AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
Villagers in Anju na have raised serious ques tions over a tender floated by the village panchayat for 28 works, alleging that at least four of them had already been completed before the tender notice was issued. The Anjuna Panchayat is sued the tender notice in a local daily on July 31, 2026. The four works, according to documents accessed by O Heraldo and a subse quent site inspection, were already completed when the tenders were invited. Resident Pradeep Har malkar has written to the Block Development Officer (BDO), seeking cancellation of the tender and an inquiry into the matter.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In his letter dated August 14, Harmalkar alleged that inviting tenders for works that had already been com pleted amounted to misap propriation of government funds and a violation of due procedure. The four works listed in the tender were the beauti fication of the Ganesh visar jan place at Pequeno Chivar in Ward VI, estimated at Rs 4.82 lakh with a stipulated completion period of 90 days; construction of the collapsed bandh protection wall near Ganesh visarjan at Malbar bandh in Ward VII, estimated at Rs 4.82 lakh and also carrying a 90-day completion period; con struction of the collapsed bandh protection wall on the other side near Ganesh visarjan at Malbar bandh in Ward VI, estimated at Rs 4.82 lakh; and supply of RCC slabs from Raj Garage to Melvin House, estimated at Rs 4.8 lakh. Harmalkar, who is employed with the Goa Police, alleged that most of these works had been carried out in May and questioned why tenders were subsequently invited. “It is shameful that the sarpanch, Surendra Govekar, and panchayat secretary, Rui Cardoz, should stoop to such low levels. Most of these works were done during the month of May and it is now obvious that the works were done with out inviting tenders,” he alleged.
When contacted and specifically asked whether the works mentioned in the tender had already been complet ed, Anjuna Sarpanch Surendra Govekar initially replied in the negative. He later called back and said the complaint was wrong. When informed that the locations mentioned in the complaint had been physically inspected, Govekar said the complainant had shown O Heraldo the wrong places. “If I am wrong, then the panchayat must explain why their members have been coming to me and begging me to withdraw the letter to the BDO. They should file a com plaint against me if they are in the right. Of what are they afraid?” Harmalkar asked. Harmalkar’s allegations have also found support among some local residents. “Whom are they trying to prove their innocence to? All villagers know that the works tendered for have already been done,” said local resident Balbhim Malvankar. “Harmalkar is himself a policeman. Does the sarpanch expect us to take his word or rely on the proof Harmalkar has?” Malvankar questioned. A local businessman, who did not wish to be identified, alleged that the four works may have been included among the 28 items in the hope that they would escape scrutiny. “They cannot fool all the people all the time,” he said. The tender notice states that applications, along with the cost of the tender form, had to be submitted by noon on August 10, 2026.
The notice is signed by Sarpanch Suren dra Govekar. The controversy has also raised questions about compli ance with the procedures governing panchayat works and contracts. Section 179 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, empowers the government to frame rules relating to the invitation and acceptance of tenders for works, contracts and supplies. Villagers have now demanded a government inquiry into the circumstances in which tenders were invited for works they claim had already been completed. “We expect a high-level government inquiry into how tenders have been invited for works already completed. Action should be taken against the sarpanch and the sec retary if it is established that the panchayat attempted to defraud the government,” said a woman villager, who re quested anonymity fearing retaliation.
