A complaint seeking an independent investigation into the handling of construction materials at Delhi’s National Zoological Park has raised questions about how supplies issued for repair and construction works were recorded, stored and ultimately used. The complaint has been sent to the Prime Minister’s Office by wildlife activist Ajay Dubey, who has sought financial and technical audits of the transactions.
The issue concerns materials handed over to the zoo’s maintenance officials even though a Civil Construction Unit (CCU) was responsible for carrying out construction and repair work. The report is based on departmental records that document the transfer of bricks, cement, sand, earth-moving material and labour services on different dates.
A record dated 18 June 2025 states that 313 cubic metres of good earth, 31.20 cubic metres of fine sand and 15.60 cubic metres of coarse sand were handed over to maintenance in-charge Rajneesh Pandey for flooring work and other activities at the elephant enclosure. Another transfer record dated 3 November 2025 lists 76.50 cubic metres of good earth, 46.81 cubic metres of coarse sand, 1,048 cement bags and 24,000 bricks. The same record also mentions the provision of a tractor-trolley and labourers.
A further record dated 19 January 2026 mentions the transfer of 60 cement bags, 18.08 cubic metres of coarse sand and 46 days of labour services. These documents establish that material and manpower were transferred on the stated dates, but they do not by themselves establish how much material was finally consumed or whether a financial irregularity occurred.
Dubey has alleged that stock registers, material issue registers, measurement books and utilisation certificates needed to verify receipt, storage and consumption are unavailable. He has also questioned the arrangement under which materials were issued to the maintenance in-charge while construction work at animal enclosures and other locations was being carried out through the CCU.
The complainant has described this as a possible case of duplicate expenditure, alleging that the same work may have involved both transferred materials and CCU-based execution. He has further alleged that leftover material was returned to private contractors at lower rates and that some supplies were used at the official residence of the zoo director. These allegations have not been independently established in the supplied report.
The complaint seeks scrutiny of purchase and approval files, material transfer records and payment documents, along with physical verification of the sites where the work was carried out. Such verification would be necessary to determine whether the recorded supplies correspond to completed works, whether unused materials remain accounted for and whether any overlap occurred between departmental material transfers and CCU expenditure. The report does not mention a response from the zoo administration or the PMO on the complaint.
