HYDERABAD: Leader of the Opposition N. Chandrababu Naidu on Friday handed over to the Assembly Speaker a sealed cover purportedly containing "evidence" on the alleged irregularities in the tendering process of the Sripadasagar project.

Resuming his inconclusive speech, Mr .Naidu demanded that the Government also place the files before the Speaker and that both be opened in the presence of all floor leaders in the Assembly. It would then reveal as to who committed a "wrong" and whether the files were fabricated.

He urged the Chair issue a direction to the Government to place files if it did not volunteer to do so.

`Forged documents'

Claiming that he was speaking with "documentary evidence," he alleged that an increase to the tune of Rs. 400 crores was effected in the estimates in 48 hours with "forged documents."

On February 23, the Government issued a memo in violation of all rules ratifying all works even if they exceeded the estimated value. It allowed the competent authority to regularise any inconsistencies in the agreement by reaching a supplementary agreement.

Stating that such a big scam had not occurred in the recent past, he said lot of irregularities had taken place and no proper procedure was followed. The plan, ayacut and thickness (of steel pipes) had not changed but the estimates changed by Rs. 400 crores.

He listed about six to seven projects whose estimates have been increased cumulatively by Rs. 10,700 crores.

Nagam denies charge

The issue generated heated exchanges between Congress and TDP members and at one stage several TDP members rushed to the podium and argued with panel Speaker, B. Vedavyas, who was in the Chair demanding that Nagam Janardhana Reddy (TDP) be allowed to speak after D. K. Aruna (Samajwadi Party) said that Mr. Reddy's son was a sub-contractor. Mr. Janardhana Reddy later denied the charge.

At a press conference later, Mr. Naidu said nowhere in the country, tenders for so many large irrigation projects were called and finalised in one -go and so many irregularities committed. The issue required a through nation-wide debate.

It was surprising that the Government had no money for infrastructure facilities as revealed in a High Court order and for welfare of weaker sections but had enough resources to pay the contractors in advance.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail