The Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation’s standing committee meeting was disrupted after corporators objected to Commissioner Vijay Suryawanshi’s absence while a proposal involving Rs 60.18 crore in payments to contractors was under consideration, despite the commissioner being present in the civic headquarters.
The meeting was held on Wednesday, with the standing committee scheduled to consider an increase or reduction in payments linked to 14 allegedly bogus suction-related works. The proposal involved bills totalling Rs 60 crore 18 lakh 68 thousand, according to the report.
When the issue came up for discussion, corporator Sulabha Ubale drew attention to the commissioner’s absence. Additional Commissioner Vikrant Bagade reportedly told the committee that the commissioner attends meetings when he is present in the municipal corporation building.
Corporators then sent an employee to the commissioner’s fourth-floor office to confirm whether he was in the building. After confirming his presence, members objected to his failure to attend the standing committee meeting and demanded that he be called before the committee. The finance and accounts officer, Satyawan Ubale, was also not present and was similarly sought by the members.
The confrontation reflected a wider dispute between elected representatives and the municipal administration over access to senior officials and accountability for proposals placed before the committee. All-party corporators alleged that Suryawanshi repeatedly avoided attending the standing committee’s meetings, did not provide answers and did not give time to corporators or citizens.
The members demanded that the commissioner be called immediately and that the meeting be adjourned until he appeared. However, the standing committee chairman continued the proceedings and completed the meeting, the report said.
The payment proposal was especially contentious because it concerned 14 works described by the corporators as bogus suction-related works. The reported value of the bills places the issue within the committee’s financial oversight role, but the report does not provide details of the contractors, the works, the basis for the alleged irregularities or the committee’s final decision on the payments.
The reported absence of both the commissioner and the finance and accounts officer also meant that the members sought explanations from the officials directly responsible for the civic administration and financial processing of the proposal. The report does not state whether either official subsequently appeared before the committee or whether the disputed bills were approved, deferred or referred for further examination.
The immediate next step is the response of the commissioner and the finance and accounts department to the questions raised by the standing committee over the Rs 60.18 crore payment proposal and the officials’ absence from the meeting.
