It was said that the Lavalin deal was worth 376 crores . But now it is said that the total payment made to SNC Lavalin was only 185.1 crore. So the story about crores keep fluctuating….
The CAG classified the total loss considering the defective machines brought in, the loss due to lack of production for some period etc. Deshabhimani is talking as if there is no loss due to lack of production. The finance minister says it is all ‘mind arithmetics’. When he says each harthal is a loss of these many rupees, what is he saying?
CBI is now talking about the loss from our pockets, without considering the loss of money which would have reached our pocket had things been undisturbed.
And by whose standards is 185 crores negligible?
Justice KrishnaIyer says CBI is trying to target people
Gone with the next wind. KrishnaIyer tried to be quoted out of context and got what it deserved.
But this newspaper didn’t even give his clarification after having misquoted him as the head news the previous day. None other than the resident editor trapping Krishna Iyer.
This is their opinion regarding CBI also. If they feel its favorable, then all praise else backstab. If CBI is so bad why did the cabinet complain of the center government not imposing CBI investigation in Marad case, just the previous week? What was the demand for the Muthanga struggle?
UDF agreement in 1995 is the ‘Original Agreement’.
Yes. UDF agreement was original and was a 24 crore agreement for consultancy. LDF agreement was ‘Duplicate’ and is a 285 crore agreement for supply of goods. LDF agreement is termed duplicate as the contract for supply of machines were given to a consultant middleman and not the manufacturer.
G Karthikeyen should have been the first accused- Thomas Issac
No debate . Let him also be booked. But will all murderers be let off till Sukumarakurup is booked?
But here the finance minister is saying that the deal is corrupt. Just that he feels there should be some more accused. No debate on this and the CBI might do so when the investigation is over.
“Global Tenders were not possible as the ‘original agreement’ was signed by UDF”
Preparation of tender papers were part of the Consultancy agreement signed by UDF.Will Deshabhimani say that it was mandatory that goods should have been procured from SNC Lavalin? No ,even they can’t say so as SNC Lavalin does not manufacture anything. That means it has to be procured from some firm which is a manufacturer. They actually procured it from Alstom, Canada. Why didn’t we procure it from Alstom? The question is instead of we doing the procurement why was it handed over to SNC Lavalin thereby spending much more as commission.
Even if we agree to avail loan from EDC, we could have called for tenders from Canada. Then we could have procured these goods from Alstom or any other firm there at a much cheaper cost. But instead we decided to accept loan with conditions against the proclaimed policy, used middlemen and ended up paying huge commission .
Having done that, why did we again make the payment for consultancy and supervision? Whom did we expect SNC to supervise? Themselves?
“The news of Pinarayi Vijayan being one of the accused appeared in many newspapers much earlier. This is enough evidence for connivance between the investigating agency and these newspapers.”
Deshabhimani says they will tell the truth, early. In the Brahmapuram case, it reported weeks earlier that Padmarajan is going to be booked. Did it connive then? There are many such examples. They are talking as if there is no investigative journalism.
A week before Pinarayi was formally named an accused, Deshabhimani published an article which appeared in People’s Democracy 6 months back, in the front page. This article was saying CBI is baised. Why was that article reproduced, then? Why did it find its way to the front page rather than the usual edit page? Does this mean that Deshabhimani also tried to connive with CBI but failed?
“Had LDF decided not to proceed with supply agreement, we should have given huge compensation. Hence Balanandan report could not have been honored.”
This is an utter lie. This is as good as saying if we get an architect to sketch for a house, we should construct it. No consultancy report can force a democratically elected government. We should realize that such governments are higher than not just NHPC but SNC Lavilin’s report also.
Also, It is like saying we continued the same mistake that UDF did because otherwise the UDF would have been exposed.
And about the compensation(if at all) being ‘huge’, after all the project itself was worth only 24 crores and we ended up loosing much more.
“If we had decided not to proceed with supply agreement as per Lavalin’s consultancy report we could not have carried out the renovation work in the near future”
This is again not true. And this contradicts their above argument. Balanandan committee was suggesting that such total Renovation was not required in the near future. So here they are saying they could have stuck to Balanandan report.
“Not just that, if signing the agreement with SNC was delayed, then the target of increasing power generation would also have been defeated.”
Not even one unit was additionally generated. CAG has remarked that the renovation failed in even achieving the pre-renovation generation capacity .
The target also was not enhanced production but just replacement and installation of new units to ensure same production levels. The reason cited for the complete renovation was that the fair life period of these machines were only 35 years. Hope they will not tell Sreemathy teacher that in human beings ageing starts at the age of 25.
In fact suggestion by Balanandan committee would have enhanced production but that suggestion was ignored.
“NHPC has opined that the rates are comparable with international rates”
Another lie. NHPC has said the rates are comparable with international rates “keeping in view the soft loan with Grant element”
“NHPC was entrusted with the responsibility of crosschecking the rates shown in consultancy agreement before proceeding with that agreement further.”
Again a lie. NHPC was consulted only 8 months after the Supply agreement was signed by LDF government.
“The democratically elected Cabinet is higher than NHPC”
Then why NHPC at all….. If that is the case, since MD is bigger no auditors are needed in any firm.
“It is said the agreement was broken into three to bypass CEA. But that was because these are three different projects. Else they should have said all projects in Periyar are one.”
How was it negotiated? How was it written in files? Why were no other projects in Periyar clubbed with this?
“Criticising something after it has obtained cabinet approval is anti-democratic. CBI just need to enquire if there was cabinet approval. It need not go beyond that and check whether a minister has mislead the entire cabinet.”
The statement makes everything very clear…. Apply for a ‘mappusakshi’ …
“The grant of 45 crores was made 98 crores. But this is not appreciated.”
They could have made it 980 crores …. What use if nothing is paid?
Thomas Issac in Mathrubhumi (29/01)“Original agreement, Consultancy agreement, MOU, Supply agreement, Final Agreement ... It is confusion allround . This is what anti-party forces are aiming for”
Who used all these terms? Just search the newspapers of the previous one week. And If it is Thomas Issac and co, you know what was the intention now.
Issac Mathrubhumi (29/01) “ The issue is regarding the oldest projects Pallivasal(1940), Senkulam (1954) nad Panniar (1963) renovation. The common understanding is that after 25-30 years, renovation and replacement should be done. Balanandan report was received only a few days before traveling to Canada for signing the final agreement “
This means Pallivasal was 57 years old, Sengulam 43 and Panniar 34 years old. This itself revokes the ‘common understanding’ that after 25- 30 years the stuff should be replaced. If he still keeps that ‘common understanding” then he should have alook at the generation capacity after renovation.
About receiving the report only days before signing the final agreement, that is another way of saying the final report was signed just 8 days after Balandandan committee submitted its report. That is Issac for you. Would have been nice if he could also tell us the reason for the hurry, especially after appointing a committee and asking them to give a report in 2 months. Especially since the project was just because of the ‘common understanding’ that 25-30 years it should be replaced and not for increased power generation. Why was this ‘common understanding’ lacking in 1987? And would have been great if he had also said that the cabinet approved this only after one year.
Issac: I trapped Karthikeyan and he finally agreed After having availed loan from Canada, we cannot go for global tender.
No consultancy can force us to avail a loan. The loan from EDC was availed by Pinarayi.
The consultancy report suggested this loan but we decided in 1996 when the ministerial delegation visited Canada and availed it only in 1996 . This portion is hidden purposefully. Then what Issac said is true. After having availed EDC loan you cannot go for a global tender but you can go for a tender in Canada.
The machines were procured from Alstom Canada by SNC Lavalin. Instead why couldn’t we procure it from Alstom directly? Or some other Canadian firm? Which clause in EDC loan conditions prevent this? Can Issac make this clear?
“Neriamangalam, we had signed the MOU. But no consultancy agreement. We cancelled the MOU and went for global tender. But the court ruled in ABB’s favour”
Very True. But the court clearly said it is because the project plan was not changed at all. Here we were rethinking about the whole project plan which is clearly our prerogative.
If we had stuck to Balanandan report, no one could have stopped us or gone to court.
The consultancy agreement was only worth 25 crores. So the argument that supply was part of it is absurd.
“Pinarayi reduced the rates as shown in the table and increased the grant….”
Me : “How much did they offer?”
Issac/Pinaray : “45 crores”
Me : “You bargained and they increased it .Right?”
Issac/Pinaray : “Yes , I made it 98 crores”
Me : “Good, What did you do with that?”
Issac/Pinaray :“We paid Technicaliya 8 crores for building, they we got cheated by SNC and Karthikeyan/UDF”
Nice Bargain!!. And the finance minister out defending it. God save your own country.
(After all, he knows which areas not to thread. Saying nothing about Malabar Cancer Center and Technicaliya )
What about the comparison given by Thomas Issac? The rates which UDF agreed was reduced.
Thomas Issac who has made many tables in his essays knows best that he should compare between two equals. UDF agreement required us to pay only 24 crores to SNC Lavalin. Then what 182 crores is he talking about? So he is comparing between a brochure price and the price we actually paid.
Karthikeyan should have been among the accused
Agreed. Are you saying Pinarayi is as good as Karthikeyen?
23) After Renovation we got power worth 1100 crores – Deshabhimani (29/01)
Wait for another 5 years it will become 2200 crores . But the author has published another tableand is not as shrewd as our finance minister. The power generation before during the project and after the project is also shown. Just take a look at the power generation from 1994 to 1998 , from 1998 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2008. The table .
clearly tells you what happened. Poor guy, I only hope he does not loose his job.
24) The total amount spend for the project is only 333.8 crores. Then how can CAG say we lost 376 crores? –Deshabhimani PMManoj (29/01)
Just ask your colleague Mohandas. In his report mentioned in the above question, he has given the table which clearly tells you the generation from 98 to 2002 decreased. This loss is added to the 338 crore by CAG. If you don’t understand just ask Mohandas how he got 1100 crores. Before quoting him and asking TVR shenoy whether he will be shocked you should have known this.
25) Karthikeyen went to Canada . As a follow up Nayanar and Pinarayi went to Canada and continued it.
Poor Nayanar. Please spare him. Why is Deshabhimani hiding the fact that Pinarayi visited Canada along with the first accused and that Nayanar went there only after the deal was finalized.
26) Neriamangalam project shows, getting out of the consultancy agreement was not possible.
About Neriamangalam, the reply is given above in question 19. But just have alook at questions 7 and 8 in this list. The same author has said that if we had gone by Balanandan report then we could not have carried out the same project in the near future. Can he explain these two statements? Here he says we could not get out at all. But there he says if we had got out of it then the total renovation could not have been done soon after. This statement is because of the Neriamangalam verdict. In fact that verdict is an argument for those who say we should not have gone ahead with the project. Now they are making a dog out of a goat.
27) “We should have gone to Paris to fight it out in the court “
That is if we had cancelled the consultancy agreement and if we had refused tomake the payment of 26 crores. Then we should have gone to Paris and fought it as per Indian laws. But not if we have made another commitment of 185 crores.
28) “ The laws of Ontario province was made applicable in the agreement between KSEB and EDC for the loan” – PM Manoj Deshabimani (29/01/09) ‘Maram Peyyumbol’
You have let the cat out.
That Global Tenders were not possible is a loan condition of EDC. Who signed this loan agreement? If the LDF government did, who put us ina situation where Global tenders are not possible? Even you will not say it was a condition imposed by SNC Lavalin and not EDC. Because not just NHPC , a foreign consultant like SNC Lavalin also is not above our Cabinet.
Can CPI(M) avail loans with such conditions?
Did Sivadasamenon’s Finance ministry say that this particular clause is “something which no sovereign state can agree”. Did the law ministry also support it?
Did Pinarayi write that Varadachary is a madcap in the file?
Now that you have agreed that EDC loan and thereby money for the project was gained by LDF, will you stop confusing people about Original, duplicate….
29) Balanandan committee was not expected to consider this project. The Nayanar ministry approved this project because it had no other option but to go with it as the consultancy agreement was signed and because the power generation should be improved.
That Balanandan committee didn’t rise or fall as per your expectation is understandable.
And it is also true that Nayanar ministry had no other option but to approve this. But not because the consultancy agreement was signed. The cabinet considered this only on March 3, 1998 where as the agreement for supply was signed in February 10, 1997 itself.
Hence the ministry had no other option. Let Deshabhimani contest these dates. About power generation, the table of power generation published today tells the story. And Thomas Issac’s article clearly says it was because of the ‘common knowledge’ that these machines should be replaced every 25 years that we went with the project.
30) “The price list is given in the UDF agreement in 1995 itself. NHPC was consulted to see if the price is justifiable. They said it is comparable to international standards. Other than taking this in face value what else can a government do?” PM Manoj Deshabhimani (29/01/09) ‘ Maram Peyyumbol’
Now you ask “ other than taking NHPC on face value what else can a government do” but 2 days back you and Mr Prabha Varma said “ NHPC is not above the elected government”. (Please don’t loose your stability)
When NHPC was consulted, did you send them the ‘reduced price’ as against the price listed in UDF agreement?
When was NHPC approached? They were approached in October 1997, 8 months after the agreement for supply was signed. They submitted the report only on Nov 1997.
Was NHPC given the technical specification asked for? NO. they said in the final report that even after repeatedly asking for it the technical specifications were not given without which they could not evaluate the price.
Did NHPC say the prices are comparable? Yes But only because of the Grant element.
Was the cabinet apprised of this and presented the report of NHPC? No, relevant portions were purposefully hidden says CBI.
31) That KSEB is referred to as a company is just a typing mistake
The KSEB officials who found their way to the accused list and others missed it out is a joke. It was very clearly said “company registered under companies act of 1956” and was not just a mere word.
Could you also explain us what was the KEISP (Kerala Energy Infrastructure Services Project) which is clearly referred in the minutes of the ministerial delegation which visited Canada ? Did it say of dividing KSEB into different cost centers and forming a company?
32) “When we buy a bulb for home, we can buy Chinese stuff woth Rs 500 or a Japenese one ... Casting opinion without knowing its technical side ... you can just stretch Yourselves”
This is a revelation. You should think about this before saying the 26 member expert committee whose suggestions helped Kerala overcome the acute power crisis didn’t have the expertise to look into this particular project.