Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) may object to the Coimbatore Smart City Limited (CSCL) spending nearly ₹ 60 crore on behalf of around 47,000 people as it has said that cannot be done so.
The CSCL had given ₹ 22 crore to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to be accounted for as the contribution of slum dwellers who had been allotted flats. The Corporation along with the Board had evicted the slum dwellers who were encroaching on water bodies.
To provide alternative accommodation to the evicted slum dwellers, the Board had constructed tenements at Ukkadam, Malumichampatty, Malai Nagar, Keeranatham and a few other places.
The dwellers had to pay ₹ 30,000 each to the Board for flats as beneficiary contribution and on their behalf the Corporation had paid.
Justifying the payment, the Corporation said it was to evict the slum dwellers at the earliest to clear the water bodies of encroachments.
Likewise, to speed up providing house service connections to underground drainage scheme to houses in areas that the sewage treatment plant in Ukkadam serves, the Corporation has earmarked around ₹ 40 crore to be accounted for as the people's contribution towards deposit.
In both the cases the Corporation had spent or earmarked money that should have in the first place been spent by the beneficiaries of the respective schemes.
But the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has said that it cannot be done so. In response to an RTI query, asking, “Can Smart Cities Mission funds be spent on/on behalf of/for individuals/families?”, the Ministry has said “no”.
Commenting on the Corporation’s action, consumer activist K. Kathirmathiyon says it is not clear if the Corporation giving ₹ 22 core to the Board is in the nature of loan or grant as it can do neither.
Assuming that the Corporation has given the money from its General Fund, it is still wrong as the civic body cannot do so, unless the State Government has issued orders.
As the Corporation has given the money to the Board on behalf of the beneficiaries, it should have ensured that its name figures in the title deed so that it has a hold over the property.
As for as the expenditure on behalf of the underground drainage scheme beneficiaries, Mr. Kathirmathiyon argues that the spending in a way is justified because the civic body cannot force the beneficiaries to pay a huge sum as deposit.
Having committed to make full use of the money spent on constructing the underground drainage infrastructure, it makes sense for the civic body to bear the deposit charges but it must ensure that it is not just for a few residents but for all.
Asked about the expenditure and if it will pass muster, Corporation officials say the civic body has a plan in place to collect the UGD deposit in 10 instalments, along with property tax, over five years.
