The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found serious lapses on the part of Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC) pertaining to the work of re-development and operation and maintenance of industrial areas at Bawana and Narela for a period of 15 years that was allotted to M/s Bawana Infra Development Private Ltd (M/s Bawana) and M/s PNC Delhi Industrial Infra Private Limited (M/s PNC) respectively.
"Failure of DSIIDC to timely assess the Income-Tax liability and consequent non-payment of advance tax resulted in avoidable payment of interest of `3.74 crore", the CAG said. The audit report, tabled on the Delhi Assembly said DSIIDC neither had the complete details of the charges due and those paid by each industrial unit, nor ensured the required certification of income and expenditure by the Statutory Auditors before transferring the amount collected to concessionaires.
"The concessionaires were given undue financial benefit by allowing escalation of monthly maintenance charges without obtaining the details of expenditure incurred by the concessionaires on Operation and Maintenance activitiesâ€.
“There was unauthorised collection of water and sewer connection charges by the concessionaire in Narela Industrial Area and delay in adjustment of the same", the CAG said. "There were instances of inadequate sweeping of roads, watering and cleaning of parks and slow progress of repair works etc", it said.
Besides, there was delay in adjustment of parking charges also. Further, there was delay in adjustment of water and sewer connection charges as well as electricity and water bills in Bawana Industrial Area. The report said that improper monitoring by DSIIDC led to adverse environmental implications, e.g. non-disposal and accumulation of Municipal Solid Waste in these Industrial Areas leading to choking of drains and sewers; pollutants were discharged directly into storm water drains.
The CAG also pointed out that third party engineer failed to highlight the repeated occurrences of deficiencies in operation and maintenance and recommending recovery of penalties but DSIIDC failed to take any action against him in the absence of any penal clause in the agreement with him, despite directions from the CMD to incorporate this clause while granting extension to the third party engineer.
