ALLEGATIONS OF NEPOTISM AND RIGGING IN TENDER PROCESS

ALLEGATIONS OF NEPOTISM AND RIGGING IN TENDER PROCESS

15-MARCH-ENG 8

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA---------------------------The budget meeting of the Municipal Corporation was marked by uproar, during which councilors raised serious questions regarding the functioning of the corporation's administration and the Mayor. The councilors allege that the current budget is not only anti-development but is, in fact, a "budget of plunder" that fosters corruption and nepotism. The key issues raised by the councilors immediately upon exiting the meeting have exposed the ongoing financial irregularities within the Municipal Corporation.

The councilors stated that they had submitted significant proposals for amendments to the budget under Section 82-6 of the Bihar Municipal Act. In the House, the Mayor himself acknowledged that amendments to the budget were necessary and that ample time had been available to effect them. However, when the councilors urged for a new date to be scheduled for a detailed discussion on the matter, the Mayor rejected the request outright.

The revenue figures presented in the budget appear to be far removed from reality. According to the councilors, the estimated income from advertisement tax was approximately ₹15 crore; however, official records list this figure as zero. Similarly, the "tower tax" collected from mobile towers has also been recorded as zero—a claim that is entirely baseless and highly suspicious. The corporation's administration also failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the revenue generated from *Sairat* (miscellaneous sources) and market levies, thereby fueling strong suspicions of massive financial misappropriation.

The councilors also raised questions regarding procurement activities undertaken during the previous financial year. It is alleged that the Municipal Corporation purchased dustbins worth approximately ₹10 crore; however, these dustbins were never distributed across any of the wards or within the constituencies of any of the councilors. Ultimately, there remains no answer as to where these dustbins—purchased with the public's hard-earned money—have vanished. Furthermore, approximately ₹2 to ₹2.5 crore has been withdrawn under the pretext of sprinkling lime and bleaching powder; however, no tangible impact of these activities has been observed on the ground.

According to regulations, it is mandatory to allocate approximately 25 to 30 percent of the Municipal Corporation's total budget toward the upliftment of slum settlements and the provision of basic amenities within them. The councilors assert that the impoverished families residing in these settlements have access neither to drinking water facilities nor to adequate sanitation and drainage systems. When a list of slum areas—along with details of the developmental works undertaken therein—was requested in the House, the authorities maintained a complete silence.

Among the various allegations of corruption, the most serious issue concerns the allocation of tenders. The councilors have alleged that tenders are being submitted—and subsequently awarded—in the names of the Mayor's relatives, specifically his brothers-in-law, Ranjan Ji and Abhijit Ji. The fact that members of the same family are handling responsibilities ranging from major tenders to the supply of even the most minor materials constitutes a clear-cut case of conflict of interest and abuse of office.

The opposition witnessed during this budget session of the Ara Municipal Corporation has made it abundantly clear that a game of financial misappropriation is being played out under the guise of urban development. The councilors have demanded a high-level inquiry into all these financial irregularities and allegations of corruption to ensure the proper utilization of public funds and to guarantee the genuine development of the city. Without transparency and accountability, this budget will serve merely as a means to line the pockets of a select few influential individuals.