Usgao P’yat to file plaint against 5 panchas

The panchas defamed the p’yat after they alleged irregularities in the purchase of electrical items; Sarpanch says he followed proper procedures

PONDA: The Usgao-Ganjem Panchayat on Friday passed a resolution to file a police complaint against five panch members for defaming the panchayat after they had alleged irregularities in the purchase of electrical items.
Speaking to Herald, Usgao Sarpanch William Mascaranhas said the panchayat body also passed a resolution to serve notice on the five panchas for failing to return the electrical material, despite a resolution to that effect in the panchayat.
Meanwhile, Mascarenhas on Tuesday refuted allegations by four panchas that he had failed to follow proper procedure while purchasing electrical materials for streetlights worth Rs 5.04 lakh.
Mascarenhas along with five other ruling panchas Ramnath Dangi, Devanand Nanuskar, Tulshidas Prabu, Tushar Balve and Sunanda Naik said the five panchas who filed a complaint with the Directorate of Panchayats claiming irregularity of over Rs 5 lakh in purchase of electrical goods were frustrated, adding that the complaint was filed to defame the panchayat.
According to Mascarenhas, few months back they invited quotation for electrical goods, including tube light fixtures of a company, and the contractor had supplied the material.
“After distributing it to each panch, it was noticed that the goods belonged to another company. The panchayat unanimously resolved to return the goods to the contractor and asked him to supply the goods of the company which were mentioned in the quotation,” said Mascarenhas.
“All the panchas were requested to return the goods so that the contractor can replace the goods,” he added.
“Seven panchas returned the goods, while four of the five complainant panchas who are in opposition and presently claiming fraud of Rs 5 lakh did not return the goods and instead filed a false complaint with the Directorate of Panchayats,” he stated.
The sarpanch and panchas claimed that they have not paid to the contractor yet and added that the question of irregularity did not arise.

Share This Article