The Palike, in March 2005, purchased lab equipment for high schools and junior colleges by spending more than Rs 10 lakh. But prior to that it made no assessment whether such gadgets were required by the schools. Besides, only two persons bought the tender application of the BBMP and eventually one submitted it. And, the Palike bought equipment from the person who submitted the application. Thus, there was no competitive bidding at all.
All this and more has made the Chief Auditor to find fault with the Palike, in his annual report for 2005-2006. He has directed the Palike to recover the amount spent from the officer responsible for the purchase of the gadgets through a wrongful procedure.
Interestingly, there was no demand from the high schools and colleges for lab equipment. The Palike had asked the educational institutions to submit proposals  regarding the necessary lab gadgets in October 2004. While a few institutes responded with their proposals, many did not. Those who sent the proposals mentioned their choice of  equipment. They also indicated what they don’t require. But the Palike purchased certain gadgets ignoring the proposals.
The Palike purchased five gadgets - steam engine, optical kit (2 sets), magnetic kit (2 sets) and other two - for all high schools though there was no demand for those gadgets from any of the schools. Total money spent on the purchase is Rs 4,15,536.
Similarly, the Palike purchased DM Plant with digital meter (5 pieces), electronic balance (6 pieces), polarimeter (15 pieces) and compound microscope (23 pieces) at the total cost of Rs 5.04 lakh for junior colleges. There was no demand from any of the colleges for any of these items, the audit report pointed out.
Quid pro quo
The process of allotting tender for purchase of gadgets is also suspicious. Advertisement inviting tenders was given in newspapers on March 1, 2005. The tender proposals were opened on March 7, within seven days after advertisement was published. Two people had purchased tender forms and only one submitted it. The report said that the single tender proposal should have been cancelled as it does not offer chance for competitive bidding.
Interestingly the price list quoted by the applicant was similar to what was listed in the estimation prepared by the Palike. “Similarity in price quoted by tender applicant and the estimation of department clearly shows that service provider and officers of the palike had mutual understanding,” the report states.
The auditor points out that the Palike had not constituted an expert committee to decide on gadgets necessary for schools and has suggested that Education Officer can be held responsible for the misdeeds.