ASG questions competence of GSIDC engineers, external consultants; calls for accountability
PANAJI
While leakage at the iconic Kala Academy courted enough controversy embarrassing the government, a parallel issue of concern has surfaced with the Bombay High Court in Goa in Porvorim. This state-of-the-art facility, built by the GSIDC at an extravagant cost of Rs 115 crore, has been plagued by severe leaks. In fact, problems began barely two months after its grand inauguration in March 2021 with the situation now going out of hand.
Assistant Solicitor General of India Advocate Pravin Faldessai has written a strongly worded letter to the GSIDC Managing Director pointing at the contempt with failures in the construction of the High Court Building Complex and inordinate delay in providing basic infrastructure.
“There has been heavy water leakage in the basement parking lot. This actually is one of the classic failures of the construction agency, that there is rainwater seepage from the roof of the underground parking. Staircase lifts and exit points in this basement are jumbled and chaotic. The contractors/ agency/ designer/ consultants literally forgot to put any roof or rain shelter overhead at the ground level exit/entry of the basement, which work is now taken up and has also been ongoing for more than 8-9 months,” he stated.
Faldessai further lamented that barely two months from the inauguration, during the first monsoon, the building showed problems including leakages, water seepage and slippery floors. “The corridors were flooded with stormwater and there was a lot of leakage from the roof, not only on the top floors of the building but, surprisingly enough, even on the first floor. On the second floor, at several places, false-ceiling collapsed, narrowly preventing casualties and mishaps,” he recalled while slamming the “embarrassment” when plastic covers were used over the glass roof tops of the brand new High Court building.
The ASG also took a dig at the expertise GSIDC boasted of stating that despite having a fleet of engineers and designers; and external agencies, consultants, designers and interior decorators engaged by the GSIDC, the problem prevailed.
“It is beyond understanding as to why such agencies are required for the corporation which is specifically created for infrastructure development having inhouse, a whole convoy of experts. Further irony is that, neither your inhouse engineers nor the external/engaged agencies/ consultants/ contractors or so-called experts can perform and deliver any decent results. And looking at the state of the High Court building, it is unfortunately proved that such agencies are a complete failure in planning, execution and accomplishment of satisfactory work,” he stated.
Faldesai also expressed utter disappointment that while the building came up at a huge cost of Rs 115 crore, more several crores are spent on maintenance and improvements. Moreover, it is learnt that the Registrar of High Court reported to GSIDC several issues – failures in the construction and design.
Requesting to look into the entirety of the issue and ensure no wastage of public money, the ASG has called for examining whether the amount spent on maintenance, repairs, etc should be recovered from the contractors and consultants and consultants should make good all the failure at their own cost.
He also sought to know whether such contractor/ consults/ agencies are required to be blacklisted and proceedings – civil or criminal – required to be initiated against them.
“Agencies working for/on government projects cannot have a casual and careless approach. If your agencies/ contractor/ consultant working on the project of the High Court itself have so much casual and careless approach one can only imagine the fate of other projects in the State. You need to look into this and take immediate action in this matter rather than waiting for the Supreme Court or the High Court to take action within the powers and jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or under their Writ Jurisdiction,” reads the letter, a copy of which is also marked to Union Minister for Law and Justice and Secretary (Law) Department of Legal Affairs.
