IT Exclusive
Imphal, April 18:
In an interesting twist, to the recommendations by the Lokayukta Manipur dated 7/2/2022 in connection with the alleged misappropriation of a huge amount of money in the Manipur State Power Corporation Ltd. (MSPCL), the Managing Director of the Corporation, has challenged the recommendation to the High Court of Manipur (under writ petition No. 168 of 2022).
The hearing of the writ petition was held on April 12, 2024, by a single bench of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh and listed for the next hearing on April 19, i.e. tomorrow. During the hearing of April 12, the Advocate General of Manipur had submitted that at that moment, he has no instruction about any change in the Government decision in connection with the order of the govt. dated 17/2/2022 and the Corrigendum dated 22/02/2022 for not accepting the recommendation made by the Lokayukta at Para 25 (D) & (E).
The Govt. decision submitted to the Manipur Lokayukta on February 17, 2022, reads – “….. the recommendations at para 25(D) & (E) of the Honourable Lokayukta’s order dated 07.02.2022 have been examined in the light of administrative scenario of the Power Department. Power Department observed that it is not feasible to accept the recommendations at present due to administrative reasons under section 32(2) of Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013…..”
The recommendation in Para 25 (D) by the Lokayukta was based on a report by inquiry officers which stated suspicions of misappropriation to the installation of 2×1 MVA , 33 KV Sub Station along with the associated 33 kV line related works at Chakpikarong in Chandel district, Manipur executed under work order dated 25/09/2009.
This observation by the Manipur Lokayukta was, however, is challenged as it appears to be in contrast, and as it is evident with the comments of the competent authority of the Power Department, the comment which is to be obtained from the competent authority on the allegations made in the complaint under Section 20 (2) of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014. The observations made in the comment from the competent authority were simply that allegations made by the complainant, Thiyam Nirosh Singh in the Hon’ble Lokayukta Manipur are unfounded and baseless and the comment was submitted by the Under Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur to the Director (Inquiry) Manipur Lokayukta on December 1, 2021.
In connection with the supply for Power Transformers (1 MVA, 33/11 KV) for the 33/11 KV Sub Station at Chakpikarong , findings of the joint inspection team headed by Thongthang Mantu, Dy SP, Manipur Lokayukta Inquiry officer stated, “…… the said (alleged ) two power transformers were most probably supplied as per the work order”
In connection with the construction of 33/11 KV electrical sub-station, the joint inspection team report said, “The construction of 33/11 KV electrical sub–station was done as per the single line diagram (SLD) associated with the work order. It was actually found that the said working sub-station was consisting of all the major necessary electrical equipment”.
In connection with the allegation of misappropriation of funds for the 33/11 KV line, known as New Chayang –Joupi Line, the findings by the Joint Inspection team said that the MSPCL had clarified in a notification dated Dec. 30, 2019, that the line length has been shortened from 45 km to 4 km – with the existence of 33 KV line of another project taken up from a different source of funding by Electricity Department, Manipur near the selected project site at Chapikarong. This indeed has saved the state exchequer and stated that the claims about irregularities of over Rs. 5,10,98,440 does not arise.
In the writ petition by the Managing Director (MSPCL), it is plead that the Manipur Lokayukta without appreciating technical explanation as submitted by the office of the present petitioner on the issue regarding the shortening of 45 km to 4 km LILO and also overlooking that the scheme under NLCPR also includes 2 other components i.e. construction of KV sub Station and connected/associated civil works and further utilization of the saved materials in a new project undertaken with the approval of the state Government on the one side and also appraisal made by the Administrative Department of Power, Government of Manipur where it has been clearly stated that no loss of public money or diversion of fund has been occurred in the execution of the project and also clarification given by the planning Department of the Government of Manipur to the effect that information to the Central Government regarding the allegation of shortening of the associated 33 kV line to 4 km from 45 km of the project is not required as no fund released by the DONER have been diverted whatsoever other than for the project for which the fund has been released.
Comments from the competent authority of PowerDepartment which is to be obtained on the allegations made in the complaint under Section 20 (2) of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 and based on the inquiry report compiled by the inspection team constituted by the Manipur Lokayukta in the case was sent to the Manipur Lokayukta with the following observations and are reproduced below:
“With the above facts, it is certain that there are no lapses made by the executing agency namely, Electricity Department/Manipur State Power Company Limited in the execution of the project – Construction of 2×1 MVA, 33/11 kV Sub-Station at Chakpikarong along with the associated 33 kV line and related civil works on turn-key basis with assistance from the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region under Non- Lapsable Central Pool of Resources (NLCPR) and allegations made by the complainant, Thiyam Nirosh Singh in the Hon’ble Lokayukta Manipur are unfounded and baseless “.
Meanwhile, a source from the Manipur High Court also said that another PIL has been filed by a person appealing why the recommendation by the Lokayukta has not been converted into action.
However, mention may be made that the state government is taking the recommendation by the Lokayukta with extreme seriousness and has been investigating the matter by the state police crime branch. Two of the officers have been reportedly questioned in connection with the matter.
