RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Thematic audit of rural connectivity under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana 1.

Introduction

Primacy of road network in insuring connectivity in a hill State like Uttrakhand can not be denied particularly in absence of railways and air transport. It is the largest component of developmental expenditure undertaken by the State. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) is an important instrumentality available with the State Government in providing rural habitations with last mile connectivity. PMGSY is a 100 per cent Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) launched by the Government of India (GoI) in December 2000 with the primary objective of providing all weather road1 connectivity to all unconnected rural habitations with a population of 1,000 persons and above by the year 2003, and 500 persons and above by the Tenth Plan period (2007). In respect of hill States including Uttarakhand, the scheme also has a provision to connect habitations with population of 250 persons and above. In Uttarakhand, a State Level Standing Committee (SLSC) is responsible for overall supervision/monitoring of the PMGSY works and scrutiny of proposals whereas the Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency (URRDA) headed by two Chief Engineers2 (CE) and supported by four Superintending Engineers is responsible to advise on technical specifications, project appraisal, funds management, planning, quality control, coordination with the National Rural Road Development Agency

(NRRDA)/World Bank and management of contracts. The manpower for implementation of PMGSY was taken on deputation from Public Works Department, Rural Engineering Services and Irrigation Department of the State but their administration control has been transferred to the Rural Development Department (RDD) in September 2012 only. Prior to that, the PIU staff reported to their parent departments, diluting monitoring & control

1 2

An all weather road is one which is negotiable in all seasons of the year. CE-I (Budget, Planning, Quality Control, Coordination with NRRDA); CE-II (Preparation of DPRs, Monitoring of physical & financial progress, procurement & finalization of tenders, administration of PIUs).

of the RDD. There are 29 Programme Implementation Units (PIUs)3 in the State, each headed by an Executive Engineer. At the time of launching the PMGSY, 2532 unconnected habitations in the State were eligible for implementation of programme as per prescribed norms for population. Thematic audit was taken up to assess whether the management of programme and execution of works was efficient, effective & economical and whether the objective of providing all weather connectivity to the targeted habitations within the specified time was achieved with adequate supervision/quality control between November 2012 and April 2013 covering the implementation of PMGSY programme under Phase-VII(200910) to IX (2011-12) and by test check of records of the CE, URRDA and 12 PIUs (covering of 174 road works amounting to ` 233.30 crore) of seven4 districts out of 13 districts and overall expenditure of ` 357.47 crore incurred by the State. Audit also conducted some joint physical inspections along with the representatives of the concerned PIUs. Photographs of the works were taken wherever considered necessary. 2. Scope of audit

A thematic audit of the implementation of PMGSY programme under phase-VII (200910) to IX (2011-12) was conducted between November 2012 and April 2013 by test check of records of the CE, URRDA and 12 PIUs (covering of 174 road works amounting to ` 233.30 crore) of seven5 districts out of 13 districts and overall expenditure of ` 357.47 crore incurred by the State. Audit also conducted some joint physical inspections along with the representatives of the concerned PIUs. Photographs of the works were taken wherever considered necessary. 3. Audit objective and criteria

3 4

Including 12 new divisions, which were established in August 2012. Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehradun, Pauri & Pithoragarh as per approved Audit Plan for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Champawat, Dehradun, Pauri & Pithoragarh as per approved Audit Plan for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14.

The audit of PMGSY was taken up to assess whether the management of programme and execution of works was efficient, effective & economical and whether the overall programme objective of providing all weather connectivity to the targeted habitations within the specified time frame was achieved with adequate supervision/quality control. The provisions of PMGSY guidelines and instructions/orders issued by the GOI from time to time were taken as criteria for audit. 4. 4.1 4.1.1 Audit Findings Programme performance Position of habitation connectivity

Records of URRDA, Dehradun showed that 1859 targeted habitations (>250) remained unconnected as of March 2013, of which, 40 habitations have a population of more than 1000, 320 habitations have a population of 500 to 999, and 1499 habitations have a population of 250 to 499 as per details given in Table -1 below:
Table : 1
Phase wise habitations Habitations Balance connected under PMGSY Category of Total connected prior to Unconnected unconnected population habitations launching of the habitations I to III IV to VI VII to IX Total habitations programme (2000) (2000-03) (2004-08) (2009-13) 1000 and 1,092 941 151 71 40 111 40 above 500 to 999 1,964 1,272 692 56 237 79 372 320 250 to 499 3,791 2,102 1,689 53 133 4 190 1,499 Less than 250 9,953 3,871 6,082 75 129 204 5,878 Total 16,800 8,186 8,614 255 539 83 877 7,737 Source: Information obtained from the department.

It may be seen that the progress achieved with respect to habitations with a population of 250 to 1000 was worse with 76 per cent remaining unconnected even after 12 years of implementation of the programme. Forty large habitations remained unconnected even after a lapse of more than five years from the targeted year 2007, thereby depriving the inhabitants of the intended benefit. Though 877 habitations were shown by the

Department as connected, audit scrutiny noticed that 811 habitations did not have all weather roads as Stage-II works (black top) were yet to be carried out. Only 66 habitations had been provided with all weather roads. In sum, it can be stated that the State is lagging behind in achieving the objective of the PMGSY programme depriving a very large percentage of habitations of all weather roads which are the veritable lifelines in a hill State like Uttarakhand.
3

The Department stated that habitations were being connected on the basis of prioritization prescribed in the PMGSY guidelines. The reply was not satisfactory as it was clearly mentioned in the guidelines that all the habitations were to be connected by the end of the Tenth Five Year Plan (2007). 4.1.2 Physical and financial position of road works

Records of the URRDA showed that a total of the 773 road works with a sanctioned cost of ` 1601.58 crore were undertaken, out of which, 499 works (65 per cent) had been completed at a cost of ` 847.81 crore. Further, 274 works (` 801.11 crore) were either in progress or had not started as of March 2013. In Phases-VII to IX, a total of 291 road works amounting to ` 802.37 crore were approved between 2009-10 and 2011-12, of which, only 64 works (22 per cent) had been completed at a cost of ` 119.89 crore. 227 works (78 per cent) remained incomplete with an expenditure of ` 237.58 crore as of March 2013. The physical and financial position of sanctioned/completed/incomplete works of the seven selected districts during Phases I to IX can be seen from the table given below:
Table : 2
Year/ phase Works sanctioned No. Length Cost

(` in crore for cost of works)

Yet to be started No. Length Cost 04 24.89 8.02 68.77 102.03 6.94 185.76

Work completed In progress No. Length Expr. No. Length Expr. 483.27 22 175.24 50.31

Up to 314 2008-09(I-VI) 2009-10 (VII) 71 2010-11 (VIII) 86 2011-12 (IX) 17 Total : 488

2229.98 516.01 288 1945.83 700.67 254.05 21 718.59 245.05 14 10.50 23.57 00 3659.74 1038.68 323

169.27 47.81 29 351.49 82.81 131.28 27.87 45 295.53 71.01 00 00 13 8.25 3.80 2246.38 558.95 109 830.51 207.93

21 179.93 27 291.87 04 2.25 56 498.94

Source: Information collected from the department

Audit scrutiny of physical and financial position showed that: Four works from Phases-I to VI and 52 road works from Phases-VII to XI amounting to ` 185.76 crore were yet to be started in the test checked districts due to either involvement of forest land or disputes in alignment of roads. Progress in respect of rest of the State was much worse as overall 96 road works with a sanctioned cost of `278.25 crore were yet to be started in the State.
4

The Government of India (GoI) released an amount of ` 400.14 crore against the approved project cost of ` 829.79 crore during 2009-12 to the URRDA for implementation of works of Phase-VII to IX. However, the Department could spend only ` 362.41 crore as of March 2013 and remaining amount of ` 37.73 crore remained unutilized.

Against total expenditure on works of phase-VII to XI (` 233.30 crore) in seven sampled districts, an amount of ` 123.39 crore (53 per cent) was spent on ineligible items of works or was unfruitful, idle, inadmissible, irregular, avoidable and sub-standard expenditure in nature as has been discussed in the succeeding paragraphs (4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and 4.5.2).

4.2

Planning

The PMGSY guidelines emphasized upon systematic and cost effective planning to achieve the objectives of the programme. In view of that, a core network based on District Rural Roads Plan of the State was to be prepared for identifying the roads to be constructed/ upgraded to ensure that each eligible habitation is provided with access (all weather road connectivity) to essential socio-economic services. The core network consists of the existing roads as well as proposed roads for providing connectivity under PMGSY. However, Audit scrutiny showed that preparation of core network in the districts was characterized by lack of comprehensive planning to: (i) (ii) (iii) 4.2.1 determine the unconnected habitations; prioritization of work to be undertaken; and quantum of work to be done under PMGSY; as has been discussed in the following paragraphs:

Incorrect assessment of unconnected habitations

The number of reported unconnected habitations as on 01 April 2000 was 2532 (Habitations with population above 1000: 151, between 500 and 999: 692 and between 250 and 499:1,689). However, the actual number of unconnected habitations in the State was actually 2591 at the time of launching of the programme in December 2000. The
5

Department while assessing the number of unconnected habitations had wrongly treated some of the unconnected habitations as connected. After a lapse of more than 10 years, the State Government requested (June 2011) the GoI to include the left out 59 unreported habitations (with population above 500) in the core network. However, the GoI did not accept any revision in the already approved core network. Thus, due to the failure of the Department to identify the eligible unconnected habitations, 59 habitations with an aggregate population of 44,657 were denied the benefit of all-weather roads under PMGSY. The Department accepted the above facts and stated (May 2013) that these habitations have since been transferred (April 2013) to the State Public Works Department for ensuring connectivity. As such, the liability of providing road connectivity to these 59 unconnected habitations has now been shifted from the GoI to the State Government which could have been avoided had the assessment of unconnected habitations been done properly at the time of launching of the programme by the Department. 4.2.2 Incomplete coverage of targeted habitations

Programme guidelines provide that no road work should be proposed under the PMGSY for providing new connectivity unless it forms part of the core network. It must be ensured that the proposed road works are part of the core network and that new connectivity is given primacy. As per core network, 118 habitations with a population of 71,247 were to be connected by 26 road works. Test check of records pertaining to these 26 sanctioned works

amounting to ` 79.52 crore (Phases II to VIII) showed that these works provided connectivity to only 86 unconnected habitations with a total population of 48,466 instead of 118 habitations (population: 71,247) as had been originally envisaged. Thus, the Department failed to provide connectivity to 32 habitations with a total population of 22,781despite their being part of the core network. The Divisions accepted the facts and replied (May 2013) that these habitations could not be connected as road alignments had to be modified given difficult geographical terrain and local conditions. The reply of the Department clearly suggested lack of planning and survey at the time of preparation of the DPRs.
6

4.2.3

Lack of inter-departmental coordination

Audit scrutiny revealed that the State had submitted proposals (DPRs) for 13 works in Phases I to VI amounting to ` 12.32 crore which were duly approved by the GoI. At the time of implementation, it was, however, found that these road works had already been taken up by other Departments, and hence, the works had to be cancelled subsequently. This indicates that there was lack of interdepartmental co-ordination and proper planning while preparing proposals of these cancelled road works. 4.3 Programme Implementation

The primary objective of the programme was to provide all weather road connectivity to all unconnected rural habitations having with population of 250 persons and above by the Tenth Five Year Plan period (2007). Audit observed that the programme objective of providing all weather road connectivity to the targeted habitations could not be delivered even after a lapse of more than five years from the target year (2007). The shortcomings observed by Audit in programme implementation in the sampled districts are as under: 4.3.1 Non-adherence of procedure for competitive bidding

Paragraph-11.1 of the PMGSY guidelines stipulates that all the works scrutinized by the

State Technical Authority (STA) and cleared by the GoI, will be tendered. However, audit scrutiny of records of the selected PIUs revealed that: Tenders for execution of 23 road works were invited by the PIUs even before sanction of the detailed estimates by the GoI, which was, in itself, irregular. Further, despite moving early, none of the works could be completed within prescribed time limit for completion of work. As of March 2013, only 16 works could be completed and seven works were in progress with delays ranging from four to 13 months. Single tenders were accepted in nine works without going into retendering which was against the accepted procedure for competitive bidding. Further, the probable benefit of competitive rates could not be realised. Even after accepting single tenders, five works were still in progress with delays ranging from four to nine months.

Non-adherence of prescribed procedures by the responsible authorities was indicative of inappropriate financial management on the part of the Department. In reply, it was stated by the Department (May 2013) that the retendering was not resorted to against the single tenders received due to apprehension of probable increases in the rates for labour and material. The reply was not acceptable as the Department acted against the laid down procedure opening entire process to possibilities of fraud. Besides, competitive bidding universally brings down the costs involved. Thus, substantial savings could have accrued to the public exchequer if retendering had been resorted to. 4.3.2 Delay in finalization of tenders

Paragraph-11.2 of the PMGSY guidelines provides that tenders for work to be executed shall be finalized within 120 days (four months) from the date the GoI approves the said projects. Audit scrutiny showed that the tenders for 57 road works by nine PIUs were finalized with a delay ranging from one to 34 months as against the prescribed time of four months.
Table: 3
Phase/Year of works VII /2009-10 VIII/2010-11 IX /2011-12 Delayed by 1 to 6 months No. of Value Tenders (` in crore) 13 46.44 2 2.53 Delayed by 6 to 12 months Delayed by over 12 months No. of Value No. of Value Tenders Tenders (` in crore) (` in crore) 18 47.67 18 83.91 3 7.57 3 4.44 -

Delay in finalisation of tenders not only adversely affected the progress of these works in the State but also deprived the targeted habitations of timely road connectivity. In reply, it was stated (May 2013) by the Department that the said tenders could not be finalized in time due to delay in receiving forest clearances and also due to disputes by local villagers. The aforesaid reasons do not hold ground as proactive pursuance by the Department could have mitigated the delays considerably. 4.3.3 Unachieved connectivity due to missing links (bridges) Audit scrutiny showed that the Department undertook 29 road works under Phases II to VI of PMGSY without ascertaining whether bridges were to be constructed or without assessing the actual lengths of bridges on proposed road alignments for ensuring full connectivity up to the targeted habitations. Audit found that these 29 road works
8

constructed with an expenditure of ` 104.13 crore in five divisions could not provide all weather road connectivity to 129 habitations having population of 49,021 due to nonconstruction of 47 bridges which were required at various stretches of these roads. Thus, the expenditure of ` 104.13 crore incurred was rendered unfruitful leading to nonachievement of programme objective. It was replied to by the concerned divisions (December 2012 to March 2013) that in Stage-I, provision for only road construction was planned and only after road works were completed, the DPRs of bridges were submitted for approval. The reply was not

acceptable as it would have been obvious while determining the road alignment if bridges with spans exceeding 25 metre were required. DPRs for bridges could have been

prepared by the Department in conjunction with DPRs for roads. Such a strategy could have avoided observed delays and ensured timely connectivity as well. The disjointed effort by the Department in preparation of DPRs of roads and associated bridges indicates poor planning and implementation of programme which resulted in depriving targeted habitations of all weather roads despite incurring an expenditure of ` 104.13 crore. 4.3.4 Irregular construction of roads to already connected habitations

Provisions of PMGSY guidelines clearly state that no road work should be proposed unless it forms part of the core network of State. Audit scrutiny showed that an expenditure of ` 4.16 crore was incurred by two divisions for providing connectivity to three habitations with a population of 2,384 in contravention of the PMGSY guidelines as the said habitations were already connected as per the core network of the State. The details of the roads are given below:
Table : 4
Name of division Kapkot, Bageshwar Champawat Year/ Phase Name of road Length (km) 16.14 3.00 19.14 Expenditure (` in lakh) 384.97 31.00 415.97 Name of habitations connected (Population) Bheda Majhera (940) Jarti (935) Khatera (509) Three (2384)

2009-10/ Bheda-Majhera Phase-VII Jarti 2009-10/ Kimtoli to Khatera Phase-VII Total Source: Information extracted from the divisions

The divisions stated (February/March 2013) that existing roads were light vehicle roads and proposals for new all weather roads were prepared on the request of public representatives. The reply was not acceptable as execution of such road works was against the provision of guidelines. Thus, expenditure of ` 4.16 crore incurred for providing road connectivity under PMGSY to already connected habitations was highly irregular. 4.3.5 Taking up works without receiving clearances of forest land

Provisions of PMGSY guidelines stipulate that it is the responsibility of the State Government/ District Panchayat to ensure that land is available for taking up the proposed road works. A certificate regarding availability of land must accompany the proposal for each road and the details of land should be reflected in the local land records to avoid disputes. Provision also provides that works should not be taken up unless necessary land is available. Contrary to the above, audit scrutiny in selected divisions showed that two road works6 were taken up without obtaining necessary clearance for using forest land. Expenditure incurred thereon of ` 2.84 crore was rendered idle as the necessary forest clearance was still awaited and works were held-up. Thus, the Department did not comply with the prerequisite formalities before taking up the execution of works which resulted in idle investment. Further, audit also observed in Kotdwar division that a

mobilization/machinery advance of ` 35.00 lakh was paid (April 2010) to the contractor for Lawad to Bandoon road despite the fact that necessary forest clearance was awaited. Out of ` 35.00 lakh, ` 10.50 lakh were recovered and recovery of remaining ` 24.50 lakh was pending (May 2013) due to non-completion of the work. Apart from the above, total 88 road works of State were pending on account of non receipt of necessary forest clearances at various levels as per details given below:
Table: 5
Sl. 1.
6

Particulars Government of India (GOI)

No. of cases 13

Taragtal to Khala (Phase-7) and Lawad to Bandoon (Phase-7).

10

Forest Nodal Office Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Under objection (pending at divisional level) Transfer approved in-principle by GOI subject to deposit of cost with State Forest Department for obtaining formal approval from GOI 6. Proposal not yet prepared 7. Cancelled proposals by GOI Total Source: Information obtained from the department

2. 3. 4. 5.

7 23 3 22 10 10 88

Audit scrutiny of 20 out of 88 cases pending for forest clearance showed that there were delays of 102 to 1,821 days in preparation of forest proposals by the divisional officers. These delays were attributable to departmental inaction and laxity in processing the cases and in pursuing them with competent authority for land acquisition. As a result, works were hampered and the purpose of the sanctions was defeated depriving 48 targeted habitations with a population of 22,438 persons of road connectivity. In reply, the divisional officers stated that the forest proposals could not be prepared in time due to shortage of staff (Amin). The reply was not acceptable as divisional

authorities were well aware of the strength of their divisions and these issues should have been brought to the notice of State Government before preparation and submission the detailed project reports. 4.3.6 Irregular loading of lead charges

Paragraph-9.3 of PMGSY guidelines prescribed that while preparing estimates of road works, no provisions would be made for lead charges payable for transportation of soil except in case of black cotton soil. Contrary to above norms, audit scrutiny of estimates of road works in the selected districts showed that provisions for transportation of 4.95 lakh cubic metre soil by mechanical transportation was provided in estimates with an expenditure of ` 3.73 crore in 29 works (details as per Appendix-I). In reply, it was stated (May 2013) by the Department that the mechanical transportation of soil was provided for disposal of debris to avoid the probable damage to the adjoining forest area as per directives of the Ministry of Environment & Forest, GoI in this regard. The reply was not acceptable as inclusion of lead charges in the estimates was against the provisions of PMGSY guidelines. If, however, it was deemed essential to provide for transportation of soil, the expenditure on this account should have been borne by the
11

State Government. Thus, the loading of lead charges of ` 3.73 crore to the PMGSY was irregular. 4.3.7 Non-execution of approved items of works

Paragraph-11.1 of the PMGSY Guidelines provides that once the project (DPR) has been approved by the GoI, no changes shall to be made in the work without prior approval of the NRRDA. Test check of the records showed that approved items of work like construction of parapet, side drain and cross drainage etc. amounting to ` 1.59 crore were not carried in six road works. However, other works like construction of retaining/ breast walls which are not part of approved list, were carried out in lieu of the left over works. The Department did not obtain approval of the prescribed authority for these deviations in execution of works. The details of left over items of works are given in table-6:
Table : 6
Name of division Name of road Harara to Pinakot Uprari to Silangi Daniya to Ara Salphar Almora Papersoli to Balta Bageshwar Didihat Dangoli Sailani to Ganigaon GGIC to Bhanada Total Item of work Construction of Culverts Construction of Culverts Construction of Parapets Construction of Drains Construction of Parapets Construction of cross Drain Construction of cross Drains Construction of Drains Construction of Drains Cost per DPR (`) 13,60,509 9,07,565 15,26,658 30,40,574 62,832 2,21,391 63,09,289 15,67,602 9,40,879 159,37,299 Actual execution Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Salt Almora

Source: Information extracted from the divisions.

In reply, divisions stated that the approved works could not be executed due to site situation and geographical conditions. The reply was not acceptable as divisional officers were well aware about the site situations/condition and these issues should have been considered while preparing the DPRs of the respective works. 4.4 4.4.1 Other points of interest Non-fulfillment of liability by State Government

PMGSY guidelines stipulate that where the value of the tender was more than the cost approved in the DPRs, or the span of bridges was over 25 metre, or there were variations or additional items, the related excess costs were to be borne by the State Government.

12

Audit scrutiny, however, showed that the State Government had not released an amount of ` 20.00 crore towards the excess costs of tenders over the approved DPRs, excess expenditure in bridge spans, and variations/additional items etc. to the PMGSY in respect of 31 works. The divisions replied (May 2013) that demands for settling excess costs were being sent to the State Government at regular intervals. However, no funds had been released as yet to meet such costs. 4.4.2 Non-revalidation of bank guarantees Audit scrutiny revealed that bank guarantees had expired in respect of nine works where machinery and mobilisation advances had been given. Out of the total advance of ` 3.82 crore related to these nine works given to contractors against expired bank guarantees, only ` 1.55 crore had been recovered and remaining amount of ` 2.27 crore was still pending with these contractors (Appendix II). 4.4.3 Non-inclusion of plantation clause in agreement

Para 21.4 of PMGSY guidelines provides that a clause for planting fruit bearing and other plants on the road side should be included in each agreement for execution of road works. Scrutiny of the records of the selected divisions showled that no such clause was included in any of the agreements entered into with contractors up to March 2013 and no plantation was made defeating the objectives of binding the peripheries of the road end of environmental upgradation. 4.5 4.5.1 Assessment of quality of works Large number of unsatisfactory execution of work

PMGSY guidelines (pararaph-15) provide for a three-tier quality control system wherein the State Government is responsible for the first two stages i.e. quality control through PIUs and State Quality Monitors (SQM) to ensure that material utilized and workmanship conformed to the prescribed specifications and that all prescribed tests were carried out at specified time and place by the specified person/authority. In the third tier, the NRRDA engaged National Quality Monitors (NQMs) for inspections, at random basis, of the road works under the programme. In case the works were graded Unsatisfactory or
13

Required improvement by the NQM or SQM, the concerned PIU was to ensure replacement of material or rectification of workmanship to achieve an overall grading of Satisfactory in respect of all roads. Records of the CE, URRDA showed that a total of 1113 inspections were carried out by the NQM/SQM and comments were offered on 699 works (63 per cent) as of March 2013. The status of gradings given by the NQM/ SQM is shown in the table below:
Table: 7
Year Status of inspection carried out by NQM Total No. of works Action Balance insp. declared as US/RI taken 2009-10 60 50 42 8 2010-11 42 34 33 1 2011-12 57 28 14 14 2012-13 62 38 11 27 Total 221 150 100 50 US: Un-satisfactory, RI: Require Improvement Status of inspection carried out by SQM Total No. of works Action Balance Insp. declared as US/RI taken 309 199 195 4 264 166 138 28 178 107 90 17 141 77 16 61 892 549 439 110

It may be seen that the execution of a majority of works was found to be Unsatisfactory or Requiring improvement by the NQM/SQM in their inspections which is indicative of improper execution of work by the PIUs. Besides, the action taken reports to rectify the irregularities were submitted only in respect of 539 works

(77 per cent) and no action was taken in respect of the remaining 160 works as on March 2013. The PIUs accepted the facts and stated that action to rectify the deficiencies was being taken. 4.5.2 Result of physical inspection of sites by Audit

Audit also attempted to assess the impact of the programme through joint physical inspection of 19 roads (14 completed and five incomplete works) in six districts7 with the departmental authorities, and discussions with the beneficiaries. It was noticed that the status of five roads was satisfactory and connectivity to the targeted habitations had been established. However, remaining 14 roads fell short of achieving the
Satisfactory Abandoned
7

Chart-1
26% 53% 5% 16%

Already connected Excess in length

Almora, Bageshwar, Champawat, Chamoli, Pauri and Pithoragarh.

14

desired objective due to the fact that three roads being constructed in already connected habitations, one road was being damaged and 10 roads having being constructed in excess length beyond targeted habitations. Some important findings in this regard are illustrated below: An expenditure of ` 3.76 crore had been incurred for construction of three roads8

by two divisions (Pokhari-Chamoli and Champawat) for connecting four habitations having a population of 1,830. During joint physical inspection (December 2012 and February 2013), it found that these habitations were already connected to road network by other departments (PWD and Mandi Samiti respectively). Thus, expenditure of ` 3.76 crore incurred for already connected habitation proved to be highly irregular. It was found in joint physical inspection of

10 roads works in six divisions that roads were executed beyond the targeted habitations

involving 11.685 km of excess road length and incurring an expenditure of ` 2.36 crore. A

photograph (Chausala to Chill) given alongside clearly shows that the road is ending in the hill side where there is no habitation. An inspection (March 2013) of Danya-Ara-Salpar motor road in Almora district

disclosed that a portion of road work (0.446 km) was executed with Cement Concrete (CC) instead of Premix Carpet (PC) as provided in the approved DPR which resulted in extra avoidable expenditure of ` 0.34 crore. The CC work done by the division can be seen from the photograph. In Bageshwar district, an agreement amounting to ` 4.57 crore was executed

(November 2009) with a contractor for Stage-II (Black Top)

Khanna-Paini-Kujansu: ` 2.65 crore, Kimtoli to Malla Khatera: ` 0.31 crore & Bantoli to Dayartoli: ` 0.80 crore.

15

works of Kausani-Bhatriya road. However, the work was stopped (November 2012) by the contractor after incurring an expendituure of ` 2.07 crore and completion of 0.700 km BT suface against total 13.200 km road length. During physical inspection (February

2013), it was found that the work executed by the contractor was in a very bad condition and WBM & PC work has been completely damaged as is evident from the photgraph. 5. Conclusion

The PMGSY programme in Uttarakhand suffered due to inadequate planning and lack of inter-departmental coordination for providing connectivity to the targeted habitations. The targets of providing all weather road connectivity by the end of 2007 largely remained unachieved as only 66 out of 877 connected habitations under PMGSY were provided with the facility of all weather roads. 1859 habitations were yet to be connected to the network. The programme also suffered from non-completion of the sanctioned roads in time and operational deficiencies such as delay in finalization of tenders, missing links (bridges) occurrences of unconstructed roads, delay in preparation of proposals for forest clearance by PIU officials and non-execution of approved items of works. The quality of works executed was also not up to the mark as a majority of works were found as Unsatisfactory or Requiring improvement by the NQM/SQM in their inspections. 6. Recommendations State Government should approach the GoI for modifying the PMGSY guidelines to enhance the time limit for execution of work up to two years due to the unique geographical condition of the State. State Government should provide funds to nodal Department to bear the cost of tender premia to avoid the same being charged to the programme fund. Timely completion of incomplete roads and missing links should be ensured to have the desired output.

Accountant General

16

17

Appendix I (Reference to paragraph 4.3.6) Statement showing the details of irregular loading of leads charges No. Name of division Name of work Ati to Dasili Km 187 to Supaisupiyal Papersaili to Balta Basoli-Pokhari to Naidol Hanuman Mandir Ati to Rangoligali Kushalbend to Jhaldungra MDR-25 to Bhagadewali Saidhar to Panuwadhokhan Ganiyadoli to Palinadoli Udhalikhan to Bhilt Betunddhr to Markuwabagal Jhimar to Bhitakot Upradi to Silangi Hinola-Kande to Khalpati Harara to Pinakot Parkot-Jakh to Bainali Aina to Jakh Jakhera-Dakghat to Lamchula Pandrapali to Harbar Dangoli Sailani to Ganigaon Kafaligair to Kholsir Kandhar-Rolyana to Simkhet Hawil Kulyan Bilona to Pagna Bageshwar to Tilsari Balighat Dofar to Chaurabheru Rikhari to Bacham Part-IV Jakhpant to Munakot Bhateri to Katiyani Actual quantity executed (cum) 17000.27 24819.31 21993.78 63366.13 33518.03 4241.62 1390.11 4250.32 4396.97 30334.61 35098.39 31096.28 7850.74 38212.58 9859.78 6161.09 5064.00 17857.03 5110.04 5480.52 251.00 5472.12 6617.49 1700.00 3750.00 5595.73 91550.55 10225.98 3235.00 495499.47 Rate 84.12 84.12 84.00 84.00 84.00 79.00 154.80 36.50 84.12 84.12 84.12 84.00 79.00 79.00 79.00 79.00 79.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 60.00 60.00 63.00 55.00 99.00 99.00 Expenditure 1430062.71 2087800.35 1847477.52 5322754.92 2815514.52 335087.98 215189.02 155136.68 369873.11 2551747.39 2952476.57 2612087.52 620208.46 3018793.82 778922.62 486726.11 400056.00 982136.65 281052.20 301428.60 13805.00 300966.60 363961.95 102000.00 225000.00 352530.99 5035280.25 1012372.02 320265.00 3,72,90714.56

1.

PIU-I, Almora

2.

PIU-II, Sult, Almora

3.

PIU, Bageshwar

4. 5.

PIU-II, Bageshwar PIU, Pithoragarh Grand Total :

18

Appendix II (Reference to paragraph 4.4.2) Statement showing the details of expired bank guarantee

(Rs. in lakh)
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Name of PIU PIU-I, Bageshwar PIU-II, Bageshwar Pokhari, Chamoli Kotdwar, Pauri Name of works Bilona to Pagna Balighat-Dofar to Chauraberu Banarlathi-Namti to Chetabgarh Beda Majhera Jarti Khanna-Paini to Kujansu Jakhanikhal to Amola Ringalpani to Jaspur Kilbokhal to Takolikhal Lawad to Bandoon 9 works Amount of advance 85.00 23.00 10.40 22.00 30.00 50.00 27.00 99.60 35.00 382.00 Recovered 19.00 13.00 5.40 5.00 26.00 17.85 12.24 46.50 10.50 155.49 Balance 66.00 10.00 5.00 17.00 4.00 32.15 14.76 53.10 24.50 226.51 Validity Sanctioned date cost 30.6.2012 300.23 24.3.2012 256.02 14.8.2010 300.98 6.2.2013 475.30 25.12.2010 419.34 21.12.2012 453.38 21.12.2012 250.83 1.12.2012 561.33 4.4.2012 452.10 3469.51 Bonded amount 290.45 155.75 226.79 450.00 285.15 325.83 187.88 550.10 357.52 2829.47 Expenditure 231.17 166.96 172.33 384.97 265.51 362.76 193.00 534.00 157.62 2468.32

Total : 4 PIUs

19