CAG Audit Uncovers Major Flaws in Dehradun Smart City Project
Social activists in Uttarakhand have called on the state government to critically examine the shortcomings highlighted in a recent Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report on the Dehradun Smart City project. The report, titled 'Implementation of Smart Cities Mission in Dehradun', was tabled in the Uttarakhand Assembly in Garsain earlier this week and identifies several irregularities in the mission's execution.
Activists Stress Need for Learning from Past Mistakes
This audit gains heightened significance following Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami's announcement to develop Garsain as a smart city. Activist Anoop Nautiyal emphasized that the findings must not be ignored. "This report should not be taken lightly, especially as the CM has now announced plans to develop other cities on similar lines, including Garsain. The setbacks, shortcomings and failures should become a template to ensure that similar mistakes are not repeated. Our agencies have to learn their lesson and come back to the drawing board with a holistic plan that does not lead to wastage of crores of taxpayers' money," Nautiyal stated.
Lokesh Ohri, founder of Been There Doon That and a former independent director with Dehradun Smart City Limited (DSCL), noted that the project initially held promise for improving urban management. "When the project had started there were some good ideas which, if implemented, could truly have made Dehradun better. However, the project ended up being under bureaucratic and political control. The implementation was farmed out to large corporate interests instead of trusting the local community. The projects were kept under wraps and inputs from citizens were not incorporated," he explained. Ohri added that authorities must learn from these errors if they plan to develop other cities in Uttarakhand along similar lines.
Key Findings from the CAG Report
The audit covered the period from 2017-18 to 2022-23, during which Dehradun was the only city from Uttarakhand selected under the Smart Cities Mission in 2017. DSCL was incorporated in September 2017 as a Special Purpose Vehicle to implement 22 projects with a total budget provision of Rs 1,000 crore. Of the Rs 737 crore released between 2016-17 and 2022-23, Rs 634 crore was spent.
The report highlighted that several proposed smart solutions were either dropped or remained non-functional due to poor planning. For instance:
- A biometric and sensor-based solid waste management module, costing Rs 4.5 crore, remained unused until February 2025.
- E-rickshaws procured under the smart waste vehicles project at Rs 0.9 crore were non-operational for nearly two years.
- Under the smart schools project, equipment worth Rs 5.9 crore in three government schools went unused because the schools could not afford the high electricity costs.
Sustainability concerns were raised for projects like the Doon Integrated Command and Control Centre and the e-bus initiative, due to a lack of viable revenue models. The report also detailed wasteful expenditures, including Rs 2.6 crore on environmental sensors and Rs 3.2 crore on a multi-utility duct.
Irregularities and Financial Mismanagement
Significant irregularities were noted, such as:
- Rs 5.1 crore in irregular payments to the project management consultant.
- Delays of 19 to 38 months in eight projects due to DSCL's failure to provide hindrance-free work fronts.
- Inadequate imposition of penalties worth Rs 1.4 crore for delays, benefiting contractors.
- Failure to recover Rs 19 crore in unutilised funds from an implementing agency.
Other issues included cost escalation of Rs 10.3 crore, execution of works worth Rs 2.9 crore without tenders, and financial mismanagement leading to losses like Rs 6.2 crore in interest and non-recovery of Rs 0.8 crore in interest on mobilisation advances. Overall, losses and irregularities exceeded Rs 50 crore.
The report also flagged a lack of coordination among line departments and questioned the special purpose vehicle model, noting that DSCL did not appoint full-time key executives, with district magistrates serving as CEOs and seven officers heading the body over six years.
