Wednesday, Apr 06, 2005
Wednesday, Apr 06, 2005 |
| Front Page | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, APRIL 5. The United Progressive Alliance Government has given a clean chit to the former Defence Minister, George Fernandes, by informing the Supreme Court that no rule was violated or substituted in the defence purchases made during and after the 1999 Kargil war. The Government response follows a public interest litigation petition, alleging inaction on the part of the UPA Government on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) that had highlighted irregularities in purchase of arms and ammunitions and other material during and after the Kargil war. The procedure was only modified to reduce the timeframe for import of critical items, the Government said. The petition alleged that irregularities in the Kargil scam had caused a loss of Rs. 2,175 crores to the exchequer, and during the Kargil war the Government relaxed the norms for purchase of equipment, arms and ammunition but did not revert to the old procedure even after the cessation of the armed operations. The CAG report, placed in Parliament on December 11, 2001, highlighted the "inaction and negligence" on the part of the Defence Ministry in procuring arms, ammunitions and equipment during "Operation Vijay," but no action was taken on the report, the petition said. Denying this allegation, the Government, in its affidavit, said that defence procurements were being made under the Defence Procurement Procedure, 1992.
Modified procedure
In view of the situation arising out of the Kargil hostilities, the Defence Ministry issued a modified procedure for the expeditious procurement on June 21, 1999 and it was not to substitute or supersede the prescribed procedure for normal procurement actions. The Government said that 35 cases of procurement, out of 123 contracts, were reviewed by the CAG and it was satisfied. The CAG sent back two action taken notes (ATNs) with some observations and necessary clarifications were being given. Twenty-one ATNs were still with the CAG and its comments were awaited. The affidavit said that the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament considered the entire CAG report but expressed its inability to give any finding, saying that the report of the Central Vigilance Commission had not been supplied to it. The simplified procedure "in no way violated any of the financial rules of the government or the Defence Procurement Procedure, 1992." The weapons, equipment and ammunition required were generally not available off the shelf and a lead time, ranging from four to 18 months, was required to produce and deliver them after the conclusion of the contract, the affidavit said. On the allegation that such a procedure was extended even after the Kargil war, the Government said that the Army was fully deployed along the Line of Control but there were reports that the Pakistan Army was conducting menacing exercises. Later, keeping in view the relative improvement in the situation and de-escalation of hostilities, the Defence Ministry decided to extend `Operation Vijay' up to January 31, 2000, the Government said. The transactions that formed part of the Tehelka Commission of inquiry had been referred to the CBI and it would examine the Tehelka tapes. Besides, three cases relating to T-90 S tanks, the armoured recovery vehicle and the up-gunning of 130 mm M-46 field guns to 155 mm calibre that were referred to the CVC had subsequently been referred to the CBI, the affidavit said.
Related Stories:
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
