In a decisive move to safeguard contractual integrity, Municipal Commissioner Shekhar Singh has taken the step of canceling the contract for the terrestrial cable network in Pimpri-Chinchwad. The contract was awarded as part of the Pimpri-Chinchwad Smart City initiative and was valued at Rs 300 crore. The decision to revoke the contract came in response to concerns regarding non-compliance with contractual obligations by the partner company, Suyog Telematics Fiber Story Communication.
Ensuring Contractual Integrity
The Pimpri-Chinchwad Smart City initiative involved the establishment of a substantial 600 km underground cable internet infrastructure. In line with this, a tender was issued, outlining an income-sharing arrangement over ten years. The Municipal Corporation expected an annual revenue of 32.4 crores through rent from this initiative. Following a competitive tender process with three participating companies, the contract was initially awarded to Suyog Telematics Fiber Story Communication.
Objections and Concerns
However, concerns surfaced regarding the involvement of the company’s directors in a case related to a fake telephone exchange. These concerns were raised by NCP’s city president, Ajit Gavane, and former corporator Seema Sawale, who presented documented evidence supporting their objections. It was alleged that certain documents were forged during the tendering process.
Initially, despite these objections, the contract was approved. But in a subsequent reconsideration, the Municipal Commissioner decided to revoke the contract.
Contractual Obligations Unfulfilled
It was revealed that Suyog Telematics Fiber Story Communication had failed to provide the required bank guarantee and did not meet the specific terms and conditions outlined in the agreement. Therefore, the contract was officially canceled. Notably, Commissioner Singh clarified that the contract’s cancellation was a result of the failure to meet contractual obligations and adhere to agreed terms and conditions, rather than the legal charges against the company’s directors.
