Advertisement

Funds For Flyovers, Not Schools? Court Questions Rs 4.69-Crore Bhopal Tender

A division bench questioned why the government needed to float a new Rs 4.69-crore tender for repair and maintenance work when the contractor was still responsible for rectifying the defects free of cost during the maintenance period.

Funds For Flyovers, Not Schools? Court Questions Rs 4.69-Crore Bhopal Tender
The case concerns the Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Setu, one of Bhopal's major flyovers.
Bhopal:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has raised questions over the state government's spending priorities while hearing a dispute over a fresh Rs 4.69-crore maintenance tender for a Bhopal flyover. During the hearing, the court reportedly observed that money appears to be available for such works, while lack of funds is cited when it comes to schools, health centres and court buildings.

The observation came as a division bench of acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal questioned why the government needed to float a new Rs 4.69-crore tender for repair and maintenance work when the contractor who built the flyover was still responsible for rectifying the defects free of cost during the maintenance period.

The court's question was pointed: if the work is already the contractor's responsibility and can be done without additional cost to the government, why issue a fresh tender involving another Rs 4.69 crore of public money?

The High Court has now stayed the process of the fresh maintenance tender for the Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Setu near Rani Kamlapati railway station in Bhopal and directed the contractor to rectify all the defects and submit a compliance report at the next hearing.

The September 3 written order records that the contractor was ready to cure the defects pointed out by the authorities during the defect-liability period. It further states that the government had proposed cancellation of the contract, blacklisting of the petitioner and a fresh tender costing Rs 4.69 crore for work which the contractor was "bound to do free of cost during the maintenance period."

"Till the next date of hearing, the process of the new tender shall remain stayed," the High Court ordered. It also directed the contractor to remove all the defects and submit a compliance report before the court.

Latest and Breaking News on NDTV

The case concerns the Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Setu, one of Bhopal's major flyovers, connecting the Gayatri Mandir and DB Mall side with Board Office Square, Pragati Petrol Pump, Mansarovar Complex and Ganesh Mandir. The flyover, located near Rani Kamlapati railway station, was inaugurated by Chief Minister Mohan Yadav in January 2025 and was constructed at a reported cost of around Rs 153-154 crore. Questions over the quality of the structure had emerged soon after it was opened. An inspection by senior Public Works Department officials found shortcomings in the riding surface and finishing. Departmental action followed against officials, and the contractor was asked to undertake repairs at its own cost.

The issue resurfaced during this year's monsoon after defects were again reported on portions of the flyover. Officials inspected the structure on July 30 and pointed out defects to the contractor. The contractor was asked to rectify them within three days, and a show-cause notice was issued on August 1. Proceedings were subsequently initiated against the company, including proposed blacklisting.

However, even as action against the original contractor was being considered, the department floated another maintenance tender worth Rs 4.69 crore for the flyover. This became the key issue before the court.

The petitioner argued that repairing defects during the defect-liability or maintenance period was already its contractual responsibility and that it was willing to undertake the work. The court's written order records the same position that the proposed tender was for work which the contractor was required to do free of cost.

It was against this backdrop that the bench reportedly questioned the government over its financial priorities. The court observed that funds were apparently available for such expenditure, but when the requirement concerned school buildings, community health centres or court buildings, shortage of funds was cited.

Show full article

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world

Follow us:
Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com