There have been irresponsible accusations against the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India, especially after the submission of his reports to Parliament regarding allotment of coal blocks and the 2G spectrum. The CAG’s findings eventually led to the actions in the hands of the CBI and became a bitter pill during the general elections.
The same trend of accusations has now manifested itself in a crude form relating to the CAG reports to the Odisha legislative Assembly ending with the laying of the report for the General and Social Sector (Volume-3) for the year ended March, 2012. The CAG had earlier submitted a report of Performance Audit of allotment of land by General Administration Department for Bhubaneswar city for various purposes. The subsequent report covered acquisition and allotment of land for industrial purposes by the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) and planning and regulation of buildings, including allotment of land/houses for residential purpose by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the Cuttack Development Authority.
These are the reports on the basis of Performance Audit by the CAG represented by the local Accountant General. They reveal a disturbing picture, indicating several instances of failure and favourtism. Strangely enough, there have been negative reactions from industry associations coupled with subdued murmurs of protest from the State Executive. It has been alleged that the CAG has encroached into the so-called discretionary domain of the administration. Such unfortunate reactions are partly influenced by improper appreciation of the CAG’s powers, functions and role and conditioned by the oblique object of suppressing instances of maladministration.
While commenting on the performance of the (regulatory) development authorities, the CAG has inter alia observed that the building of the Police Commissionerate, the Annexe building of Nirman Soudh and Fortune Tower of IDCO at Bhubaneswar have been constructed without approval of any building plan as per law. The CAG has further found that there were 15 buildings in the BDA area, including the three above Government buildings, which were constructed without approved building plans. The CAG also catalogued illegal acquisition of land for industries, allotment of land without proper assessment of appropriate requirements of land and disbursement of compensation to the land losers at rates lower than they were entitled (amounting to crores of rupees). The CAG report pointed out very disturbing features of illegal acquisition and allotment of this limited resource, viz., land. The CAG also identified irregular mortgage of land and unauthorised issue of “no-objection certificates” to promoters for enabling such mortgages. These instances are illustrative and the CAG reports dealt with several other aspects of mal-governance.
There have been reactions, latently within Government and patently from organisations representing industries. There is an apparent lack of appreciation of the CAG’s role as a creature of the Constitution of India for ensuring public accountability. The critics are probably unaware that the CAG also undertakes the Performance Audit of revenues of the State assessed under different Acts. The CAG reports on errors in interpretation of law in collection of different forms of receipts, including taxes, (which fall within the domain of quasi-judicial statutory powers). The CAG’s powers emanate from Article 151 of the Constitution read with the 1971 Act of Parliament regulating the powers, functions and duties of the CAG.
In the context of the irregular grant of right to mortgage (subleased) land and issue of no-objection certificate to promoters by the IDCO, there is an apparent lack of appreciation of the legal provisions. The Government sanctions land in the IDCO’s favour under the OGlS Act read with Section 32 of the Act creating the IDCO. Such Government land is leased out to the IDCO under Ss. 31 and 32 of the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (OIIDC) Act, 1980. The IDCO is authorised to sublease the land to industries. As the Government is the “primary lessor” and the IDCO itself a lessee, permission of primary lessor is a requirement of law to enable mortgage by the sub-lessee, i.e., the industrial entities, to raise loan for their projects.
The CAG noticed that the IDCO unauthorisedly conferred mortgaging rights through the sublease, executed with 52 MoU-based and 54 non-MoU-based industries relating to 46,732,894 acres of land. The IDCO also irregularly issued NOC to 26 MoU-based industries for mortgage of 13,846.238 acres of land to raise loan for financial institutions. The unauthorised permissions were the foundation of obtaining loans to a tune of `52,423.50 crore in a case of 12 promoters of MoU-based industries by improper mortgage of 8,489.82 acres. The concerned Government department had not authorised such mortgages. The Revenue & Disaster Management Department stated (April 2013) that the IDCO was not conferred with the power of grant of such permission to companies. The department also instructed the IDCO to submit necessary proposals with detailed justifications for evaluation on a case-to-case basis. The department further stated that in consultation with the law Department, it is being examined whether the OIIDC Act / Rules thereunder required to be amended to enable mortgage facilities.
Such findings, based on legal provisions, cannot form the basis of tendentious criticism and colourable tirades against the CAG. Such trends do not project the beneficiaries in a favourable manner. The unfounded allegations against the CAG regarding the comments on the functioning of the BDA and the CDA in the discharge of their statutory functions are equally irresponsible. It is also ironical that reckless allegations are made against the CAG, who has been reposed with the trust and honour of conducting audit (including Performance Audit) of the UN and its organisations on more than one occasion. The ill-informed criticism is based on the erroneous premise that the CAG is some form of a “Munim” of the Union or State Government. The CAG is a Constitutional functionary to ensure public accountability, which includes pervasive and meaningful performance audit in furtherance of achieving the socioeconomic goals of different schemes and activities.
The critics are probably unaware that the CAG is empowered to evaluate utilisation of grants to private bodies, to undertake performance evaluation of public investments including those in PSUs and to undertake performance audit of programmes like MNREGA. The CAG reports have led to prosecution of defaulting parties and authorities found to be indulging in misuse of power resulting in irregular and illegal diversion of funds for objects other than the authorised ones. Under the Supreme Court’s direction, the CBI is already seized of many of these matters.
Odisha having the largest number of poor in the country, it does not behove some elements and entities to malign the CAG in an unbecoming manner. Public accountability is an instrument of corrective and remedial measures. Revelations through exercise of Constitutional power of public accountability indicate the standards and quality of performance in the hands of the Government. Irresponsible criticism of this legitimate activity on the CAG’s part is disruptive and counterproductive. One would, therefore, hope that persons or entities, who may be displeased with the CAG’s evaluation and findings, should familiarise themselves with the responsibilities, duties and functions assigned to the CAG under the Constitution and the 1971 Act. The motivated tendentious and baseless adverse criticism of the CAG without adequate appreciation of the Constitutional duties of the CAG is a disturbing feature, specially in an impoverished State. One would only hope that in the days ahead, there will be some application of mind to the important Constitutional functions of the CAG. The present trend of orchestrated irresponsible criticism against the CAG is indicative of lack of knowledge and gross non-appreciation of the functions of a Constitutional instrument of public accountability. All conscious and alert citizens ought to go through the CAG reports relating to different spheres of governance in Odisha. This would establish that it is utterly fallacious to labour under the notion that the CAG is a “Munim” of any Government. And this certainly concerns us.
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editorand a former Advocate General of Odisha, jayantdas@hotmail.com)