Breakdown in oversight and monitoring, a controversial switch from GI to HDPE pipes, and the sidelining of Panchayati Raj institutions are among the irregularities flagged by the Jammu & Kashmir House Committee in its 1,252-page report on the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) in the Union Territory. Tabled in the Assembly on September 21, the report is the culmination of the committee’s year-long investigation and highlights “gross negligence of administrative machinery” in implementing the scheme.

The committee, headed by former High Court judge and sitting National Conference MLA Hasnain Masoodi, reviewed departmental records, Detailed Project Reports, tender documents and “whistle-blowers’ assertions”; conducted field inspections of multiple schemes across J&K; interacted with locals, stakeholders, engineers and officials of the district and implementing departments; and analysed source failures and water quality data.

The report notes that the “Apex Level Committee” constituted to monitor the implementation of JJM at different levels “did not carry out its mandate as laid down in the order and delineated in the Terms of Reference.”

Story continues below.
Subscribe to see fewer ads.

“The story of failure of JJM in J&K to achieve results in the fixed time frame is the story of gross negligence of the Apex Level Committee, Executive Committee, District Level Committees and Officers who manned the Committees,” the report states.

The result, the report says, has been an absence of proper planning, supervision and effective monitoring. It also flags the decision to shift from Galvanized Iron (GI) pipes to High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) three years after the Mission was launched, blaming the Apex Level Committee for “allowing such a major decision to be taken at the lower level” to seemingly play safe and not be held accountable for the consequences.

The move, made in the Jammu Division, has drawn controversy, with the committee claiming it was done without proper revision of the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs).

Alleged negligence in maintenance and safety of stores, misplaced priorities, substandard civil works and irregularities in laying the pipe network are among the other issues highlighted in the House Committee’s final report.

Story continues below this ad

The departmental response recorded in the report states that although the scheme was announced on August 15, 2019, with a target completion date of 2024, in J&K, especially during the initial 2.5 years, “not much work could be executed due to August 2019 related constitutional changes that took away almost four or five months, followed by winters and then the COVID 2019”.

The department also stated that the manner in which execution was to take place “underwent substantial changes during initial two-years period, whereas as the rest of the country thought of methods and even handed over the entire district to a single company or tendered the entire scheme to a particular company and in J&K these methods were also tried but did not succeed for the various reasons which are typical of J&K, especially geographical constraints, road connectivity, non-availability of local skilled manpower, etc”.

The report states that while JJM had carved out a key role for all ‘community institutions’ down to the gram panchayat/pani samities, the committee’s on-site visits found that these institutions were denied their roles in all facets/components of the scheme.

“The denial of role mapped out under JJM for PRI [Panchayati Raj] institution, Gram Panchayat and its sub-Committees facilitated commission of gross irregularities by the JJM engineers and contractors on ground,” the report states.

Story continues below this ad

The committee has recommended constituting a “High Level Committee” to enquire into lapses committed by members of the different committees. It has also urged that the panel examine the mechanism/procedure followed by the UT-level purchases committee while awarding contracts for procurement of DI/GI and HDPE pipes and other material, while fixing responsibility on officers, officials, contractors, suppliers or agencies “found responsible and involved in procurement, approval or utilisation of “substandard material”.