06 Sep 2019  |   05:18am IST

Citizens oppose Rs 1 lakh per day to Fomento to handle Sonsoddo waste

Citizens oppose Rs 1 lakh per day to  Fomento to handle Sonsoddo waste

Team Herald

MARGAO: An urgent meeting of like-minded citizens and taxpayers was held in Margao to discuss and deliberate on the decision of the municipality to pay Fomento Green Rs 1 lakh per day to handle the segregated waste at Sonsoddo. 

At the meeting, the citizens adopted a resolution to explore the possibility of approaching the High Court against the offer of 1 lakh payment to Fomento in case appropriate action is not taken by the Council or the government. 

Councillor Avinash Shirodkar, ex-councillor Auda Viegas, Laurel Abranches, Agostinho Gama, Edward Lourenco, Navin Raikar, Sunil Naik and several other NGO members were present at the meeting. 

The Shadow Council for Margao has alleged that it appears that the court is deliberately not presented with facts giving advantage for the undue extra payment at the cost of the taxpayers of Margao. 

Most of those present observed that, since arbitration matters don’t wind up early, if Rs 1 lakh per day continues to be paid, it would not take long for the Council to go bankrupt. “This in turn would force the Council to hike taxes and sanitation fees. Therefore, dissolve the council and appoint an administrator as they are doing nothing good for the people of the town,” Sunil Naik demanded.

The participants were unanimous in their decision to demand that the Council and the government should legally address the issue and save the public exchequer from unwarranted financial burden. 

Councillor Savio Coutinho said, “Right from the bidding time in 2009-10, Fomento had quoted Rs 7.41 crore and another bidder Rs 5.35 crore in the first bid. In the second bid, that is, the money for running the plant, Fomento did not quote anything and though it was Rs 2 crore extra in the first bid the High Power Committee decided to award it to Fomento. Today they are claiming Rs 14 crore on basis of their valuation. It was the duty of MMC to appoint a valuer and check what they claimed. This in itself suggests that there was some deviation of agreement. Why should the MMC pay anything more than the tendered amount?”


Iddhar Udhar