<p>The controversial amendment to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement (KTPP) Act, which exempted the state-run Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd (KRIDL) from a tender process for works up to Rs 2 crore, was pushed by the Cabinet despite objections from the Advocate General (AG), Law and Finance Departments.</p>.<p>Cabinet documents accessed under RTI shows that Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi had observed that such an amendment would set a bad precedent.</p>.<p>“If an exemption was made out to an organisation like KRIDL, (other) similar entity would also come up seeking such exemption, thereby defeating the very object and purpose for which KTPP Act was formed,” Navadagi had written.</p>.<p>“Looking from any angle, in my opinion, there are no relevant and overwhelming materials placed to show that KRIDL should be exempted from the Act,” the AG had written to the state government on January 18. The amendment was proposed in January this year and was cleared by the Cabinet in March.</p>.<p>The views of the Navadagi was based on a note put by ISN Prasad, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance department. Prasad, subsequently wrote to the government, seconding the AG’s view. “In view of the opinion of the AG, it is not advisable to carryout the amendment to KTPP Act....”</p>.<p>The issue of relaxing norms to KRIDL surfaced in 2019-20, when the government granted an exemption to the agency from KTPP Act for tenders below two crores through a notification. This was challenged in the High Court, which was observed by the Law Department in its note to the government.</p>.<p>“When the exemption granted in respect to a particular year itself is questioned before the High Court, it is not proper to proceed with the Amendment. That apart, even on merit, the amendment proposed by the Administrative department may not stand the test of law,” the Law department had said.</p>.<p>Yet, the government bulldozed through the controversial amendment despite objections from anti-graft activists and small contractors. Apart from allowing for corruption, there were allegations that small contractors in rural areas would be left jobless as the amendment allowed KRIDL to cherry pick sub-contractors for projects.</p>.<p>“The only purpose of the amendment, despite objections from key departments, was to facilitate corruption,” said Anil Kumar G R, who accessed the documents under RTI.</p>
<p>The controversial amendment to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement (KTPP) Act, which exempted the state-run Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd (KRIDL) from a tender process for works up to Rs 2 crore, was pushed by the Cabinet despite objections from the Advocate General (AG), Law and Finance Departments.</p>.<p>Cabinet documents accessed under RTI shows that Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi had observed that such an amendment would set a bad precedent.</p>.<p>“If an exemption was made out to an organisation like KRIDL, (other) similar entity would also come up seeking such exemption, thereby defeating the very object and purpose for which KTPP Act was formed,” Navadagi had written.</p>.<p>“Looking from any angle, in my opinion, there are no relevant and overwhelming materials placed to show that KRIDL should be exempted from the Act,” the AG had written to the state government on January 18. The amendment was proposed in January this year and was cleared by the Cabinet in March.</p>.<p>The views of the Navadagi was based on a note put by ISN Prasad, Additional Chief Secretary, Finance department. Prasad, subsequently wrote to the government, seconding the AG’s view. “In view of the opinion of the AG, it is not advisable to carryout the amendment to KTPP Act....”</p>.<p>The issue of relaxing norms to KRIDL surfaced in 2019-20, when the government granted an exemption to the agency from KTPP Act for tenders below two crores through a notification. This was challenged in the High Court, which was observed by the Law Department in its note to the government.</p>.<p>“When the exemption granted in respect to a particular year itself is questioned before the High Court, it is not proper to proceed with the Amendment. That apart, even on merit, the amendment proposed by the Administrative department may not stand the test of law,” the Law department had said.</p>.<p>Yet, the government bulldozed through the controversial amendment despite objections from anti-graft activists and small contractors. Apart from allowing for corruption, there were allegations that small contractors in rural areas would be left jobless as the amendment allowed KRIDL to cherry pick sub-contractors for projects.</p>.<p>“The only purpose of the amendment, despite objections from key departments, was to facilitate corruption,” said Anil Kumar G R, who accessed the documents under RTI.</p>
