AGARTALA, January 18 (TIWN): Lack of adequate planning and timely decision on agreement related issues by the Public Works Department (Water Resources) coupled with non-initiating timely action for rescinding the agreement and geeting the remaining work executed by another contractor at the risk and cost of erring contractor resulted in unfruitful expenditure of Rs. 2.17 crore.According to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India the Executive Engineer (EE), water resource division No. VI, Kailashahar executed (October 2005) an agreement for Rs. 8.32 crore against the estimated cost of Rs. 6.82 crore for construction of Left bank Manu Canal (Main Canal) from ch 20,030 m to ch 21,700 m under Manu Irrigation Project with a stipulation that the work was to be completed by November 2006. Subsequently (November 2007), the completion time was extended to March 2010 by a supplementary agreement.

Scrutiny (February-March 2010 and August 2013) of records of the division revealed that the contractor suspended the work on this project in April 2008 citing dispute over/ non-settlement of various long pending issues like release of security deposit, approval/payment of extra item for dewatering from tunnel and cut and cover, excess excavation due to modification of approved drawing, mechanical transportation of huge quantity of earth for disposal and back filling, price escalation etc. It was observed that issues, some of which could have been taken care of at the planning/DPR stage were left pending for long (May 2006/ August 2007/ November 2007) by the Division/Department without taking timely decision to resolve them. Even after the contractor indicated his intention to suspend the work in April 2008, the EE did not take any concrete action except occasionally making correspondence with the contractor either refuting his statements or requesting him to resume the work. The EE requested the contractor to recommence the work as late as November 2010 i.e, even after the expiry of revised completion period (March 2010).

Though the work was stopped by the contractor in April 2008, the Department did not initiate any action for three years (April 2011) against the contractor by imposing penalty as per the provisions of the agreement or rescinding the work invoking clause 3(i) (ii) (iii) and clause 3 (a) (b) and (c) of the agreement and getting the remaining work executed at the risk and cost of the contractor by any other agency. Meanwhile, the contractor was paid (November 2009) Rs. 2.17 crore (upto 4th RA bill prepared in July 2008) against the total value of work done for Rs. 2.20 crore. It was only after the contractor sought for arbitration in January 2011 (which was in hearing stage as of August 2013), that the EE exercising the powers of Engineer-in-Charge rescinded (May 2011) the contractor on the ground of contractor’s failure to complete the work by the extended date of completion. The EE rescinded (May 2011) the agreement but no action was taken to get the remaining work executed at the risk and cost of the erring contractor even though more than 28 months have since elapsed (August 2013).