शिमला।मोदी सरकार के स्मार्ट सिटी आवंटन पर शिमला के वामपंथी मेयर संजय चौहान व डिप्टी मेयर टिकेंद्र पंवर ने विवाद खड़ा कर दिया है। संजय चौहान व टिकंद्र पंवर ने मोदी सरकार के मंत्री वैंक्या नायडू के मंत्रालय को कटघरे में खड़ा करते हुए लिखा है आपके मंत्रालय से किसी ने हाई पावर स्टीयरिंग कमेटी में शिरक्त ही नहीं की।उन्होंने नायडू पर तंज कसते हुए कहा कि आपके मंत्रालय ने हिमाचल हाईकोर्ट की टिप्पणियों से कुछ नहीं सीखा। चौहान व पंवर ने नायडू को आगाह किया कि वो इस मामले में दखल दें अन्यथा उन्हें अपमानजनक स्थिति का सामना करना पड़ सकता है।इन दोनों ने साफ किया है कि स्मार्ट सिटी के चयन को लेकर अफसरों ने सरेआम आंकड़ों में हेर फेर कर दिया है।
इससे पहले हिमाचल हाईकोर्ट में इस मामले में वीरभद्र सिंह,उनके मंत्री सुधीर शर्मा व अतिरिक्त मुख्य सचिव स्तर के आईएएस अफसरों से लेकर नीचे तक के अफसरों की फजीहत हो चुकी है।अगर अब गड़बड़ हुई तो अफसरों पर एफआईआर का एलान पहले ही हो चुका है।
स्मार्ट सिटी के मसले पर केंद्रीय शहरी मंत्री वैंकया नायडू को चिटठी में मेयर संजय चौहान व डिप्टी मेयर टिकेंद्र पंवर ने क्या लिखा हैं,यहां पढ़े पूरी चिटठी-:
OFFICE OF THE
Dated:- 31st january, 2016
Dear Sh Venkaiah Naidu ji
Once again we are writing to you with respect to the qualifying of smart city for phase 1 of the competition which has not just been fudged but just in the past your ministry too remained a mere spectator and did not even attend the high powered steering committee meeting. We were more shocked when you released the list of 20 cities and another list of cities for 2nd round where once again Shimla does not figure figure . It seems your ministry too has not learnt any lessons from the recent HP high court drubbing in the selection of the cities for smart city qualification. I request you to intervene at this juncture so that your ministry does not face more embarrassment like it faced in the past.
Sir with respect to the meeting of HSPC this is what we have to state for your intervention so that you can guide your ministry to rectify the mistake.
There are some serious objections to the proceedings sent to your ministry by the state government which were strongly contested and which speaks of large scale false comments and points being generated by the state. Unfortunately your ministry too did not pay any heed to go through it and accepted the state governments version in toto. Here are the points of contestations once again :-
- .As per point 12, of proceedings regarding point 9 of Smart city Score card on Payment of Salaries, it is important to understand that the payment of salaries has to be made through Self Financing “As per score card”. In this regard it was submitted that when the total salary of Dharamashala MC per month is Rs 22.60 lakhs as per the given figures in their own score card, and total revenue of MC Dharamshala is 2.74 crore. This means that entire revenue gets exhausted for disbursement of salary of Rs 2.71 crore.
Further, how Dharamshala city can justify utilisation of its funds for capital expenditure. Similarly if they are utilizing the revenue for capital expenditure than how the MCD is self financing its salaries. With regard to this, it was also assessed that the revenue shown by Dharamshala city is not their own revenue and is the revenue “in grant” as the revenue from water supply is collected by IPH and similarly property tax is not collected by MCD. Commissioner Dharamshala submitted that they pay their staff salaries from the grants, however as per the parameter of scoring salaries are to be paid by own source of ULB.
- As per point 16 of preceding the evaluation committee had given “nil” against parameter 14 and 15 of Score Card. Wherein it was pointed that the same criteria should have been followed during earlier evaluation. However considering Parameter 14 on JNNURM reforms, the same reforms were to be implemented by an UIDSSMT town, which Dharamshala has not.
“Dharamshala is an UIDSSMT town and as per the guidelines of UIDSSMT, Dharamshala has to achieve all the six reforms such as i) Adoption of modern, accrual-based double entry system, ii) Introduction of system of e-governance using IT applications for various services iii) reform of property tax with GIS, so that it becomes major source of revenue for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) iv) Levy of reasonable user charges by ULBs/Para-statals with the objective that full cost of operation and maintenance or recurring cost v) Internal earmarking within local body, budgets for basic services to the urban poor vi) Provision of basic services to urban poor.”
Whereas Dharamshala town has not done any single reform which was also supported and agreed by Commissioner Dharamshala town. When the Commissioner Dharamshala was questioned regarding Double entry accounting system, he replied that they are now starting to implement. Similarly Shimla has completed all the reforms which was agreed by the members of Committee.
- Similarly for points for e newsletter there was sheer fudging of data as the e newsletter by MCD was hosted after the competition ended and there is a simple method of verifying it through cyber fornsics but the state government sat over these objections and instead became a party for wrong and manipulated points qualification.
- As per point 18 of proceedings, the evaluation of both the cities were presented wherein, the total score of MCD was evaluated considering their existing statistics. Based on the evaluation MCD scored 32.5 marks and Shimla city scored 85 marks. As per the proceeding, no discussion was done on evaluation submitted by Mayor Shimla, there was no disagreement to the facts presented by him hence the proceeding is misleading the members and evaluation committee has not made serious efforts to here was no substantial supporting for MCD.
- As per point 19, qualification of Dharamshala has come only after evaluation by Mission Director and her staff. None of the members in SHPSC committee agreed for selection of Dharamshala city for smart city since many observations and queries were raised by Mayor Shimla regarding the scoring and justifications for parameters on which Dharamshala city was marked. The Committee had no justifications/ answers for the queries raised by Mayor
Sir it is in this background that we once again write to you for your intervention and in fact instituting an inquiry against theofficials of the state for befooling the ministry as well and ensure that judicious and objectively the city is enlisted which happens to be Shimla.
Tikender Singh Panwar Sanjay Chauhan
Dy. Mayor Mayor
Sh Venkaiah Naidu
Hon’ble minister of Urban Development
Government of India