The meeting of United Democratic Front (UDF) on Thursday called for a judicial enquiry into what Opposition Leader V D Satheesan termed the "corruption camera issue".
Satheesan also likened the charges swirling around the Keltron-AI camera deal to a scandal that has bothered Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan the most. The Opposition Leader called the AI camera deal the "second SNC-Lavalin". He said all those involved in the deal are either linked to the Chief Minister's Office or to the Chief Minister's networks in Kannur.
The SNC-Lavalin scandal refers to the alleged kickbacks involved in the KSEB's contract with the Canadian company in 1995 for the modernisation of Pallivasal, Sengulam, and Panniar hydel stations when Pinarayi Vijayan was Kerala's power minister. Though Pinarayi was exonerated by the CBI Court, the CBI has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
As has now become his style, the Opposition Leader raised several questions about the AI camera deal that he wanted the government to answer. Satheesan said he had seven questions but ended up asking more.
One, why was a company like SRiT (Sobha Renaissance Information Technology) India, which was not the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), given the tender?
The tender document has stated that the tender can be awarded only to the OEM or its vendor.
Two, why was the work on all core activities - data security, data integrity, configuration of equipment and facility management - subcontracted when the bid document clearly prohibits this?
Three, how come two of the bidders apart from SRiT - Ashoka Builders and Akshara Enterprises - became qualified to make a technical bid in the first place? Satheesan said Ashoka Builders was into construction and had no experience managing anything related to technology. Akshara Enterprises, on the other hand, was incorporated only in 2017.
The tender document specifically states that only those companies with a minimum experience of 10 years need to apply. "It has to be checked whether this was a cartel formed to ensure that the bid went to SriT without any hassle," Satheesan said.
Further, the Opposition Leader said that companies that were shortlisted should be both financially and technically qualified. The very fact that SRiT had to form a consortium with Prasadeo and others was proof that it did not have the financial muscle to pull off the project, he said.
Four, why were the details of the companies that Keltron had subcontracted to – SriT, Lyte Master and Prasadeo - hidden in the Cabinet note prepared for discussion on April 10?
"The Cabinet note gives the impression that the deal is between the government and Keltron. There is mention of neither SRiT nor any other companies like Prasadeo," Satheesan said.
Five, why did the company that won the bid (SRiT) leave the entire work to two other subcontractors and pocket a commission of six per cent?
"Why was the job not done by the winning bidder," Satheesan asked. "SRiT took a 'nokkukooli' (wages for no work) of Rs 9 crore while the other two subcontractors implemented the project. This was yet another instance of how the tender process was violated to pilfer government money," he said.
Six, why was a company like SriT, which was not technically qualified, awarded the contract in violation of tender procedures?
Satheesan said that two companies - Trois Infotech and Mediatronics - had written to Keltron saying that they would provide technical support to SRiT. "What does this mean except that SRIT is not technically qualified," Satheesan said.
.jpg.transform/576x300/image.jpg "Pinarayi Vijayan | File Photo: Manorama")
Seven, why was an additional Rs 66 crore set apart for annual maintenance when tender documents specify that annual maintenance and warranty were included in the bid amount of Rs 151 crore?
"The bid document states that the company that secures the bid should offer complete support for the project for five years, and this includes not just the installation of cameras but also annual maintenance and warranty," Satheesan said. "In fact, this provided SRiT an additional source of profit," he added.
Eight, how can the Industries principal secretary conduct an objective enquiry into the deal when industries minister P Rajeeve publicly justified the deal while announcing the probe?
"Now that the minister had taken such a public stand what is left for the principal secretary to investigate? Can the principal secretary give a report saying that the minister was wrong and that the project was riddled with corruption," Satheesan said.
Nine, what prompted transport minister Antony Raju to hide from even his cabinet colleagues the truth of a Vigilance probe into the deal?
Satheesan said the Cabinet note the minister had placed before the meeting on April 10 did not mention that a Vigilance probe was on into certain aspects of the deal.
Ten, if there was a Vigilance probe into the project why did the Chief Minister inaugurate the project with so much fanfare?
Cartel linked to CM's Office
Satheesan said that the directors of all the companies involved in the deal were linked to each other. "When I said that the Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society (ULCCS) was involved, it was denied. Now, it has come to light that ULCCS and SRiT had formed a joint venture," Satheesan said. 'The director of Trois, the company that offered technical support for SRiT, was found to be one of the directors of the ULCCS-SRiT joint venture," he said.
Further, he said Ashoka Builders that came second in the bid was a company that takes subcontract works from SRiT. "All of them belong to a cartel," he said.
Then, he made a new allegation. The Keltron managing director who inked the deal with SRiT, Hemalatha, went straight to ULCCS as the vice president of its technology solutions wing after she was removed from Keltron in 2021 following an allegation.
Satheesan said all the people involved are connected to the Chief Minister's Office or his networks in Kannur. "All the roads lead to one box," he said, stopping short of naming the Chief Minister.
