In fresh allegations of corruption against the BMC, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and legislator Advocate Anil Parab has accused civic officials of manipulating the tender process for the desilting of Mithi River.
Parab claimed on Friday that restrictive conditions were deliberately included in the tender document to favour a particular company, resulting in a potential loss of Rs90 crore to the BMC.
Earlier this month, the Economic Offences Wing’s (EOW) Special Investigation Team (SIT) had initiated an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities in the Mithi River desilting project, which has been ongoing for the past two decades.
In a letter to BMC Administrator Bhushan Gagrani, Parab highlighted what he called a fresh attempt to rig and cartelise tenders. He pointed out that the Storm Water Drains (SWD) Department had introduced a new requirement mandating the use of a 35-metre-long boom, without specifying the type of machine or excavator needed. According to Parab, this condition was deliberately added to benefit Ms Vaibhav Hydraulics, the only company meeting the qualification criteria, effectively creating a monopoly.
“The cost of such a boom with an excavator is around Rs20 crore, and the SWD Department has insisted on using six such machines in the latest Mithi River desilting tenders. This means Rs120 crore worth of equipment is being pushed for a Rs90 crore project. It is clear that these conditions were set to manipulate the tender process,” Parab said.
He further claimed that this requirement was introduced without any departmental verification or scrutiny, with the sole intention of favouring the selected company. The legislator urged not just the BMC but also the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate the matter, as it involves financial misconduct and potential criminal conspiracy.
Parab also criticised the civic administration for failing to respond to his letter, warning that he would escalate the issue in the upcoming legislative session. “Since the BMC has ignored my letter, I will be moving a breach of privilege motion against the concerned officials,” he stated.
