RTI Activism: RTI by IPS officer blows lid of bomb detonating units' contract

[Sajib Nandi]

Reported by Prafulla Marapakwar in Timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Jun 28, 2012
RTI by IPS officer blows lid of bomb detonating units' contract - Times Of India

Mumbai: It took a senior IPS officer's query raised via RTI to bring to light how the entire proposal for total containment vehicles was given to Mumbai-based controversial businessman Bimal Agarwal at double the price. The entire deal was cancelled after then Mumbai police commissioner Hasan Gafoor raised objection.

"We asked the supplier to explain the massive price difference. He did make an attempt to justify the huge price of the vessel but it was not accepted. As such, the order stands scrapped," a senior official told TOI on Wednesday.


It was on October 18, 2006 that the Mumbai police commissioner floated a tender for total containment vessels. It took nearly three years for the state to give sanction for its procurement, as the cost of the vehicle exceeded Rs 25 lakh and required government no.d.

The government on March 31, 2009 gave the contract to Agarwal's firm. But on May 12, Gafoor raised objections over the price difference with MIAL and DIAL purchases. Three days later, Technograde Impex justified the differential pricing but on June 9, Gafoor again rejected it and recommended cancellation of the order. "If the supplier is reluctant to reduce the price and bring it on par with MIAL and DIAL, the tender process should be cancelled," Gafoor wrote. On July 6, 2009, Kupekar sent a recommendation letter to the additional chief secretary (home) to consider Agarwal's case. "I am enclosing herewith a proposal submitted by Agarwal... kindly extend him all necessary cooperation," wrote Kupekar, who was thespeaker during 2004-09. The state then went for a legal opinion and was told by the additional government pleader on September 7, 2009, that the Mumbai police commissioner had the powers to reject the proposal.

But Kupekar said he does not remember having sent a recommendation letter. He said in his four-and-a-half decade of public life, several people meet him asking for recommendation letters for jobs, admissions and transfers. "Party workers and even aam admi approach us for such letters. I have never refused them," he said.

Agarwal on his part said the higher price was due to interest on advance payment that he had made for the supply, various charges and currency exchange rate fluctuations.

[Sajib Nandi]

Sponsorer

Ex-speaker pushed state to seal deal at double the price

Reported by Prafulla Marapakwar in Timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Jun 28, 2012
Ex-speaker pushed state to seal deal at double the price - Times Of India

Mumbai: Babasaheb Kupekar, when he was the assembly speaker, recommended to the state government to give controversial Mumbai-based businessman Bimal Agarwal the contract for buying total containment vessels used for disposing of explosive devices at nearly double the price. The information buried inside the government files came out recently when a senior IPS official used the right to information Act to find out about the proposal to procure total containment vessels from a US-based company.

Agarwal had won the contract in 2009 through his company Technograde Impex India after giving a quotation of Rs 6.24 crore per vessel, while Mumbai International Airport Ltd and Delhi International Airport Ltd had bought a much-advanced model of the unit for Rs 3.18 crore and Rs 4.09 crore, respectively, in 2008-end.


The entire deal was cancelled after then Mumbai police commissioner Hasan Gafoor raised objections to the price difference and Agarwal was unable to provide a satisfactory answer.

"We asked the supplier to explain the massive price difference. He did make an attempt to justify the huge price of the vessel but it was not accepted. As such, the order stands scrapped," a senior state government official told TOI on Wednesday.

It was on October 18, 2006 that the Mumbai police commissioner floated a tender for total containment vessels. It took nearly three years for the state to give sanction for its procurement, as the cost of the vehicle exceeded Rs 25 lakh and required government nod for its procurement. In 2008, Mumbai witnessed one of its worst ever terror attacks, where 166 people were killed and hundreds injured.

After going through the bids and finding Technograde Impex India's bid the lowest at Rs 6.24 crore, the government on March 31, 2009 gave the contract to Agarwal's firm for supplying bomb detonating units. But on May 12, Gafoor raised objections over the price difference with MIAL and DIAL purchases. Three days later, Technograde Impex justified the differential pricing but on June 9, Gafoor again rejected it and recommended cancellation of the order. "If the supplier is reluctant to reduce the price and bring it on par with MIAL and DIAL, the tender process should be cancelled," Gafoor wrote to the home department.

Nearly a month later, on July 6, 2009, Kupekar sent a recommendation letter to the additional chief secretary to consider Agarwal's case. "I am enclosing herewith a proposal submitted by Agarwal... kindly extend him all necessary cooperation," wrote Kupekar, who was the assembly speaker during 2004-09.

In all subsequent correspondences to the additional chief secretary, Agarwal marked a copy to Kupekar. Also, in all the meetings related to the purchase of total containment vessels, there was always a reference to Kupekar's letter. The state then went for a legal opinion and was told by the additional government pleader in September 7, 2009, that the Mumbai police commissioner had the powers to reject the proposal.

But Kupekar said he does not remember having sent a recommendation letter for Agarwal. He said in his four-and-a-half decade of public life, several people meet him asking for recommendation letters for jobs, admissions and transfers. "Party workers and even aam admi approach us for such letters. I have never refused them," he said.

Agarwal on his part said the higher price was due to interest on advance payment that he had made for the supply. Also, clearing and shipment charges, octroi, VAT and currency exchange rate fluctuations pushed up the price. "MIAL was not required to pay these charges. Its terms of conditions were different and it was given huge concession, keeping in mind future purchases to be made by it. Overheads were borne by the original supplier," Agarwal said in his letter to the government.