Subscribe via email

Grab our RSS Feed

BJP to approach CIC over RTI case disposal

Sikkim Express
GANGTOK, November 5: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has been dragged into a ‘deletion’ controversy with the State BJP party today sending representations to various Central agencies including the Central Vigilance Commissioner alleging foul play in the CAG report of 2007 tabled in the Sikkim Assembly last year.
The CAG found itself in the centre of the controversy after an RTI appeal of the State BJP vice president Padam Chettri was disposed off by the State Appellate Court.
Chettri had alleged Urban Development department of providing illegal relief to Nayuma Television and had tried to support his claims with the CAG report.
Speaking in a press conference today, the BJP vice president reiterated his allegations against the department and announced his decision to take the matter further to the State Chief Information Commissioner. He accused the Urban Development department of misguiding the Appellate Court over the issue by saying that there is no CAG report on non-payment of required entertainment tax and penalty by Nayuima Television for a period between February 2003 to June 2006 , resulting into a loss of around 4.89 crore rupees.
Chettri told that the department produced a letter from the AG Office Sikkim about audit committee meeting which told about deletions of such observations. He also accused the AG Office Sikkim too of allegedly colluding with the State Government in the matter and has appealed the Central authorities to probe into the issue.
When contacted by the news persons, the Deputy Accountant General AF Dungdung told that certain deletions had been made at the meeting of the Audit Committee in the Inspection Report of the Office since those observations had already been included in the CAG’s Audit Report. He said that the observations made in the CAG report which was tabled in the State Legislative Assembly remain intact as any alteration in those can be made by the Public Accounts Committee of the House only and that too according to the laid down norms.
The CAG authorities have expressed their apprehension that the Urban Development department may have confused the Inspection Report, which was made available to them by the AG Office, with the CAG’s Audit Report in filing the reply to the Appellate Authority.
Regarding the ‘the alleged CAG report does not exist’ by the Urban Development department, the CAG authorities said that it was a wrong statement by the department.

Leave a Reply