The University of Madras has come in for criticism from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for violating norms for developmental works. The CAG report tabled in the Assembly on Wednesday said the university had executed an agreement with a contractor without getting the planning permission from the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
It resulted in the university having to compromise for cost escalation though there was no such clause in the agreement.
By obtaining planning permission, the University could have saved ₹2.87 crore and a liability of around ₹87 lakh, the CAG pointed out.
The University had received ₹70 crore as a grant from the Central government to commemorate its 150th anniversary in 2007. The amount included ₹14.48 crore for constructing a building for the nanosciences centre.
A tender was finalised and the contractor was given the work order for a value of ₹14.95 crore in July 2011. But CAG’s scrutiny of records in 2016 of the University and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the nodal agency to permit developmental works, revealed that construction did not begin till 2012 as the Alumni Association of Anna University had objected to the construction in the area that fell under the heritage zone.
Price escalation
Madras University obtained approval in January 2012 and in February, work was handed over to the contractor, who escalated the price citing a rise in the cost of materials and the delay in handing over the work. The university, after negotiating with the contractor, revised the agreement to ₹19.14 crore, an increase of 28% from what had been agreed upon.
The State government, in its reply, said that the delay in construction had been caused by the Alumni Association of Anna University and held that while the contractor had claimed a 45% increase in cost, the university had negotiated it down to 28%.
The CAG, however, held that the university compromised on the cost escalation though there was no such clause in the agreement. It added that the university had applied to the CMDA for written permission only after executing the agreement with the contractor, “contrary to the rule provision that no person shall carry out any development without the written permission of the CMDA.”
