CAG tightens noose on CCP market committee

CAG tightens noose on CCP market committee
HERALD REPORTER
PANJIM, FEB 12 : While the market committee constituted under mayor of Corporation of the City of Panjim (CCP) bypass its responsibility to favour “illegal occupants “ of market complex and those involved in the market scam, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is learnt to have “tightened the screws” on the culprits in its recent audit.
We have certain information that CAG in its audit of the CCP, have found a lot of irregularities in the way shops came to be occupied in the market complex and have also sought explanation from the CCP.
When contacted CCP Commissioner Elvis Gomes, said CAG had raised some aspects of the market scam in last audit but they now sought more details. I have had sent complete report to the government also suggesting what corrective action needs to be taken. The recently constituted House Committee is expected to look deeper into the issue. “
The CAG is also learnt to have thoroughly scrutinized the role of the market committee which was constituted to sort out the problem but acted otherwise. In its meeting on April 8, 2010, market committee resolved to regularize illegal occupants (vendors) on ground that it was not practical to shift them elsewhere.
Thus it in effect recommended regularization of intruders who occupied the CCP property without formal allotment. It also passed a resolution favouring intruders even as none of the occupants had posed any hindrance. The resolution has subsequently approved by the CCP in August 16, 2010.
The lease agreements of CCP with tenants specifically prohibits sub-lease. The erstwhile council in its meeting on January 1, 2000 had adopted a resolution that leased premises could be transferred only to the family members of lessees after the death of the lessees and decided to levy administrative charge of Rs 1000.
Viewed in this background, recommendations of the market committee were in gross violation of section 75 of the CPC Act, 2002 and sections 2 (h) and 5 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and Rules.
The CAG in reports learnt to have focused on these irregularities of the market committee.
The CAG has also taken a serious cognisanse of the decision of the CCP to grant extension of 15 days to 35 shops there were sealed on being found closed. Grant of extension of 15 days time apparently, gave the impression those (illegal occupants) were legitimate occupiers when in reality none had any documents to support their claims.
The CCP Commissioner in its report (July 2010) to the government stated that shops built in the first phase were occupied by 52 persons between July and August 2003 and concerned officials had denied knowledge of how those occupants were directed to occupy the shops either by the then mayor or then commissioner or both without fixation or collection of rent.
He had further revealed in his report that ground floor of phase II was completed and inaugurated in January 2007 and occupation of 62 shops and 446 platforms spaces by different types of vendors, took place without administrative intervention.
Queries by CAG Whether any of the lease agreement with occupiers of old market were valid, at the time of completion of new market?
Whether the CCP executed any agreement furnished by present occupiers along with transfer fee?
What steps were initiated to evict the illegal occupants, especially when there is no agreement with any of the occupants?
Action taken to recover money from occupiers from illegal sale of CCP’s property without any authority and whose names and addresses along with copies transfer deed were available with the corporation?
Whether the vendors in new market were issued with trade license?
Phase I of New Market was completed and occupied from August 2003.
Ground foor and first floor of Phase II was completed in Januray 2007 and January 2008, respectively.  Govt incurred total Rs 15.33 crore on its construction.
Some vendors encroached without any formal allotment and valid agreement with CCP.
Occupiers also sub-released the premises after receiving sizable amount towards consideration.