Pressure Cooker Scam: Complaint Written To State Information Commissioner For BMC's Failure To Provide Information

A complaint has been written to the State Information Commissioner against the Maintenance Department of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s L Ward for not furnishing information regarding the Pressure Cooker Tender within the prescribed time frame. The complainant Nikhil Kamble, who is also the complainant in the Rs. 12.50 Crore ‘Pressure Cooker Scam’ has alleged that the assistant engineer of the maintenance department has deliberately kept the RTI application pending.

On August 13, the Free Press Journal had reported about the alleged Pressure Cooker Scam wherein the BMC reportedly bought 50,000 cookers at a cost of Rs. 12.50 crores, alleged to be four times higher cost than the market price. The drive was actually a part of a municipal social welfare scheme meant for the underprivileged living in L ward. However, BMC got them distributed by Chandivali MLA Dilip Lande and through a series of events, the latter passed off the initiative as his own by etching his own name on the cookers.

While the Saki Naka police station have started an inquiry into the matter based on the complaint written to the Mumbai Police Commissioner, the complainant Kamble had also sought information under the Right To Information Act regarding the tender for supply of pressure cookers in the Chandivali Vidhansabha. The application made on July 18, also demanded information about tender invitation and advertisements, sanctioned estimates, contract agreement and the tender committee proceeding.

However, the public information officer (PIO) failed to provide the information and issues a letter to the complainant for inspection of records and documents. Kamble alleged in his complaint that the PIO did not allow inspection on the given time and provided only a part of the information sought by him. Through the complaint, Kamble has pleaded to initiate an inquiry by recommending disciplinary action and impose a monetary fine on the PIO.

Talking to The Free Press Journal newspaper, Kamble said, “After the prescribed time frame of 30 days, the assistant PIO sent me a letter summoning for inspection. When I appeared on his demand, neither did he carry out any inspection nor did he provide me the information. This is the reason I had to file a complaint against it. I think that the officer does not have the record of information and therefore he is not furnishing it.”