PANJIM: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has indicted urban local bodies (ULBs) and the Department of Urban Development (DUD) for deprivation, loss and fraud in ULBs to the tune of more than Rs 200 crore.
In the report for the year ended March 2016 and tabled in the Legislative Assembly on Monday, the CAG has come down heavily on municipalities and the department for mismanaging government properties and not taking appropriate steps from 2011 to 2016.
In its initial remarks the CAG states, “The actual receipts and payments for all the five years were much less than the budget estimates. This indicated that ULBs did not prepare the budget estimates by analysing the trend and pattern for previous periods. No annual development plan was prepared by the municipalities for undertaking development works.”
The CAG noted that the DUD instructions to adopt plinth area rates notified by PWD for working out property tax were not followed by the ULBs. “The method of assessment of property tax differed from one ULB to another ULB. This resulted in non-realisation of revenue of Rs 11.54 crore,” the report stated.
The report further states that the ULBs did not follow the directions of the DUD to adopt PWD notified rates for estimating the cost of construction and computing the licence fee. This resulted in lower estimation of property cost and construction licence fee involving loss of revenue of Rs 6.52 crore. Besides, construction licences in respect of 1029 properties were not renewed annually. This led to non-collection of revenue of Rs 13 crore.
The CAG audit observed that 1519 shops in seven municipalities were leased out without renewing agreements and their rent was recovered at lower rates. The CAG has calculated short realisation of revenue of Rs 9.89 crores in this matter.
Referring to the capital city’s inefficiency, the report states, “We found that no tangible action was taken to collect rent and evict the municipal property at Panjim from illegal occupation. This deprived the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) of revenue of Rs 4.28 crore in respect of 296 shops.”
Further, the CAG has taken exception to the CCP’s inability to check illegal occupation of municipal land. The report states, “Land measuring 1594 sq mts continued to be under illegal occupation in Panjim. This resulted in loss of revenue of Rs 2.16 crore in the shape of rent to the CCP.”
The CAG has taken note of the new municipal market constructed by GSUDA in Ponda, where out of the 195 shops only 41 shops were allotted until August 2016. The reports states, “In Ponda there was delay of three years in allotting the market space. This deprived the ULB revenue of Rs 1.41 crore.”
Concerning municipal properties leased out to petroleum companies, the CAG noted these were not renewed by the ULBs on their expiry. “The rentals were not collected resulting in short recovery of Rs 15.31 crore,” the report said.
The CAG audit has found 15 mobile towers in two municipalities which were erected without obtaining necessary permissions. “In 4 ULBs permission granted in respect of 71 towers was not renewed. This led to non-recovery of renewal fee and property tax of Rs 1.38 crore,” the report stated.
The report also indicts the municipalities for their failure to recover the arrears of tax collection. CAG points out, “Audit found that no targets were fixed for collection of arrears. The tax arrears increased from Rs 33.90 crore in March 2012 to Rs 62.10 crore in March 2016 ie by 83 percent.”
The report further points out the failure of the municipalities to take benefit of the 13th and the 14th Finance Commissions as the prescribed conditions for release of performance grants were not fulfilled. “This deprived them of performance grants of Rs 28.26 crore pertaining to the period 2011-2015”, the report states.
The CAG has reported deficiencies in preparation, maintenance and audit of accounts of the municipalities. The report informs, “Audit noticed instances of fraud, misappropriation of Rs 52.91 lakh indicating inadequate internal control.”
The CAG remarked, “ULBs were unable to undertake major public development works or create capital assets without the support of the state government. No service-level benchmarks were found to have been formulated for measuring service delivery of ULBs.”
