Company official denies councillor’s allegations in execution of LED project

Ajay Joshi
Tribune News Service
Jalandhar, October 13

The controversy on the implementation and execution of the LED light project in city seems to stay for long. In August this year, Municipal Corporation (MC) councillor Rohan Sehgal had briefed Local Bodies Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu on alleged loopholes in the MC’s ambitious project. He accused the company, executing the project, of not only using low-voltage lights but also accumulating more money by presenting wrong figures.

Sehgal said when the contract was made in 2016, the company had mentioned that after removing the incandescent light bulbs of 150 watts, 60-watt LED bulbs would be installed, however, almost at every street, the company had installed 18-watt bulbs.

There were also allegations regarding the bidding amount. During the bidding, the MC had fixed the amount at Rs 40 crore, whereas it was stretched to Rs 274 crore. It was the only company present at the bidding and as per rules the amount could be stretched only up to 30 per cent of the actual amount. Moreover, he further alleged MLA Bawa Henry, along with a few residents, caught the company workers installing the 18-watt lights.

Terming these allegations baseless, Paramjit Singh, executive director (ED) of the company, PCP International Private Limited, that was given the charge of installing the LED lights, said allegations made against the company were false, instead the MC had failed to provide them the security payment.

He said the company did not even asked for the installation charges and the deal was fixed at drawing the benefits from the cost on the energy being saved by using the LED bulbs.

The company would have a share of 89 per cent on the energy saved and 11 per cent share would be given to the MC.

Paramjit Singh also said, as per the Tripartite agreement, the MC failed to submit the security payment amount in the bank. Clarifying various allegations made by the councillor, he said the tender was given to the company after a proper e-tendering process was executed. On the questions raised on the blacklisted company, HQ Lamps, the ED said at the time of the tender submission in December 2016, the company had given a declaration that none of the consortium members or associate partners were blacklisted. Also, it was verified that no company that formed a part of the bid was blacklisted. Street lights have also been supplied and fitted by HQ Lamps in Chandigarh recently. It has come to company’s notice now that in December 2017, the EESL has banned HQ lamps for a period of one year, whereas, the lights were certified by the NABL.

On the allegations raised on branded lights not being used and doubts on the quality of the product, the company claimed: “Our lights are technically adhering to the parameters asked for in the tender. We used LED chip make of Osram 160 LM watt, compared to 100 LM watt asked for in tender. LM 80 report of Osram has also been provided to the MC.”

While clarifying the allegation on the cost of the project that was fixed at Rs 40 crore but the Municipal Corporation awarding the same at Rs 274 crore, the ED said the budget for the project was Rs 274.33 crore which was approved by the House meeting on December 5, 2016, after which a tender was floated. The Rs 274 crore included the electricity bills that are to be paid to the PSPCL over the next 10 years and is not an income of the PCP firm.

The company representative also clarified about other allegations.

Meanwhile, Sehgal maintained that the company was involved in corruption and it was the only firm during the bidding. No other national or international company showed interest in the project with the tender amount of just Rs 40 crore due to the convenience of MC officials. In addition to installing low-voltage bulbs, the company was accumulating more money.

Fact file

There were also allegations regarding the bidding amount. During the bidding, the MC had fixed the amount  at Rs 40 crore, whereas it was stretched to Rs 274 crore. It was the only company present at the bidding and as per rules, the amount could be stretched only up to 30 per cent of the actual amount.