Comments
The appointment of Mr Suresh Kalmadi as the head of the CWG Organising Committee (OC) was based on a PMO recommendation of December 2004. This was disclosed by the CAG in its audit report on the Commonwealth Games. In fact, Mr Kalmadi was appointed despite serious objections raised by the then Sports Minister, Mr Sunil Dutt.
The CAG said the appointment of Mr Kalmadi has facilitated the conversion of the originally envisaged Government-owned OC to a body outside Government control. The report on the XIXth Commonwealth Games 2010, tabled in the Lok Sabha on Friday, said this was done despite full Government financial guarantee and funding of the Games.
Although the bid document of May 2003 envisaged the OC as a Government-owned registered society, the OC was ultimately set up in February 2005 as a non-Government registered society, the report pointed out.
The CAG was of the view that the stewardship of the Games project should have been entrusted to a single point of authority and accountability, with adequate mandate to ensure all deliverables in time, to cost, and to specified quality standards.
In view of the Government guarantee for meeting the cost of the Games, it was essential for such stewardship to be fully under Government control. However, this was not followed, it said.
Inexplicable delays
Commenting on the modus operandi observed over the activities leading to the conduct of the Games, the report said there were inexplicable delays in decision making, which put pressure on timelines and led to the creation of an artificial or consciously created sense of urgency.
“Since the target date was immovable, such delays could only be overcome by seeking, and liberally granting, waivers in laid down governmental procedures. In doing so, contracting procedures became a very obvious casualty. Many contracts were then entertained based on single bids, and in fact, some of them even awarded on nomination basis,” the CAG said.
Taking liberties with Government procedures led to elimination of competition. Eliminating competition led to huge avoidable extra burden on the exchequer, the CAG report noted.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.