While congratulating the people of Shimla who have just been
informed of putting Shimla in the Smart city list I think one phase of the
struggle is over. You all know how this struggle was built brick by brick.
Initially from the data being fudged to intervention in the High Court and
finally challenging even the outcome of the state level high powered committee.
All this we could do because of the support and sheer will of the people of the
city. I would like to attach here the letter that I had written to Sh Venkaiah
Naidu after the outcome of the state level high powered committee. Once again
this was managed , maneuvered and against the wishes of the people. The letter is self explanatory.
While it is important that the residents of Shimla city
rejoice in the outcome but I would also like to make them cautious. I don’t think
the struggle is over and this is what I could gather in the smart cities expo
in Delhi. What does this mean? It means that the second phase of struggle as to
who will prepare the plan for a smart city? How will it be guided etc. I am very apprehensive about all this . Why ?
Because the plan that we want to make for Shimla is not and has not to be
guided by the sheer interest of the big corporates of the world and the country
who are trying to steer this exercise. The plan has to be completely people
centric , to be prepared by the strong presence and intervention of the people
of course the elected ones as well so that things can be prioritized in right
earnest and not finding solutions with a pro corporate vision. I am not saying
it is wrong or bad what I am trying to say is the interests are different and
it is these interests that have to be taken care of . So once again while
congratulating the people of Shimla I once again call on them to be vigilant
and participate in all the exervices for making Shimla into not just a smart
but what I always call A ‘Dream city’.
Excerpts from the letter written to Venkaiah Naidu written on smart city issue.
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 :-
1.
.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.
3. 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.
4.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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
New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment