability. The work, suspended in July 2006, is yet (May 2009) to be resumed due to non-release of funds in the subsequent years, the report says.
The EE stated (December 2008, May 2009) that the work is proposed to be taken up under NABARD and would be completed after release of funds from the agency. The reply should be viewed in the light of the fact that the EE did not ascertain the requirement of the population of the area being benefited under the scheme before commencing the work and as a result the specification of the bridge had to be changed.
Thus, wrong assessment of the Department regarding the type of bridge to be constructed necessitating change in specification of the foot suspension bridge to a motorable one has resulted in idle investment of Rs 27.29 lakh besides, the inhabitants of the targeted villages being deprived of the envisaged benefits. The matter was referred to Government/Department in September 2009; reply had not been received (October 2009).