On behalf of Arappor Iyakkam, a complaint with evidence was submitted to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, the Director of Municipal Administration, and the Director of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging irregularities in the tender procedures of the Tambaram Municipal Corporation.
As these complaints have grown into a major issue, the Tamil Nadu government has issued a press release stating that an inquiry is being conducted into the matter through senior officials.
It also states that the Director of Municipal Administration has been instructed to conduct a detailed inquiry into this incident, and that appropriate follow-up action will be taken against all persons found guilty based on the inquiry report.
Meanwhile, S. Balachandar, who was serving as the Commissioner of Tambaram Corporation, has been transferred to the compulsory waiting list. In his place, R. Saranya, the Commissioner of Avadi Corporation, has been appointed to additionally oversee the responsibilities of Tambaram Corporation Commissioner.
Likewise, for procedural lapses, the relevant zonal assistant executive engineer of the Tambaram Municipal Corporation has been placed under temporary suspension. In this situation, Arappor Iyakkam has raised questions in a long post on its X page regarding the suspension order issued by the government.
In that post, “After the complaint raised by Arappor yesterday, we had welcomed the Tambaram Municipal Corporation Commissioner being transferred to the waiting list. We also welcome the suspension of the zonal assistant engineer. However, the statement issued by the government has raised several questions.
Why was it necessary for the government to conclude at the very outset that the work had been carried out using CSR funds and that the subsequent tender was merely a procedural lapse? The contradictions in the government’s argument are detailed below.
1. The government release states that the matter was placed before the council on July 14 and administrative approval was obtained. However, we understand that the council meeting did not take place in July. It appears that after June 11, the council meeting was held only on August 30.
2. You have stated that after issuing the tender inviting notice on July 23, a company gave a letter on July 24 saying it would carry out these works using CSR funds. What is the name of that company?
3. When did Tambaram Municipal Corporation issue the approval letter to that company? Even if we assume it was issued immediately on the 25th, how did they manage to make and install the Ashoka Pillar statue and inaugurate it on July 29, just three days later?
4. Can we know who that generous benefactor is, the company that installed the statue there through CSR without even putting up their name anywhere around the statue or advertising it?
5. How did you conclude that calling for tenders on August 6 after installing the statue was merely a procedural lapse? If that were the case, the tender would have been canceled even before we filed a complaint. But the tender was canceled only after we filed our complaint yesterday.
In the tender cancellation order issued by Balachandar IAS on September 15, it is stated that contractors participated and tender bids were received until the 24th. Therefore, if a complaint had not been filed yesterday, there is a possibility that bill payment may have been made in that tender.
6. Also, on what basis are you concluding that the work order was not issued? Whether the work order was torn up after the complaint was filed yesterday, or whether the work order itself was never issued, is something that must be determined through a detailed investigation. What is the government's intention in reaching this premature conclusion at the very outset?
7. Whether the CSR funds are genuine or whether a backdated letter was obtained from that company yesterday and inserted in between is something that must be found out in the investigation.
8. Even if it is taken as CSR funds, what does it indicate that a tender was then floated and not cancelled until yesterday? Was the tender floated to show accounts twice for work already done by another company and to loot 45 lakh rupees?
9. Therefore, it is condemnable that the government seeks to dismiss this as a procedural lapse. In this matter, everyone is watching you. People are watching to see whether you, like other governments, will wait a few days, give him a posting from the waiting list, close the inquiry by calling it a procedural lapse, and make this disappear, or whether you will investigate the blatant violations involved and take appropriate action!" it asked.