Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Petitioner threatened after HC pulls up DMB over irregularities

By Staff Correspondent
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo

DIBRUGARH, March 2 - In the wake of High Court directing the Dibrugarh Municipal Board chairman to produce relevant records relating to order on work issued on 01.02.2019 to some 102 contractors and also asking the Board to halt consequential steps pursuant to the order till next date, several contractors undertaking road development works under the Dibrugarh Municipal Board today gave vent to their anger on the petitioner, Rachna Jain, the Ward Commissioner of Ward No. 11.

The contractors, who fear losing all their investments in the road development works, demanded that Rachna Jain withdraw the petition. The office of the DMB was witness to huge commotion as a few also reportedly threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. Rachna Jain, however refused to give in to their demands. �My fight is against corruption in the DMB and not with the individual contractors. My fight against corruption will continue,� she told The Assam Tribune.

Rachna Jain had approached the Gauhati High Court after her appeals to the higher authorities fell on deaf ears. The order issued on 01.02.2019 by the Chairman, Dibrugarh Municipal Board relates to selecting 102 numbers of contractors for the work �Upgradation by Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement� under the scheme �Development of Roads with Pavers Block in Dibrugarh Town� for the year 2018-2019 under Urban Development Department, Government of Assam amounting to Rs 11.5 crore approximately.

The petitioner has alleged that while selecting the contractors for such work, provisions of Section 64(2) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 have not been complied with in as much as contract entered into with the contractor has not been signed by at least two of the members; besides, there was no meeting of the Board before finalising the list of contractors.

Earlier, the petitioner had also written to the Municipal Administration Department, Guwahati alleging irregularities and violation of Guidelines of The Assam Municipal Act, 1956 by Dibrugarh Municipal Board chairperson. As per the complaint, contracts were awarded, especially tendering of markets, parking allotment, publicity hoardings and maximum contracts and purchases are being done without the sanction of the Board at a meeting, as required under section 64 of the Act.

Next Story
Similar Posts
Petitioner threatened after HC pulls up DMB over irregularities

DIBRUGARH, March 2 - In the wake of High Court directing the Dibrugarh Municipal Board chairman to produce relevant records relating to order on work issued on 01.02.2019 to some 102 contractors and also asking the Board to halt consequential steps pursuant to the order till next date, several contractors undertaking road development works under the Dibrugarh Municipal Board today gave vent to their anger on the petitioner, Rachna Jain, the Ward Commissioner of Ward No. 11.

The contractors, who fear losing all their investments in the road development works, demanded that Rachna Jain withdraw the petition. The office of the DMB was witness to huge commotion as a few also reportedly threatened the petitioner of dire consequences. Rachna Jain, however refused to give in to their demands. �My fight is against corruption in the DMB and not with the individual contractors. My fight against corruption will continue,� she told The Assam Tribune.

Rachna Jain had approached the Gauhati High Court after her appeals to the higher authorities fell on deaf ears. The order issued on 01.02.2019 by the Chairman, Dibrugarh Municipal Board relates to selecting 102 numbers of contractors for the work �Upgradation by Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement� under the scheme �Development of Roads with Pavers Block in Dibrugarh Town� for the year 2018-2019 under Urban Development Department, Government of Assam amounting to Rs 11.5 crore approximately.

The petitioner has alleged that while selecting the contractors for such work, provisions of Section 64(2) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 have not been complied with in as much as contract entered into with the contractor has not been signed by at least two of the members; besides, there was no meeting of the Board before finalising the list of contractors.

Earlier, the petitioner had also written to the Municipal Administration Department, Guwahati alleging irregularities and violation of Guidelines of The Assam Municipal Act, 1956 by Dibrugarh Municipal Board chairperson. As per the complaint, contracts were awarded, especially tendering of markets, parking allotment, publicity hoardings and maximum contracts and purchases are being done without the sanction of the Board at a meeting, as required under section 64 of the Act.