Team Herald
MARGAO: Madgaonkars are in a total dilemma over the issue of alleged favouritism being shown to the concerned sopo contractor engaged by the Margao Municipal Council (MMC). Now, even a group of councillors smell a big scam and corruption pertaining to the contract awarded to sopo contractor.
Surprisingly, the name of the person mentioned in the contract agreement is different from the one, who is actually involved in collecting sopo from the vendors.
Even the phone number of the contractor is not traceable in the files. Reliable sources from the MMC said that one Alam Sayyed is collecting the sopo, but when contacted Alam refused to accept his involvement when Herald tried to take his reaction on the issue.
“I am not involved in sopo collection, and I have nothing to do with the sopo contract,” Alam Sayyed said, whose number has been provided by the reliable sources from the civic body, stating that they deal with this number in case of any issues pertaining to sopo collection.
However, in the official agreement, the name of sopo contractor has been mentioned as Sadiq Banu Sayyed, but no contact number of his in the official files raised suspicion.
A three-month extension given to the sopo contractor is coming to an end this month. The civic body is yet to start with the new tendering process, but few councillors alleged that the conditions are framed in such a way that the same contractor gets the contract again.
The RTI information revealed that the sopo contractor did not fulfil the condition as per Clause 3 of the agreement, where it was mandatory for the sopo contractor to deposit Rs 9, 53,012 with the council and an irrevocable bank guarantee of Rs 19, 06,025 as a security deposit, immediately after the sopo contractor was declared the successful bidder at the auction held on February 26, 2021.
Besides, the illegal waiver of Rs 32 lakh of sopo contractor’s dues by the MMC sparked major controversy. A section of councillors alleged that the resolution taken to waive off Rs 32 lakh was illegal and it was in violation of the 162 of Goa Municipal Act.
