Contractors, BMP laxity blamed for bad roads

Contractors, BMP laxity blamed for bad roads
The Hindu

Three-member panel of experts submits 130-page report

# The report follows a public interest litigation petition by advocate K.N. Subba Reddy
# The committee was constituted by the High Court to supervise and oversee laying/relaying and road repairs in Bangalore
# The report has been placed before a Division Bench comprising Justice B. Padmaraj and Justice V. Jagannathan

BANGALORE: A three-member committee of experts constituted by the Karnataka High Court to supervise and oversee laying/relaying and road repairs in Bangalore, has blamed a cartel of contractors and lax monitoring by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) for the bad state of roads and drains.

A voluminous report was placed before a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice (Acting) B. Padmaraj and Justice V. Jagannathan last week following a public interest litigation petition by K.N. Subba Reddy, advocate from Bangalore, seeking a direction to improve the condition of roads. The 130-page report in four parts contains photographs, maps and annexures.

Indicted

Indicting the BMP for its poor role in maintaining and monitoring the roads, the committee has noted the absence of instructions on the issue to the engineering staff. This, it said, had led to a situation wherein the engineers had used their own methods of observation in preparing the estimates for the road works, which were unscientific.

It said "least" regard and "importance" had been given to the drainage system and for improving and strengthening it. Moreover, many BMP officials did not possess the basic handbook published by the Indian Road Congress. Nor had tender specifications as per the Road Congress norms and appropriate technical circulars or guidelines to carry out quality road works been given to junior officials.

Only one tender

The experts found that only one tender had been received. The contractors, they said, had formed a cartel to corner the road works and were thus able to dictate terms to the BMP.

The BMP and its officials conducted themselves in an ad hoc manner and the officials dealing with tenders and evaluating them were not fully conversant with the rules and regulations as per the Transparency Act. Moreover, there were no specific guidelines to the field engineers involved in the road works.

It said even from the planning stage, importance was not given to tertiary drainage system. The qualification prescribed for selection of contractors was progressively diluted to accommodate those who did not possess the required machinery and equipment to deliver quality work.

Whenever adverse reports by consultants on the state of roads were given to the BMP, it had not taken it seriously. Instead, it had condoned the fault and made payments to the contractors, thus encouraging poor work.

The committee called for giving more importance for tertiary drainage. It wanted the BMP to implement the Transparency Act while processing and awarding contracts, provide proper and adequate guidelines at regular intervals to the engineering staff.