Session Number:  114
Date of Debate:  18-Jun-1980
Debate Type:  Part 2 (Other than Question and Answer)
Debate Title Subject:  CALLING ATTENTION
Debate Title:  Decision of the Delhi Development Authority to set aside the flrst Prize-winning entry for the proposed Rs-12 crores indoor Stadium for ASIAD, in favour of another entry which had won only a Consolation Prize.
Members Participated:  L.K. ADVANI
Page Number from to:  153-206
Issue Date:  12-Jul-2011
Appears in Collections: Part 2 (Other Than Question And Answer)


Decision of the Delhi Development Authority to set aside the first Prizewinning entry for the proposed Rs-12 crores indoor Stadium for ASIAD, in favour of another entry which had won only a Consolation Prize.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI (Gujarat): Mr. Vice-Chairman, I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Works and Housing to the decision of the Delhi Development Authority to set aside the first prize-winning entry for the proposed Rs. 12 crores indoor stadium for ASIAD, in favour of another entry which had won only a consolation, prize.

THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND HOUSING (SHRI P. C. SETHI): Sir, the Delhi Development Authority has intimated that as per the decision of the Delhi Development Authority a limited competition was held for selecting workable design concepts for construction of an Indoor Stadium at I. P. Estate. The site proposed for the stadium measures about 26 Hectares (65 acres) at the intersection of Ring Road and I. P. Marg. The proposed stadium was to be designed with a covered seating capacity of approx. 30,000 and suitable for holding the sports like Gymnastics, tennis, table tennis, basketball, volley-ball, handball, badminton, boxing, wrestling, weightlifting etc. of international standards.

The competition was limited only to the architects who participated in the architectural design competition organised by the New Delhi Municipal Committee for the Indoor Swimming Pool and|or by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for an Indoor Stadium in 1979, provided the competitor was registered under the Architects Registration Act, 1972.

14 entries were received in this competition. These were examined by the Board of Assessors consisting of the following:


  1. Lt. Governor of Delhi.


  1. Shri A. P. Kanvinde, Architect.
  2. Shri C. S. H. Jhabwala, Architect.
  3. Dr. O. P. Jain, Director, Indian Institute of Technology. New Delhi
  4. Administrator, NDMC
  5. President, IX Asian Games Organising Committee
  6. Member Secretary 7 Chief Architect, DDA

The Board of Assessors selected three concept designs and felt that the efforts put up by all the participants were praise-worthy. Board of Assessors recommended first prize of Rs. 50,000/- to M/s Raj Rewal, Ram Sharma and Mohinder (sic!) Raj, and two special prizes of Rs. 17,500/- each to other concept designs submitted by If Is. Sharad C. Dass and Design Consortium, and M/s. Pradhan Ghosh and Associates.

For examining the feasibility of the scheme; particularly from structural considerations and its execution within the time constraint, i. e. before Asian Games 1982, a Technical Committee was appointed with the approval of the Lt. Governor. This Technical Committee consisted of the following members:—

  1. Shri V, S. Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman, DDA.
  2. Shri V. R. Vaish, Retired Director General, C. P. W. D.
  3. Shri (Professor) K. A. Patel, Professor of Structural Engg., School of Planning and Architecture.
  4. Shri Y. N. Sharma, Chief Engineer, Structural, NIDC.
  5. Shri J. C. Khazanchi, Engineer Structural, NlDC.
  6. Shri R. S. Gupta, Engineer Member, DDA.
  7. Shri Ved Parkash, Chief Architect, DDA.
  8. Shri R. A. Khemani, Chief Engineer, DDA.

The Committee examined three prizewinning designs, selected by the Board of Assessors, in great detail. They discussed the various aspects of structural designs, timely construction etc. with all the firms of prizewinning entries. After analysing all the pros and cons, it was the opinion of the Technical Committee that the scheme submitted bv Messrs S. C. Dass & Design Consortium stands out as the best alternative. This exhaustive analysis as carried out was necessary before taking a final decision. There is nothing unusual with the procedure adopted because the technological considerations in this scheme were of paramount importance which needed full exploration. The Committee consisted of technical experts who are eminent in the field of structural and civil engineering.

This matter will be placed before the Delhi Development Authority for final decision in its next meeting.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Sir, it is by chance really that I saw the Indian Express news report yesterday under the heading “Decision on Staudium dismays architects”, in that, well known architect Mr. A. P. Kanvinde to whom Mr. Kulkarni just referred, was quoted as saying that this decision of the Delhi Development Authority to set aside the first prize-winning entry and select another entry which was not a prizewinning entry at all and which secured a consolation prize, was “an unethical act of the Delhi Development Authority.” This is what Mr. Kanvinde said. He went on to make several other pertinent observations in the same context. He said “After all a construction of this type would be a landmark in the nation’s life and would be built only once in a life-time, it is not like building a factory, or a shed.” It is this that made me feel interested and curious to find out what the matter was. Yesterday itself the Indian Express thought this matter fit enough for editorial comment. Under the caption “Architecture of Politics”—perhaps “Politics of Architecture” would have been a better caption—the editorial noted that “there seems to be more to it than bureaucratic fickleness.” I made a rew brief enquiries and the more I probed into the matter the more I felt that this kind of observation that there seems to be more to it than bureaucratic fickleness is a gross understatement, an absolute understatement. There is much, much more to the whole matter, and if it is not clarified, if the Minister does not apprise the House about the correct position, there will be misgivings and apprehensions and suspicions of a very serious nature, i have discovered not one but a host of features that are intriguing and that arose suspicions; indeed, I would say that they emit the stink of a scandal, of corruption, of favouristism, of arbitrariness and of a total lack of accountability.

Sir, this ASIAD is to be held in 1982. The competition was announced on April 20. Advertisements were put out in all the newspapers. I have seen an advertisement in the Statesman which carried the caption “Design Competition. For Indoor Stadium”. It went on to say; “the Delhi Development Authority proposed to hold a competition for architectural design for an indoor stadium to be constructed at the sports complex in Indraprastha Estate in connection with the Asian Games 1982. The stadium will have a sitting capacity of 30,000.” Three prizes were announced in that advertisement. There is no mention of any consolation prize. These three prizes announced were; First Prize—Rs. 50,000; Second Prize—Rs. 30,000; and Third Prize—Rs. 20,000. The last date for submission of entries, as announced, was May 19, 1980. A committee of ten Assessors, or a Board of ten Assessors, as the Minister put it, was announced. I have consulted many who are in this field. I have enquired from my colleague Mr. Piloo Mody, who is an architect himself. I have ascertained from many other friends also. They have told me that the Board of Assessors, particularly the three experts on the Board, are outstanding architects in their respective fields. Mr. Kanvinde’s name has been mentioned. Professor Jhabwala was another expert. Professor O. P. Jain, Director, IIT, New Delhi was the third expert on the Committee. This Committee held eight meetings in all, went through all the designs. There were 14 entries, 14 designs, that were submitted. On May 29 the Board of Assessors announced their findings. I have with me a copy of the minutes signed by the Assessors.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Is it authentic?

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE (Maharashtra): Is it ethical?

SHRI PILOO MODI (Gujarat): it is a public document. It is a public competition, a public report and a public result.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: You are talking about professional ethics. Any professional will immediately admit that we keep the secrets of our clients as something which, is absolutely sacred. It is never disclosed, and we never talk about it. Many times it happens that the clients get away from, us. There is temptation and they misbehave with us, but it does not mean that any professional work is stalled. Shri Piloo Modi is here. Would you ever give the secrets of your clients who may have refused to accept your advice? (Interruptions).

SHRI PILOO MODI: Since I do not know whether my clients are tax-evaders or not, I would.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: I do not know what variety of clients he has. I have a decent set of clients which include Mr. Modi, Sir. Sir, it is very highly unethical for any one, for any professional, to divulge the secrets of his clients. I would request Advaniji. He is referring to the minutes of the meeting of the architects and the decision.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: It is the Board of Assessors. It is like a judgement. It is like an award, a citation.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: It is a public document.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI; It becomes public when we keep it here.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: If it is a judgement of a High Court or the Supreme Court, it is a public document open to anybody. Any one else can cite it. But something which is decided in a conference among the professionals, which is entrusted to them, is not, because the DDA must have its clients. It is a secret, and to bring it here is highly unprofessional.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: You will see that all these are facts. (Interruptions).

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: I am not saying for a moment that it is not a fact. It is something which is not done. (Interruptions).

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SAWAISINGH SISODIA): Allow Mr. Advani to continue. (Interruptions).

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: The DDA has clients. Having engaged their services of these people, they would have come to certain conclusion. It is between the DDA and these peo-nle. (Interruptions).

PROF. SOURENDRA BHATTACHARJEE (West Bengal): It has come in the Press. It was a public competition.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: If it satisfies Mr. Salve, I am not going to quote it. The manner in which he is protesting indicates that there is something fishy about the whole matter. So far as these matters are concerned, there is nothing in them. He is unnecessarily protesting. All that it says is that Rs. 50,000 award, the first prize, goes to—I quote from the Indian Express again, I do not quote from the minutes—M/s. Raj Rewal, Ram Sharma and Mohinder (sic!) Raj. Their entry gets Rs. 50,000 award. What is significant is that this Board of Assessors came to the conclusion that out of the remaining 13 entries, not one was eligible for the second award and not one was eligible for the third award, so that the Minister’s statement made Just now that three prize-winning entries were placed before the Technical Committee. is basically wrong. The prize was only one. and that one prize was given to the entry that I have mentioned. No second prize was given and no third prize was given. However, it is said that a special award o!f Rs. 17,500 is awarded to entry bearing code number such and such. These are two entries to whom special awards were given. Further more, all the remaining 11 competitors are also awarderd Rs. 10,000 each so that if these two are to be regarded as prize-winning entries, the other 12 should also be regarded as prize-winning entries These entries were not recommended for the three prizes announced. Out of those three prizes only one was awarded.

Now, I come to a very significant point, namely, who are these two entrants who have been given special awards—Pradhan Ghosh and Sharad Dass? I tried to ascertain from friends here and there as to who they are and whether there is any significance that they should be given special awards. I learn that Pradhan Ghosh was the Architect of Maruti, and I am told that Sharad Dass was the Architect of that much-talked-about farm house of Mehrauli belonging to Mrs. Gandhi. These are the two architects who have been given special awards.

SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE (Karnataka): They were not paid professional fees perhaps.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: I do not know anything about it. It is for the Minister to reply to it. This disturbs me. And then what happens? This Board of Assessors, which consists of so many eminent men, having done its job, suddenly finds that its job has to be scrutinised by another committee. This Board of Assessors is paid perhaps. I would like to ask the Minister what they were paid. But after that, a technical committee, a so-called technical committee, comprising very ordinary, mediocre engineers, sits in judgment upon the findings of this Board. Out of these 14 entries, these three entries, namely, the one that secured Rs. 50,000 and the two entries of Sharad Dass and Pradhan Ghosh which secured special awards, are placed before that committee. And that technical committee says that out of these, it is only Sharad Dass who should be given this contract. This is what has happened.

Now I would like to understand very many things because I have a basic objection to this indoor stadium itself. I am told that within the last two days—it may be yesterday or it may be the day before—the Joint Secretary, Mr. Uma Shankar, of the Education Ministry has formally written to the DDA that the Education Ministry is not going to fund this indoor stadium, that it is not going to provide any finances to this indoor stadium. I would like to ascertain the facts from the Minister. Is it true that the Education Ministry has refused to give a single paisa for this indoor stadium? Is it true that the Cabinet itself, which has gone into this question at length, has not sanctioned construction of this indoor stadium which, it is said, will cost Rs. 12 crores? Now, when these 14 entries came, when they gave their estimates, they calculated the cost as Rs. 9 crores on the basis of the 1977 schedule. And the persons concerned have told me that by the time the stadium actually comes up, the cost will be more than 100 per cent in excess of this. The total cost may be about Rs. 20 crores, excluding air-conditioning. And what will be the air-conditioning cost for an indoor stadium of this size which, some friends tell me, exists nowhere in the world except in Atlanta? Not even for the Moscow Olympics is there a covered indoor stadium of this size, with a capacity of 30,000. The National Stadium that we have here is an open stadium and its capacity is 26. 000. And the proposal is to build a covered indoor stadium with a capacity of 30,000 and that, too, at the Indra Prastha Estate which a German engineer said three years ago is not at all a suitable place for a stadium of that size.

Sir, I would like to put some questions to the Minister. What is the amount that was sanctioned by the Cabinet for the ASIAD? Is it true that only Rs. 26 crores have been sanctioned and that this proposal for an indoor stadium does not find any place in the list of approved schemes under that Cabinet decision? How does the DDA propose to finance the stadium? I live in Delhi and I know that today 1,80,000 persons belonging to the middle and low income groups have registered themselves with the DDA. They want to have houses, dwelling places of their own. They have all deposited certain sums of money. And I really wonder, is the DDA going to utilise this deposit money for the construction of the stadium? If the Government has not given money, if the Education Ministry refuses to give finances, then how is it going to be constructed? Is it not a fact that the actual cost of the stadium, as I said, is likely to exceed Rs. 20 crores, that it would be nearly Rs. 25 crores? It has been suggested in the statement just now made by the Minister that the technical committee was necessary in order to examine the structural feasibility of the proposals of the entries and also to see whether they would be able to complete the work within the timeframe. Now I notice here, I have the brochure—programmes, rules, regulations and other details relating to the design competition for an indoor stadium—published by the DDA and priced at Rs. 250; on page 3 the rules very specifically say, “All the entries will be judged on the basis of structural feasibility and its soundness, ease of construction, concept and environment, economy and use of indigenous building materials and flexibility in the design and uses thereof”. It very specifically says in the introduction that this is in connection with the forthcoming Asian Games to be held in Delhi in 1982 and to “achieve these objectives within the time constraints it is proposed to promote a limited competition”. So the competitors knew that if they are to give an entry, they have to take into account the time constraint, they knew that the board of assessors also have to judge the entries on the basis of structural feasibility. So all these factors which are being now attributed to the technical committee were before the board of assessors. And this board of assessors did its duty very conscientiously, very well. But it did not select Mr. Pradhan Ghosh; it did not select Sharad Dass. It regarded these entries, in which the Government was perhaps interested, as not worth even of a prize, and selected a third one. Therefore, after the board of assessors completed its work, a technical committee was appointed to sit in judgment over these three entries where Sharad Dass’s entry was selected. The last part of the statement—I was listening to the statement very carefully—says, “This matter will be placed before the Delhi Development Authority for a final decision in its next meeting”. This suggests that a decision has not been taken, that a decision is yet to be taken by the Delhi Development Authority. Very well, I am happy that this statement has come today saying that a decision has not been taken. The discussion in this House is bound to affect the decision of the Government also. But if no decision has been taken I really fail to understand why on the 15th June, the DDA put out this press note—I have the press handout dated 15-6-1980—in which it has been said that the Delhi Development Authority conducted this competition, so many entries came and the board of assessors selected these entries, then a technical committee went into it, and now the scheme prepared by Sharad Dass & Designs Consortium has been approved as the most feasible scheme from the point of view of time-parameter, functional parameter, technological considerations, timeliness, ease of construction”. How was this issued? I fail to understand, because it is the issuance of this kind of a circular that has given rise to all this discussion. First of all, appointment of a technical committee to sit in judgment over the board of assessors, then selection of a person who did not even secure an award or a prize, and then putting out a press note about an approved scheme, all these have resulted in so many complications. I would beg of the Government to revise and review this wrong decision, this perverse decision, this motivated decision, this decision which has obviously ulterior ends. I do not think, I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of all this. There is a community of officials at various levels who are very keen to do what they think the Prime Minister would like, what those in authority would like, what Mr. Sanjay Gandhi would like. And if there are persons about whom it is known that their connection with Mrs. Indira Gandhi is such and such, that their connection with Mr. Sanjay Gandhi is such and such; there is a tendency on the part of various officials, on the part of the Lt. Governor, to promote their own interests, to promote their ends. If something like that has happened, it would be in the interest of the Government itself to see that the immense wrong that has been done to the prize winning entry is rectified. This is the first time I came to know about them. I do know that they are outstanding architects.

My next question is this. Is it a fact that one of the members of the technical committee was Mr. A. K. Patel who was an interested participant in the competition itself? Mr. A. K. Patel who has signed the technical committee’s report was a structural engineer of Bhardwaj and Bhardwaj. He bad put in an entry in the competition but his entry was rejected.

My very last question is this. I would like to know the amounts that have been paid to the assessors and to the members of the technical committee. What has been the cost incurred by the Government in carrying out this competition which, if his decision of the technical committee is to be accepted, would all go to waste?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: I am constrained to say that Mr. Advani has got something in his hand with which he is trying to beat the bush when it is not there. He has unfortunately involved the Government and some other high functionaries m his speech. As far as DDA is concerned, it is an autonomous body and for their day-to-day work they do not receive instructions from us, as they used to receive during Mr. Morarji Desai’s time from Mr. Kanti Desai… (Interruptions)

SHRI HARI SHANKAR BHABHRA (Rajasthan): Is this the way of replying… (Interruptions).

AN HON. MEMBER: How does Kanti come in?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: How does Sanjay come in?

SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: It is absolutely wrong.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: He is also a Member of the other House… (Interruptions).

श्री रामेश्वर सिंह (उत्तर प्रदेश): उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय …

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SAWAISINGH SISODIA): Please take your seat. Let him complete his statement

श्री रामेश्वर सिंह (उत्तर प्रदेश): मेरी बात एक मिनट सुन लीजिये| मैं एक मिनट से ज्यादा नहीं लूँगा|


[Shri Rameshwar Singh continued to speak]

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SAWAISINGH SISODIA): No interruption. I won’t allow it. आप बैठिये।

[Shri Rameshwar Singh continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): रामेश्वर सिंह जी, आप बैठयें। पूरी बात सुनिये।

[Shri Kalraj Mishra continued to speak]


[Shri Rameshwar Singh continued to speak]

[Shri Kalraj Mishra continued to speak]

[Shri P. C. Sethi continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): रामेश्वर सिंह जी, बैठयें। आपने कह दिया है। पूरी बात सुनिये।

[Shri Kalraj Mishra continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): आप कृपा करके बैठये।

[Shri C. P. N. Singh continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): आप बैठ जाइये। … (Interruptions)

[Shri C. P. N. Singh continued to speak]

Shri Rameshwar Singh continued to speak.

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): रामेश्वर सिंह जी, आप बैठ जाइये।

[Shrimati Kumudben Main Shankar. Joshi continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): आप कृपा करके बैठये।

[Shri N. K. P. Salve continued to speak]

[Shri Rameshwar Singh continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): नहीं आप मत बोलिए। माननीय मंत्री जी को अपना कथन पूरा करने दीजिए। उसके बाद यदि आपको कुछ पूछना हो, तो पूछिये, बीच मैं नहीं।

[Shri N. K. P. Salve continued to speak]

उपसभाध्यक्ष (श्री सवाई सिंह सिसोदिया): साल्वे जी आप मेहरबानी करके बैठिये।

[Shri Shiva Chandra Jha continued to speak]

आप शांति से काम चलने देना चाहते हैं कि नहीं … (Interruptions) मैं खड़ा हूँ, आप बैठे जाईये। देखिये बड़े महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न अडवानी जी ने उठाये है। आप शांति से सुनिए। अगर आप शांति से काम नहीं चलने देंगे तो काम कैसे चलेगा।

(Interruptions) I will not allow. No interruptions please. (Interruptions). No one will interrupt. Now the Honourable Minister wil speak. No disterbunces.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: He cannot be a mediocre. I get inspiration from you. He is certainly not heavy-weight… (Interruptions) So the proposal was revised. It is true that some stadiums were constructed already. Three and a half crore worth of stadium was done. This stadium was rejected by the DDA. The DDA wanted to construct a stadium with 30,000 capacity. They appointed these two committee (sic!). At the point of time when these two committees were appointed, nobody, including those who put in these designs, for this, objected that there should be those two committees. It is being made to appear as if the contract award has been given for a building up to Rs. 12 crores. Nothing of the kind has been done yet. Only the designs were invited. Out of these designs, one party which submitted the designs required many things to be imported. It is a timebound programme. They are not mediocre engineers. Even when the DDA had all these mediocre engineers under your regime, I am sorry that you could not locate them and throw them out. But they are all eminent engineers. And as eminent engineers, they came to the conclusion. I am not going into the merits now. I do not know on what basis the engineers’ technical committee, which consisted of many engineers, had given their opinion. It was not only a question of selecting the design but also of linking the design with time-bound programme. There are two stages. The Delhi Development Authority have to consider it and the DDA has also forwarded it to the Education Ministry with the request that the money which is being spent in the construction of stadium of smaller size—3½ crores of rupees—should be diverted here. similarly, another money also should be diverted here.

If a stadium is to be built, we have to take into consideration not only the ASIAD which is coming after two years, but we have also to take into consideration the growing population of Delhi and the growing importance of Delhi. We have to construct not for today. A stadium of this type has to be constructed for 50 years or 100 years. Therefore, it has to be of international standard. The proposal from the D. D. A. has gone to the Education Ministry who are examining it. If it has to be constructed for ASIAD, the Education Ministry has to clear it. Even otherwise, the D. D. A., according to the Act, are authorised to constructs a stadium. But if it has to be constructed for ASIAD, then the clearance of the Education Ministry has to be obtained and the money which is required has to be cleared by the Cabinet.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Has it not been cleared? Then how can you go in for a competition when there is no allocation for it?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: An experienced man like him should know that if you have to construct within a time-bound schedule, then you have to take advance action and do advance planning. It is a sort of advance action and preparation for it has to be made. Unfortunately you are misconceiving the whole thing. The selection of a design does not necessarily mean that they would construct. As a matter of fact, bids will be invited from various concerns. We have not even invited the bids for construction. If the Education Ministry and the D. D. A. clear it, then the bids will be invited. Nothing of the kind has been done as yet. This action has been taken in order to prepare for an eventuality which may arise. Therefore, I would very humbly request Shri Advaniji and other Members of this House not to try to read in it something which is not there. It is only advance preparation which may come or which may not come. The D. D. A. has to examine it, the Education Ministry has to clear it and the money part of it has also to come. Now, he has said that he is against an indoor stadium by itself. That is a different matter. He might be having a different view. But ASIAD has been invited in Delhi. You have done it. You cannot escape the responsibility of constructing for ASIAD.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Not the indoor stadium.

SHRI P. C. SETHI; It has to be of international standard. We will not allow your prestige to go down. You have taken the decision for holding ASIAD. The Government is a continuing the Government is the same. We have to keep up your prestige. Mr. Morarji Desai wanted to cancel it.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Not Mr. Morarji Desai. But the next Government which you brought into existence.

SHRI P. C. SETHI; I am happy that they are for ASIAD. I can assure the hon. Members that the points raised here will be given due consideration and we would keep a close watch on the whole thing regarding the clearance from the Education Ministry and the funds to be provided.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SAWAISINGH SISODIA): The House stands adjourned for lunch till 2. 00 o’clock.

The House then adjourned for lunch at four minutes past one of the clock.

The House re-assembled after lunch at two minutes past two of the clock. The Vlce-Chairman (Shri R. R. Morarka) in the Chair.

श्री सुरेंद्र मोहन (उत्तर प्रदेश): श्रीमान मैं माननीय मंत्री जी का जवाब बड़े ध्यान से सुन रहा था मुझे लगता है की उन्होंने मेरी पूरी बात को यह कह कर कम करने की कोशिश की है की डी○ डी○ ए○ ऑटोमोमोस है और इसके अलावा शायद उनहोंने अडवाणी साहब के किसी सवाल का कोई जवाब नहीं दिया, डी○ डी○ ए○ कितना ऑटोनोमस है यह सभी जानते हैं। जिस तरीके से डी○ डी○ ए○ के डिप्टी चेयरमैन मिस्टर बुच के साथ व्यवहार किया गया उससे डी○ डी○ ए○ की ऑटोनोमी का पर्दाफाश हो गया। यस भी मान लिया जाए की डी○ डी○ ए○ ऑटोनोमस था तो उसमें एसा काम हुआ की एक व्यक्ति चूना गया, उसको फर्स्ट प्राइज दिया गया, यह मान लिया गया की उसमे ज्यादा प्रोफेशनल कम्पेटेन्स हैं उसके बाद उसको ख़त्म कर दिया गया और किसी दुसरे आदमी को,तीसरे आदमी को चुन लिया गया और मिनिस्टर साहब को यह बात मालूम नहीं हुई। इस बात से बहुत ताज्जुब हुआ। ताज्जुब इसलिए होता हैं की हम अपने मुल्क मैं इस तरह का स्टैण्डर्ड कायम करने जा रहे हैं की हम चुना किसी एक आदमी को और दूसरा इनाम, तीसरा इनाम दें किसी को और किसी एक व्यक्ति को आखिर मैं कॉन्सोलेशन प्राइज दिया। फर्स्ट प्राइज वाले को छोड़कर हम दूसरे को देते है तो इसका मतलब यह होता है की प्रोफेशनल कम्पेटेन्स का कोई महत्व नहीं देता। इसको चाहे आप राजनितिक दखलंदाजी कहिये चाहे और कोई कन्सिडरेशन कहिये, लकिन ऐसा मालूम पड़ता हैं की प्रोफेसिसोनाल कॉम्पिटेंस के बजाय और बातो पर ध्यान दिया जाता हैं। तो मंत्री महोदय से बहुत अदब के साथ यह जरूर पूछना चाहूंगा की क्या प्रोफेशनल कॉम्पिटेंस को इस मुल्क मैं कोई जगह नहीं मिलेंगी? अगर नहीं मिलेंगी तो प्रोफेशनल्स क्या करेंगे? वह इस तरह के काम मैं दिलचस्पी क्यों लेंगे? इस किस्म के टेंडर बुलाये जायेंगे या कम्पटीशन लिये आयेंगे उनमे वह क्यों आयेंगे? अगर वह दिलचस्पी नहीं लेंगे तो मुल्क मैं उनका क्या बनेगा? इस चीज की तामीर की जा सके और अगर तामीर ही जाए तो वह तामीर कितनी बा-बुनियाद और बेबुनियाद होगी इस बात का जवाब मंत्री महोदय खुद दे सकते हैं। अगर यह पोलिटिकल अफेयर्स होता हैं तो मेरे ख्याल से कोई भी प्रोफेशनल अपनी स्किल को, अपनी एनर्जी को इन कामो मैं लाने के लिए तैयार नहीं होगा।

दूसरी बात इस संबंध मैं यह कहना जरूरी हैं की जब पहली कमिटी बानी थी तो पहली कमेटी को देखने से मालूम होता हैं के उस कमेटी मैं कुछ स्ट्रक्चरल इंजीनियरिंग जानने वाले लोग थे। अगर उस कमेटी मैं स्ट्रक्चरल इंजीनियरिंग जानने वाले लोग नहीं थे तो उस कमेटी को बनाना किस माने मैं सही था और अगर कमेटी मैं स्ट्रक्चरल इंजीनियरिंग जानने वाले लोग थे तो किसी और कमेटी की क्या जरूरत थी। मेरी समझ में यह आता है की जो पहले कमेटी बनाई गई थी वह इतनी कम्पीटेंट होती कि वह इन सारे मामलों पर फैसला करती लकिन दूसरी कमेटी बनाई गई। मै अडवाणी साहब की बात से इत्तफाक करता हूँ और मुझे अफ़सोस है की मंत्री महोदय ने इस बात का पूरा जवाब नहीं दियां। मेरी राइ मैं वह तस्सलीबक्श जवाब नहीं था। मैं पूछना चाहता हूँ कि अगर कम्पीटेंट लोगो की कमेटी थी तो उसके बाद इसके मुकाबले मैं जो लोग ज्यादा कम्पीटेंट नहीं थे उनकी कमेटी बनाने की क्या जरूरत थी। इस सबंध मे एक बात और कहना चाहता हूँ की डी○ डी○ ए○ के एक्ट सेक्शन १० मै यह दिया गया है की डी○ डी○ ए○ को क्या-क्या काम करने हैं। उन कामो में स्टेडियम बनाने का कोई जिक्र नहीं है। उनके अंत में मनोरंजन के सम्बन्ध मे कहा गया हैं। मनोरंजन के लिये जो काम है उसमे यह है की अगर किसी जगह कोई कॉलोनी विकसित की जाती है, डेवेलोप की जाती है तो उस कॉलोनी मैं पार्क बनाने के बजाए, मकान बनाने की बजाए; लैंड डेवेलोप करने की बजाए स्टेडियम बनाने का काम ले लिया। स्टेडियम बनाने के सम्बन्ध में भी एक बात यह कहना चाहता हूँ की जब उनको यह काम दिया गया तब कहा गया था की १२ करोड़ रुपये का प्रोजेक्ट है और अब यह कहा गया है कि २५ करोड़ रुपये, ३० करोड़ रुपये खर्च होंगे। अभी तक भी सरकार ने यह फैसला नहीं किया की उस पैर कितने रुपये खर्च होंगे जब की कास्ट बढ़ती जा रही है। सीमेंट और कंक्रीट की समयस्या है। इसका एस्टीमेट भी उनके पास नहीं है की उसको बनाने मैं कितना सीमेंट और कंक्रीट लगेगा और कितना और ज्यादा खर्च बढ़ जायेगा. डी○ डी○ ए○ से अब कहा जा रहा है वॉक इस काम को पूरा करे। उसकी इकॉनमी का भी झिक्र किया जा रहा है। लेकिन मैं आपसे अर्ज करूँ की जो डिज़ाइन बनाया गया उस डिज़ाइन मई भी ३० हज़ार लोगो को बैठने की व्यस्था हैं। इस किस्म का फैसला किया गया कि ऐसा डिज़ाइन बनाया जाए जिसमे ३० हज़ार लोग बैठ सकै। ऐसा मालूम होता है की यह न तो इतना बड़ा है की वह जरूरत को पूरा कर सके और न इतना छोटा है कि वह छोटे स्टेडियम की जरूरत पूरा कर सके। अंग्रेजी मेँ कहा जाता है—"It is neither fish or fowl".

मै मिनिस्टर साहब से बड़े अदब से यह दर्खास्त करूंगा और यह जानना चाहूंगा की जो ३० हजार का फैसला किया गया है वह किस आधार पर किया गया हे।

उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, मै यह भी कहना चाहता हूँ की मुझ को लगता है की इस हाउस मैं एक टेन्डेन्सी है और मिनिस्टर साहब उसका शिकार हो गए है। वे बहार की बाते, जो डिस्कशन की बाते नहीं है उन बातो को हर मिनिस्टर जवाब देने मे हिचकिचाता नहीं है। यह होता है की जब एक मिनिस्टर जवाब देने लगता है तो न जाने बहार के किस-किस आदमी का ख्याल आ जाता है। कभी कांति देसाई का ख्याल आ जाता है तो कभी किसी और का ख्याल आ जाता है। हाउस की डेकोरम कैसे रखी जाए इसको मिनिस्टर साहब खुद तय करेंगे या चेयरमैन साहब आप तय करेंगे। इसके सवाल यह नहीं है की बहार के कौन लोग थे। सवाल यह ही है अगर उस डिज़ाइन को मंजूर नहीं किया गया और किसी दुसरे डिज़ाइन को मंजूर किया गया तो इसमें क्या कन्सिडरेशन था? और अगर कोई अन्य कन्सिडरेशन मंत्री महोदय नहीं बता सकते है तो इसका मतलब यह होगा की उसमें पोलिटिकल कन्सिडरशन्स को सामने रखा गया और पोलिटिकल इंटरफेरेंस किया गया। मेरा ख्याल है कि ऐसे हालत मै उसका यह फ़र्ज़ है की वे सरकार की स्थिति को स्पष्ट करे। इस बारे मैं स्पष्ट बात करने का सर्कार को मौका मिला है, उनको मौका मिला है। इस सम्बन्ध मैं जो शुबहा किया जा रहा है, संदेह किया जा रहा है, उसको वे गलत साबित कर सकते है। मै चाहता हूँ की इस संदेह को दूर करने के लिए वे बेबुनियाद सबूत पेश न करे। डी○ डी○ ए○ का मुख्य काम मकान बनाना है, यह कहकर वे अपनी जिम्मेदारी से अलग नहीं हो सकते हैं। मै कहना चाहता हूँ कि मंत्री महोदय की तरह से जवाब दिया जाना चाहिए, इस तरह से सफाई पेश की जनि चाहिए जिससे हम लोगों के अन्दर इस बारे मैं जो शुबहा पैदा हो गया है की इस मामले के सम्बन्ध मै पोलिटिकल कन्सिडरेशंस को ध्यान मैं रक्खा गया है, उसको खत्म किया जा सके। जिन दो आर्किटेक्ट्स का नाम इस बारे मई सामने आया हैं उनके बारे में उनके पोलिटिकल कनेक्शंस का भी जिक्र आया है। ऐसी हालत मे यह और भी जरूरी हो जाता है की सरकार इस बात की सफाई करे। एक तरफ तो प्रोफेशनल डिज़ाइनर और आर्किटेक्ट को जिसकी कम्पेटेन्स के सबंध मे एक बहुत बड़ी कमेटी ने कहा था कि उनको फर्स्ट प्राइज मिलना चहिए, उनको अलग कर दिया गया। दूसरी तरफ जहां तक मुझे मालूम है, मंत्री महोदय की तरफ से यह कहा गया की उनके पास २५-३० अन्य कॉन्ट्रैक्ट्स भी थे। क्या इसका मतलब यह है की जिस व्यक्ति के पास २५-३० अन्य कॉन्ट्रैक्ट्स है उसको इसमें नहीं लिया जाये गा ?लकिन अब इसको इत्तिला दी गई तो उसमे इस किस्मेकी कोई पाबंदी नहीं थी। सब लोग जानते है कि इनमे एक आर्किटेक्ट और डिज़ाइनर ऐसा था जिसकी कम्पेटेन्स के बारे मे कोई शक नहीं था। श्री महेंद्र राज एक ऐसे आर्किटेक्ट है जिनका हिंदुस्तान में कोई जवाब नहीं है। ऐसे लोगो को हटा कर कुछ अन्य लोगो को कॉन्सोलेशन प्राइज दे गई है जिनके बारे मे श्री अडवाणी जी ने काफी अच्छा प्रकाश डाला है। मंत्री महोदय ने अपने जवाब में कहा कि कुछ लोगो को दस-दस हज़ार और सतरह-सतरह हज़ार रुपए दिए गये हैं। फर्स्ट प्राइज के लिए ५० हज़ार रुपये दिये गये है। इन सारी स्थिति को देख कर लोगो के मन में एक शुभहा रहेगा, एक संदेह रहेगा की इस मामले में पॉलिटिक्स इंटरफेरेंस किया गया है और। …

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): Yes, yes, you carry on.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI (Maharastra): How can he, when the Minister is not here?

SHRI PILOO MODY: He will wait till the minister's consultation is over.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: My Deputy Minister is here.

SHRI PILOO MODY: You did not even ask Mr. Zakaria to step in for you.

श्री सुरेन्द्र मोहन: श्रीमान, मै यह कह रहा था कि इससे यह धारणा भी बन सकती है कि पोलिटिकल इंटरफेरेंस के कारन प्रोफेसनल कम्पेटेन्स को ख़त्म किया जा रहा है। इससे हमारे मुल्क में धारणा भी बन सकती है की स्किल, कम्पेटेन्स और नोलेज के लिए अब कोई जगह नहीं है, सिर्फ पोलिटिकल इंटरफेरेंस को स्थान दिया जा रहा है। इस प्रकार से जो ये बातें कही जा रही हैं, मै चाहूंगा कि मंत्री महोदय इन सब बातो के संबंध में अपनी सफाई दें।

श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: माननीय उपसभाध्यक्ष जी, श्री सुरेंद्र मोहन जी ने करीब-करीब वही मुद्दे दोहराये है जो श्री अडवाणी जी ने उठाये थे और उनका उत्तर मैंने दिया था। मै समजता हूँ कि उस उत्तर को सुनने के बाद कोई विशेष बात करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। जो बात उन्होंने कही है उनके बारे मै उत्तर देने की कोशिश करूँगा। यह पूछा गया है कि जो १७,५०० रुपये दिये गये वे प्राइज एंट्रीज नहीं थी। मरे पास इसकी जानकारी है। पहले २० हजार, ३० हजार और ५० हजार के प्राइजेज रक्खे गये थे. लेकिन यह तय किया गया कि सुब पार्टियों ने जिहोने कॉम्पिटिशन मे हिस्सा लिया, खर्चा किया मॉडल बनाने मे, सब को दिया जाये। इसकी वजह से शुरू मैं जो ७ हजार रुपया देना तय किया गया। बाकि जो ११ एंट्रीज़ थी उनको तरह १० हजार अमाउंट दिया गया। स्पेशल अवार्ड जो २० हजार रुपये का था उसको रेडडेउस करके १७,५०० कर दिया गया। इसलिये यह मानना उचित नही होगा की नंबर दो और तीन को कंसल्टेंसी मैं कोई स्थान नहीं मिला है।

श्री लालकृष्ण अडवाणी: थर्ड २० हजार रूपये का था।

श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: उसको इसीलिये १७,५०० रूपये रिड्यूज कर दिया. मुझे इस बारे मे अधिक टेक्निकल जानकारी नहीं है। पीलू मोदी साहेब इस पर कुछ कह सकते है। बाकि हम लोग इस पर इधर-उधर से ब्रीफ लेके बोल रहे है। आप भी इसी तरह बोल रहे है। मुझे भी जो जानकारी मिली है उसी के आधार पे बोल रहा हु। ये असेसमेंट हुआ। इस असेसमेंट के बाद टेक्निकल कमेटी ने कुछ मुद्दों पर गौर किया। मै समझता हूँ की जो टेक्निकल कमेटी है उसने किस मुद्दे की वजह से बोर्ड ऑफ़ अस्सेसेर्स की राइ को तरजीह नहीं दी। मै○ राज रेवाल, राम शर्मा और महिंद्र राज का जहां तक ताल्लुक है इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि उनका डिज़ाइन बहुत एलिगेंट है। आर्किटेक्चरल और स्ट्रक्चरल मेरिट पैर है उसमे दो रे है इसमें डेमेरिट्स काफी है। एक तो यह है कि डिज़ाइन की कम्प्लेक्सिटी बहुत है और उसको फिर भी स्ट्रक्चरल और दूसरे एक्सपर्ट्स से एक्सामिन कराना आवश्यक हो जाएगा ऐसी राय डिज़ाइन इंजीनियर्स की है। उसमे पाइल-लोड्स को पूरी तरह से वर्क-आउट नहीं किया गया है। उसमे बेरियस दूसरे किस्म के जो सर्विसिज़ है उसका एग्जामिनेशन नहीं किया है। जो एयर-कंडीशनिंग की डिज़ाइन उन्होंने दी है उसकी वजह से उसमे बहुत सारि चंगेस स्ट्रक्चरल और आर्किटेक्चरल करने पड़ जायेंगे। यह उसका एक कारन और है। टी○ वी○ कैमरा और स्कोर बोर्ड का प्रोविसिओं डिटेल मे स्कीम के साथ नहीं दिया गया है। प्रोविज़न ऑफ़ लाइट एंड अकॉस्टिक्स को भी डिटेल मे वर्क-आउट नही किया गया है। प्रोविसिओं ऑफ़ सर्विसेज में रिसल्टेंट स्ट्रक्चरल और आर्किटेक्चरल जो सर्विसेज है उनमे भी चंगेस करने पड़ेंगे which will again time consuming (sic!). इसलिये इन सब चीजों को देखते हुए उसमे वाटरप्रूफिंग और रूफ भी सटिस्फैक्टरी नहीं है या इन सुब मुद्दों को देखते हुए टेक्निकल कमिटी की राय, मे अपनी राय नहीं कह रहा हूं, टेक्निकल कमेटी ने राय दी कि यदि इस प्रोजेक्ट को लिया गया तो यह टाइम के अन्दर कम्पलीट नहीं हो सकेगा। मै फिर एक बार पीलू मोदी साहब से कहूंगा कि वे आर्किटेक्चर को समजने की कोशिश करे। यह जो डिज़ाइन सबमिट करने वाली कंपनी है वह कन्स्ट्रक्शनल काम नहीं करती। कंस्ट्रक्शन के हम में डी○ डी○ ए○ की तरफ से उसकी सलाहकार हो जायेगी। ऐसी सूरत मे यह मानना के करोड़ो रुपये का काम इनके हाथ मै से निकलकर किसी और के हाथ में दे दिया है यह सही नहीं होगा। उनकी कंसल्टेंसी फीस जो है, जो इनके डिज़ाइन की वह उनको मिलेगा ही। बाकि यह प्रोजेक्ट जो है वह १२ करोड़ से १६ या २० करोड का प्रोजेक्ट होगा यह माननीय सदयस्य का जो ख्याल है, और जैसा की अडवाणी साहब ने कहा की दो साल मे जब यह प्रोजेक्ट कम्पलीट होगा तब तक ये २० करोड़ रूपये का हो जायेगा यह ख्याल सही नहीं है। १२ करोड़ का एस्टीमेट इस आधार पर रखा गया है की प्राइस इनक्रीस होगी और उसको मद्देनज़र रखते हुए इवन अकॉर्डिंग टू दी फर्स्ट डिज़ाइन ८-९ करोड़ रूपये का यह एस्टीमेट है इसके लिए १२ करोड़ रूपये रक्खा गया है। जब तक यह कम्पलीट होगा तब तक के लिए यह १२ करोड़ रुपया होगा। इसलिए माननीय सदस्य की २० रोड़े तक इसके जाने की जो शंका है वह ठीक नहीं है। मगर जैसे की मैंने पहले खः की यह तो डी○ डी○ ए○ ने एक बोर्ड ऑफ़ अस्सेस्सेर्स बनाया और उसके साथ एक टेक्निकल कमेटी बनाई जो की उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की बात है। उसमे उनको गवर्नमेंट की मंजूरी लेने की जरूरत नहीं पड़ती की बोर्ड ऑफ़ "असेसर्स"बनाया जाए और टेक्निकल कमिटी कैसे बनाई जाए। उन्होंने यह सब बाते ध्यान मै रख कर यह कमेटी बनाई। जब इन लोगो ने जिस समय कम्पेतितों मै हिस्सा लिया है उनको पता था कि इसका बोर्ड ऑफ़ अस्सेस्सोर्स है, टेक्निकल समिति भी है ऐसे सूरत मई टेक्निकल समिति को एक्सट्रेननुयस नहीं मन जा सकता। टेक्निकल समिति की राइ है। सब से ऊपर जो बात मैंने कही है जो विशेष तौर पैर ध्यान देने के योग्य है. अभी तो यह मसला स स्टेज पैर है। अससेरस की राय है टेक्निकल समिति की राय है। दोनों मुद्दो के पक्ष-विपक्ष कागजो मै अभी है और उनके मुद्दे नजर रखते हुए डी○ डी○ ए○ का बोर्ड इस पैर विचार करेगा। यदि इसको एशियाड के लिए बनाना है तो सब मुद्दे एजुकेशन मिनिस्ट्री को एग्जामिनेशन के लिए क्लीयरेंस के लिए सौप दिए गए है। मै आपको अवश्वत करना चाहता हूँ की जैसे कि उनका ख्याल है एक्सट्रेनस कन्सिडरातिओं से काम किया जा रहा है ऐसा नहीं होगा। उस पर पूरा ध्यान दे केर सब मंत्रालयों से विचार करके सब चीजों को तय किया जाएगा।

SHRI PILOO MODY: My name has been mentioned two or three times to justify certain things which are not really correct. I will request the Mi­nister not to use me to justify his point of view.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: I am not using Shri Piloo Mody, I am only using his knowledge.

SHRI RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE: In the process are you prepared to 'Mody'fy?

श्री सुरेन्द्र मोहन: उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, मैंने यह पूछा था कि यह जो बोर्ड ऑफ़ असेसर्स है इसमें के स्ट्रक्चरल इंजीनियरिंग वाले कम्पीटेंट लोग नहीं थे। दूसरा में यह जानना चाहूंगा कि यह जो टेक्नीकल कमेटी बनी जैसे आप फरमा रहे है के इसका पहले से एलान किया गया था? मंत्री जी जरा इस चीज को दोहरा ले कि टेक्निकल कमेटी का क्या उनको पता था?

श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: अगर माननीय सदस्य की जानकारी जो मैं कह रहा हूँ उसके विपरीत है तो I will go in to it.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI; Sir, I want to have clarification on two or three points. I will be very brief. Now the Minister has all along been suggesting here that the DDA is an autonomous body and they can take any decision. That is all right, but the DDA is working under the Ministry of Works & Housing when they deal with the matters which come under his purview. I think the Minister is aware of the programmes, rules and regulations and other details of the Design Competition for an indoor stadium and I am taking recourse to those details while putting my questions, If he has got those details, he should look into them.

My first question will be that it is not correct to say that the Assessors were appointed and then a technical committee was also appointed. I personally hate to take the names of persons who are—I do not want to say—of doubtful integrity because they have been condemned by the Shah Commission, although the Shah Commission itself is now buried down below the earth and I do not want to take its name, but the point Mr. Minister, is very important As regards credibility of this thing is concerned, we are not interested as to who is going to get the contract. We are not contractors or architects, we are politicians and we are more interested in the credibility of the political system. That is why I am asking this question Please refer to page 4 of the Programme, Rules Regulations and other details of Design Competition for an Indoor Stadium published by the Delhi Development Authority. There is a specific provision and I quote:

"A fee of Rs. 7,000 will be paid to all the participants provided the entries in the opinion of the Board of Assessors meets the required standard of Drawings called for. The decision of the Board of Assessors in this respect will be final."

This is what the DDA had said. Sir, the DDA is not a private sector or a firm of Shri Piloo Mody and associates, it is not that. It is a Government body and the Government body has published these rules. There must be some sanctity and credibility for the Government body. I want to know from the Minister whether he informed the DDA as to what was the necessity of appointing another Technical Committee. I do not want to take names again; I know how the Committee was appointed. The Vice-Chairman of the DDA was the Chairman of this Committee and some other persons were on it whose names he has mentioned—one Prof. Patel of the School of Planning and Architecture was there and Mr. Vaish, who retired as Director General CPWD, was also on it. We do not want to rate their knowledge as below standard. But this is a monument which has to be done in this country; that is why we are more careful that the entire structure should not fall down and people not be killed. I do not want to take their names, but the point is how this Committee came into being when it was not provided for in the rules and regulations.

Then I want to know, when the assessors were appointed, when the tenders were called for, was the Minister aware of the workload involved? Is it worth Rs. 50,000? You are going to pay 4 per cent commission to the best architect whomsoever you may select. I am not concerned and I give the least importance to the fact that he was Consultant to M/s. Maruti Ltd., or he has built some farm. Everybody has got the professional right to do whatever he wants to do. But the question is whether he is competent to do this work and for that purpose I am asking only this question why this Technical committee was appointed when the highly qualified assessors were already appointed and, as mentioned on page 4, their decision was to be treated as final. How does this Committee come in?

I want to have another clarification. On page 11 it is mentioned: "The promoter may appoint the Author of the permitted design as Architect to provide detailed professional services for the project". When he says about acoustics, maps of lightings, pipings etc., I may inform the Minister that although we are politicians here, yet we are also working in the cooperative sector under which we have buildings worth Rs. 5 to 10 crores. The acoustics are to be planned but the lighting etc. come afterwards. Provision has to be made, and it was made. Have you got any proof to show that this provision was not made? I have got proof here to show that all this was mentioned in that design and report. As I have said on page 11 there is a specific provision and on page 4 there is a specific provision and I am alleging that the DDA, in order to overtly and covertly, help somebody for some reason did this. I am quite aware and I am quite sure in my own mind that the highest authority in this country may not be concerned; the Prime Minister or somebody else may not have time to look into such petty things. But the problem with us and with you also is that earlier we were blamed as members of the Congress Party that we did not rise to the occasion whenever some untoward happenings were taking place. Now it is your duty to bring this to the notice of the DDA. Don't talk of autonomy of the DDA. The problem should be solved on merits and the Minister should assure us that the Government will be wedded to merits only, so that the credibility of the Government and the DDA will be established.

The last question I want to ask is this. He said that the Technical Committee was appointed. Mr. Minister, it is an ordinary courtesy, when under DDA rules these assessors were appointed, to inform these poor chaps who submitted their findings to them that you have not approved of their assessment and the DDA in its own wisdom is appointing a separate committee. You involved very knowledgeable persons and experts. And in this new Committee none of the old person was associated, except the Vice-Chairman of the DDA. So it seems that it is a stage-managed affair and that is why all these Members are very much anxious and that is why they apprehend that there must be some fishy deal going on under the name of somebody.

So I do not want to take up the time of the House. I have raised very specific questions. Whatever you may say—and the Minister is indirectly suggesting that it has to go to the Education Ministry and the Cabinet etc.—I suspect, whether you agree with it or not, that the cost is going to be nothing less than Rs. 18 to 20 crores. I think I would have at least this much of innocuous assurance that the total cost involved will be placed before the House. I do not know whether we will be here, when this is completed, to know as to what the Government has ultimately spent on this. So, this is the problem.

SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN (Tamil Nadu): I don't think it is possible.

SHRI A. G KULKARNI: Anyway, this is the question I have specifically asked. You should reply to that even if you leave the other points aside. You have associated some experts under some rules of the DDA under, what you call, competition. It is the duty of the DDA at least to approach them and say, "We are sorry." You may give the contract to anybody: I am net concerned with it. You can accept anybody's design: that is their problem. But I can say, Sir, you are bound by the published rules of the Government. Otherwise people will go on being fed by rumours that the Government is working through some extraneous authority.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, I would at the very outset like-to say that Sethji though no extraneous considerations were allowed to come in) all the matter will be looked into by the DDA, by the Education Ministry, by us in the Ministry and also in the Cabinet, purely on merits. As far as the Committee of Experts is concerned, the Committee of Experts was there and the Technical Committee was also there. I would like to inform the House that each party who had participated was asked to appear before the Technical Committee and they appeared before the Technical Committee.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: When was the Committee formed? When they sent their entries, there was nothing before them about the shape of the Technical Committee. All that they knew was the Board of Assessors. But they did appear when they were called on June 9.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: How was the Technical Committee appointed when the rules did not provide for it? On page 4 it is said—and again I quote: "The decision of the Board of Assessors in this respect will be final.

" How and why was this Committee appointed and how did Mr. Ailawadi become Chairman of such a Committee which was permitted to give the contract if not to find a berth for somebody else?

SHRI P. C. SETHI; Sir, I would like, most humbly, to submit that it is true that in this it has been said that the opinion of the Board of Assessors will be final. But it is always subject to this proviso that their opinion would be final but the DDA has got every authority to consult anybody they like. As far as the DDA is concerned, they are also competent, according to the authority which is vested in them, to accept or (reject the advice of the Board of Assessors. Therefore, when the hon. Members are agitated only on this point that a very good design submitted by a particular party is being left out… (Interruptions)

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: We are not interested in any party at all. We are only interested in the nation's interest, that a good design should be selected.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, I also would like to say that we too are not interested in any party.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: Sir, what is this? I asked so many questions. What has happened to them? I asked two or three questions and pointed out what was mentioned on page 11 about this Technical Committee. Mr. Minister, would you at least enlighten us whether the Board of Assessors was informed that the Committee was being appointed and whether any of them was associated with it? At least say yes or no.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, the Technical Committee people were not interfering in the work of the Board of Assessors; nor was the report of this Board of Assessors put before this Committee. This Committee … … … … … …

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: It was not placed before them. Then on what basis did the Technical Com mittee take the decision? Please teleus about it, Mr. Minister. You say that the Board of Assessors … … … … … … .

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, just now when I was replying to Mr. Surendra Mohan's point, I enumerated the usual considertaions on which the Technical Committee gave its opinion.

SHRI SADASIV BAGAITKAR (Maharashra): I have one clarification to ask. If the assessors were not technical persons--------- (Interruptions).

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): You will get a chance at the end.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: As I understand from the Minister that the report of the Board of Assessors was not placed before the Technical Committee?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): That is what he says.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, I am saying that the Board of Assessors came to conclusion based on certain facts and then those points were examined by the Technical Committee. I never said that this was not placed before the Technical Committee.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): The question is whether the report of the Board of Assessors was put before the Technical Committee or not.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: This detail I do not have at the moment.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: The most pertinent points are; What is the rationale of the Technical Committee? When was it constituted? Why was it constituted. Were the assessors informed about the constitution of the Technical Committee? Were the competitors informed about it? These are the most crucial questions.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: Sir, we are asking GO many points, but the Minister is just glossing them over.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI; The point is that the constitution of the Technical Committee was illegal; it was moivated. This is the crux of the whole thing.

SHRI PILOO MODY: This is just a cover.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Only by saying that a particular thing is motivated, that does not become motivated. I would request the hon. Members, particularly Mr. Advani, not to see any thing…

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: If you are able to explain to me the rationale of the Technical Committee, I would accept it because all that you have told me about the Technical Committee I find incorporated in the rules that were placed before the Board of Assessors; and in competence also no one would say that the Board of Assessors was less competent than this Technical Committee, so that having incorporated structual feasibility, time-constraint, in their terms of reference, what was the justification and need for the Technical Committee? If only you could enlighten me on that, perhaps the matter will be solved.

SHRI A. G. KULKARNI: The Technical Committee was appointed neither before nor after the Board of Assessors; at least say that.

SHRI SURENDRA MOHAN: We would like to know whether it was appointed after the report of the Board of Assessors had been sub mitted .

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir, this Technical Committee was appointed on 8-6-80.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI; On the 29th May the Board of Assessors completed its work. On the 8th of June this Technical Committee was appointed. And on the 9th of June all these three competitors were brought before them.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: And this was appointed with the approval of the Lt- Governor . (Interruptions) Then the report of the Board of Assessors was considered by the Technical Committee. Then the competitors were also informed about the Technical Committee and each one of them appeared before the Technical Committee.

श्री लाड़ली मोहन निगम (मध्य प्रदेश): उपसभाध्यक्ष जी, वैसे मेरे पूर्व-व्यक्ताओ ने इस मामले मै सभी पहलुओं पैर रौशनी डाली है, मुझे सिर्फ इस वास्ते बोलना पड रहा है क्योंकि—मै किसी की नियत पर शक नहीं कर रहा—मै यह जरूर चाहूंगा कि मंत्री जी और उनकी सरकार की पाकदामनी पर कोई धब्बा न लगे। जिस तरीके से अफवाहे इस मामले में चली और फैली है, जिस तरीके से सवालात इस मामले को लेकर उठाये गये है उससे तो किसी भी आदमी के लिए शक करने की गुंजाईश बन जाती है। आपकी कार्य कुशलता,आपकी निष्पक्षता पर पूरा भरोसा है। लेकिन मै एक बात जानना चाहता हू। सदन मे बयान देने की भी कुछ सीमा है, ऐसा कोई काम आप से न हो जाये कि सदन की मर्यादा तो भंग हो हे, गलतबयानी भी हो जाये। अगर एक बार इन सर्वोच्च सदनों में गलतबयानी होने लगे तो मैं नहीं जनता की क्या हालत होगी इस मुल्क की, क्या हालत होगी इस देश की राजनीती की। सवाल जो दरपेश है वह यह है की अपने एक कमेटी बनायीं, एक बोर्ड बनाया। फिर एक दूसरी कमेटी बनायीं उसकी जाँच के लिए। स्वाभाविक है कि जो पहले कमेटी आपने बनायीं थी वह ज्यादा काबिल लोगो की कमेटी थी। यह मेरी नहीं सभी लोगो की राइ है की उसमे देश के सब से काबिल लोग थे। यह आपका हक़ है कि आप जिसको चाहे उसको पुरस्कृत करे। लकिन समय का तकाजा यह है कि पुरूस्कृत करते समय कही ऐसे आदमी को पुरुस्कृत करने तो नहीं जा रहे है—चाहे आपकी नियत कितनी ही साफ़ हो—की जिसका पिछला जीवन पहले से ही शक और शुबहा से भरा हुआ हो। में उनका नाम नहीं ले रहा हु। इसलिये क्या यह सुच नहीं है कि आपकी टेक्निकल कमेटी जो अपने बनायी उस में ऐसे इंजीनियर साहब भी थे जो किसी कंपनी से सम्बन्ध रखते है की जिस कंपनी ने खुद टेन्डंडेर दिया था—भरद्वाज एंड भरद्वाज कंपनी, और जो इंजीनियर है, श्री ए○ के○ पटेल साहब उसके इंजीनियर है। इरादे आप के नेक है लकिन आपके जो काम होते है उसकी वजह से आपको नंगा कर देते है। दूसरा सवाल यह है कि उन लोगों का जिनको पुरस्कृत किया गया ऐसे लोगो से जो पिछले ज़माने में सत्तारूढ़ रहे है उनके साथ क्या कोई रिश्ता रहा है? इसको मद्दे नजर रखना चाहिए। मे यह नहीं कहताकि यह गलत होगा अगर उन्होंने अपना रिश्ता बनाया रक्खा है, लकिन ऐसे मामले मै जिसमे सरकार की ंनियत पर शक होने लगे काम से काम ईमानदार सरकार को यह नहीं करना चाहिए। इसके साथ-साथ यह भी सवाल है की जिस तरह से साइंस और टेक्नोलॉजी की तरक्की हुई है, आप भी मेरी राय से मुत्तफिक होंगे की यह स्ट्रक्चरल डिजाइनिंग बहुत बड़ी तकलीफ होती है। सवाल यह है कि ठेका लेने वाला आदमी कोई भी हो लकिन पुल बनाने वाले का ठेका नहीं लेता। तो ऐसे लोग उन लोगों से तो नहीं जुड़े हुए है कि जिन्होंने यह काम जीवन मै किया। आज जिस मुल्क में एक लाख १५ हजार गावों में पिने का पानी नहीं है, आज दिल्ली मे जहां गली कुचो में लाख डेढ़ लाख बेघरबार लोग फुटपाथों पे पड़े हुए है, जहां लाख दो लाख लोगों के माकन के लिये दरख्वास्तें दे रखी है, आप उनको मकान अभी तक मुहैय्या नहीं करा सके और आपने डी○ डी○ ए○ बनाया ही इसलिये कि हाउसिंग मिनिस्ट्री इस काम को पूरी तरह से कर नहीं सकती थी, लेकिन इसके साथ ही मै कहना चाहता हु कि शरीर का कोई भी हिस्सा शरीर से बड़ा नहीं होता। पार्लियामेंट मे बजट पर बहस होती है लकिन वह डी○ डी○ ए○ अपने आप ऑटोनोमस बॉडी है लेकिंग उसका बजट भी सदन मैं पेश होता है आप उसमे कोई दखलंदाजी क्यों नहीं कर सकते? जिस बात का कैबिनेट ने फैसला अभी तक नहीं किया है, उसके लिए कोई बात फाइनल

होने के पहले आप टेंडर मंगवा ले यही चीजें है की जो शक पैदा करती हैं। ुर टेंडर भील बुलवा लियें, तो उसके बाद कमेटी जो बानी, या कैबिनेट का जो फैसला हुआ,जो भी एक्सपर्ट का या बोर्ड का फैसला हुआ, वह कैबिनेट मै अप्प्रूव हुआ नहीं उसके पहले ही डी○ डी○ ए○ ने दूसरी कमिटी बना केर उससे दूसरा एक फैसला ले लिया गया, तो यह दो तीन चीजे है जो आपके दमन पैर दाग लगाती है। मुझे शक है कि अगर यह काम संपन्न हो गया तो फिर आप अपने चहेरे को अपने हाथ काला करेंगे और उसके लिए आप किसी और को दोष नहीं दे सकते। वैसे आपको हक़ है अपना चेहरा कला करने का। हर एक को हक़ है कि अपना चेहरा कला करने का, लेकिन आप कम से कम ऐसा काम मत करिए की किसी इतनी बड़ी गलती हो जाये और खास कर ऐसे इलाके दिल्ली शहर मैं जहा खुद आपने काबुल किया है की ४० फीसदी लोग शहर मै गरीबी की रेखा के निचे दम तोड़ते है। तो मेरी गुजारिश है की अगर यह मंसूबा है, चंन्द मुट्ठी भर लोगो की विलासिता के लिये, उनकी ऐय्याशी के लिए तो इस मंसूबे को बलायेताक रखिये। मै खेलकूद के खिलाफ नहीं हूँ, लकिन उसका हश्र क्या हुआ है। एक खेल मै जिसमे हम सरताज हुआ करते थे आज हम सातवें नंबर पैर आ गयें है। हॉकी मै जो हमारा नाम था, जो हमारी जगह थी, वह पता नहीं हम कभी पहुंच पाएंगे या नहीं। खेलकूद के लिये हम चिंता करने नहीं जा रहे है। कील-कूद का तो रिश्ता ही अलग हुआ करता है। उसमें तो जिसमें जितना दम है वह उतना ही दौड़ सकता है। जिस मुल्क मै खुराक की कमी हो वह नया खिलाडी पैदा नहीं कर सकता है। दूसरो को दिखावट के लिए आप यह करते है तो आप को यह शोभा नहीं दता है। इस देश मे यह ठीक नहीं है जब तक की ७० फीसदी आदमी गरीबी की रेखा के निचे दम तोड़ रहे हों या गरीबी की चक्की मे पीस रहे हों।

अब मैं आपसे तीन सवाल पूछना चाहता हूँ। क्या यह सच है कि उस कमेटी मै कोई ऐसा आदमी था जो ठेके लेने वाली किसी कंपनी से सम्बंधित था? दुसरे, डी○ डी○ ए○ को कोई हक़ नहीं थक कि वह किसी डिज़ाइनर को बुलाती जब तक कमेटी उस पर फैसला नहीं कर लेती। तीसरे, आपकी यह दलील कम से कम मुझे संतोष नहीं देती है की डी○ डी○ ए○ ऑटोनोमस बॉडी है, क्या उसको हक़ है के वह जो चाहें करे? पैसा तो सरकार ही देगी। बेटा बाप से बड़ा नहीं हो सकता। अब तो राजनीती मैं उलटी धरा बन गयी है की बेटा माँ-बाप से बड़ा हो गया है?

श्री जी○ सी○ भट्ट्चार्य (उत्तर प्रदेश): अब तो खुदा से बड़े हो गये। … (Interruptions)

श्री लाड़ली मोहन निगम: वह तो आप मानते होंगे, मै नहीं मानता हूँ। आप मानते है तो मानिये। इस वास्ते मै आप से कहना चाहता हूँ कि आप इस बात का विश्वास सदन को दिलाइए कि जिनको पुरस्कृत किया गया है, जिनके डिज़ाइन पास की गई है, जिन लोगो का उनसे कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं था जो सत्ता मई बंठे हुए है। किसी के मकान बनाने, किसी फर्म का बंगला बनाने में उनका हाथ नहीं था, इसकी तरफ भी जरा धयान रखिए। नम्म लेने के मेरी आदत नहीं हैं। मेरे पास नाम हैं, आप चाहे तो मैं आप को नाम दे सकता हूँ। आपकी दूं? …


श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: आप को कौन रोक सकता है? … (Interruptions)

श्री लाड़ली मोहन निगम: एक प्रधान घोष था। मई आप से इतना ही निवेदन करना चाहता हूँ कि ऑटोनोमी की परिभाषा कुछ होती है। एक तरफ आप राजनितिक स्वतंत्रता को हड़पते जा रहे है। आर्थिक स्वतंत्रता पर जहा बंधन लगाना चाहिए वहां बंधन नहीं लगा रहे हैं; लोगो को लूट की गुंजायश और छूट वहां हैं। दूसरी तरफ नौकरशाही को हावी होने देना चाहते है। तो मेरा इतना ही निवेदन है के जो बोर्ड या डायरेक्टर्स ने फैसला किया था, अगर उसमें बदनीयती है नहीं है, हम मानते है के आपमें नहीं है, अगर आप उसका निदान चाहते है तो उस फैसले को रद्द करिए। देर आयत दुरुस्त आयत। अगर धोकाधड़ी से कुछ रिश्वत देकर किसी आदमी से कुछ कर लिया हो तो मजबूत मन से, ईमानदारी से आप सारे मामले को ख़त्म कीजिये और पुनः यह फैसला करिए। जिस मुल्क में रहने को माकन न हो, पिने को पानी न हो उनको नष्ट होने से बचाइए। बाकि सवाल जो अडवाणी साहेब ने कहे, वह प्रश्न मेरे मन मे हैं, मै उनको दोहराना नहीं चाहता, उनका जवाब आपकी तरफ से काम से काम संतोषजनक नहीं है और हमको वे संतोषजनक जवाब नहीं सकते। मैं समझता हू कि आपका कोई जवाब को जब संतोष नहीं दे सकता तो यह जवाब किसी सड़क को भी संतोष नहीं दे सकता। इतना ही मुझे कहना है।

श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: मैं माननीय सदस्य श्री लाड़ली मोहन जी का मश्कूर हु कि उन्होंने एक भावात्मक विचारो का विग्दर्शन कराया। मैं शुरू से इस मामले मैं कह रहा हूँ की सरकार का इसमे किसी भी प्रकार का मोटिवेशन नहीं हैं। सब मरिट्स पर ही करना चाहते हैं और यह कहना की किसी कंसल्टेंसी का काम किसी माकन का काम किया होगा इसलिऐ पुरस्कार के रूप में उसको दिया जा रहा है, यह बात है। उस प्रकार के जीवन मैं बड़े सम्बन्ध होते है। अगर आपका मकान किसी ने बनाया बड़े कॉम्पिटेंस में वह कभी आ जाये तो ऐसा है। आपने पटेल और भरद्वाज का नाम बताया, ये बिलकुल सही खबर है। लेकिन इसके साथ ही साथ में आपके जानकारी के लिए यह बता देना चाहूंगा की इवन मिस्टर कान्विन्दे जो आर्किटेक्ट मेंबर है असेसर्स ऑफ़ दी बोर्ड मई, वह भी एसोसिएटेड है विद ओने ऑफ दी कंसल्टेंट्स। यह को-इन्सिडेन्स की बात है। वह राण नहीं है की एक साहब इधर के है और एक साहब उधर के है। एक आदमी ने सारी कमेटी को इन्फ्लुएंस किया होगा यह मानने का कोई कारन नहीं हैं। ऑटोनोमी का जहाँ तक ताल्लुक है इसका मतलब कि रोजमर्रा का जो काम है उसके पूरी जिम्मेदारी के साथ उनको करना है। पार्लियामेंट को भी अधिकार है, सरकार को भी अधिकार है, कैबिनेट को भी अधिकार है अगर कोई अनुसचित बात हो रही है। उसको रोकने का या उनको आदेश देने का अधिकार सरकार के पास है इसमें कोई शक नहीं है। इसमें आप जो दुर्गन्ध देख रहे है मुझे तो अभी इसमें नजर हहिं आ रही हैं। जिरेगोरः है इसके लिए फैसला देना। अभी तो बहुत जगह प्रोसेस होना है। न कॉन्ट्रैक्ट दिया गया है और न अभी तक बिड्स मांगी गई है। दो कमेटी बानी थी। एक ने तो कंस्ट्रक्शन पॉइंट ऑफ़ व्यू से देखा और जो डिज़ाइन आया है वह कंस्ट्रक्शन और टाइम फैक्टर के पॉइंट ऑफ़ व्यू से हमारी रेक्विरेमेंट को पूरा कर सकेगा या नहीं। एक कमेटी ने यह देखा कि कौन-सा डिज़ाइन बेस्ट है और कौन सा अपनाना चाहिए। मैं माननीय सदस्य को आश्वस्त करना चाहूंगा कि की डी○ डी○ ए○ के अंदर भी इसको मेरिट्स पैर विचार किया जायेगा और हम इसका पूरा ध्यान रक्खेंगे कि कोई एक्सट्रेनियस कन्सिडरातिओं न हो मेरिट्स पैर ही इसका फैसला हो।

श्री प्रकाश मेहरोत्रा (उत्तर प्रदेश): आदरणीय उपउपाध्यक्ष महोदय, माननीय मंत्री जी के उत्तर से एक बाक साफ़ हैक कि अभी इस सम्बन्ध मैं कोई अंतिम निर्णय नहीं हुआ हैं और किसी को काम अवार्ड नहीं किया गया हैं। मैं मणिनाया मंत्री जी से यह जानना चूँगा कि यह प्रतियोगिता होइ है उसमे जिस को ५० हजार रूपये का पुरस्कार दिया गे क्या वही पर्याप्तः होगा आखरी फैसला करने के लिए या आखरी फैसला करने के पहले माननीय मंत्री जी इस बाक का भी ध्यान रखेंगे कि दुसरे डिज़ाइन है उनमे से कौन-सा ऐसा डिज़ाइन है जो समय में पूरा किया जा सकता है और टेक्निकली कौन-सा ज्यादा उपयुक्त होगा और किसकी कॉस्ट सबसे काम होगी। एक प्रश्न मेरा यह है और दूसरा प्रश्न यह है कि मंत्री जी ने यह कॉन्ट्रैक्ट रिस्ट्रिक्टेड है। मैं जानना चाहूंगा कि जब इतना बड़ा टेंडर था तो यह प्रतियोगिता रिस्ट्रिक्टेड क्यों राखी और उसको ओपन क्यों नहीं रखा गया जिससे देश भर के जितने अचे आर्किटेक्ट थे वे भी उस कम्पटीशन में पार्टिसिपेट कर सकते। संभवतः उससे आपको लाभ मिल सकता था। तीसरा प्रश्न यह है कि वह जो तीन है जिसमे आपने किसी की ५० हजार और किसी को साढ़े सतरह हजार का पुरस्कार दिया है उनमे से जिस का डिज़ाइन स्त्रुक्टुरेल्ली सब से ज्यादा सिंपल है और क्या किसी के डिज़ाइन पैर कोई काम शुरू किया है अभी तक? चौथी बात पाइल लोड जो है उसके बारे मे हैं। यह बताये कि कौन-सा डिज़ाइन ऐसा है जिस पाइल लोड का काम जल्दी से जल्दी तैयार हो सकता है। इसके साथ-साथ एक महत्वपूर्ण चीज यह भी है कि उसमे जो सर्विसेज है, एयर कंडीशनिंग है, एकोस्टिक्स है, टी○ वी○ कैमरा है, इलेक्ट्रिकल स्कोर बोर्ड है, है, लाइटिंग है इन सुब चीजों के दृस्टि शी भी यह देखना चाहिए की कौन-सा है। क्या मंत्री महोदय यह आश्वासन देंगे की अंतिम फैसला करने से पहले इन सुब चीजों पैर भी ध्यान दिया जायेगा और दूसरे यह की कब तक फैसला होगा। उसके बाद ऐसा कहा जाता है उसके बारे मे स्पस्टीकरण चाहता हु की जिसको पहला है इस प्रितियोगिता मैं, उसके की डिज़ाइन है और जो वाटरप्रूफिंग है हु ठीक नहीं है। दूसरी बात यह कही जाती है कि उन्होंने जो डिज़ाइन दिया है उसमे कस्क ऑफ़ साइडिंग के अनुसार अधिकतर काम साइट पर होगा जिससे काम में काफी रूकावट पहुँच सकती है और समय भी ज्यादा लग सकता है। तीसरी बात यह कही जाती है कि इस डिज़ाइन मै एक त्रुटि यह है कि इसमें कुछ काम ऐसे है जो एक साथ करने पड़ेंगे क्योकि सीटिंग अरेंजमेंट और रूफिंग अलग-अलग नहीं हो सकते हैं, सिमुलतानूसली नहीं हो सकते हैं। जब तक सीटिंग का काम पूरा नहीं होगा तब तक रूफिंग का काम नहीं हो सकता। इससे संभावना इस बात की हैं कि काम में काफी डिले हो जायेगा। मैं जानना चाहता हूँ कि क्या ये बाते सही है? इसके अलावा इसमें यह भी कहा जाता है के जो दूसरा डिज़ाइन है उसमे यह कहा जाता है कि जो रूफिंग मटेरियल है वह कमरे के ख्याल रिफ्लेक्शन ठीक नहीं है। हमारे देश मै बिजली का इतना संकट है और आप एयर कंडिशन्ड स्टेडियम बना रहे है। इसलिए क्या इस बात को ध्यान मै रक्खा गया है की बिजली जेनेरेट करने के लिए बिजली की आवश्यकता हुई तो क्या आप ने कोई व्यवस्था कर राखी है? इसके साथ-साथ मई यह भी जानना चाहता हूँ कि जिस लोगो ने इस प्रितियोगिता मैं भाग लिया है, क्या आपने इस बात को एवलुएट करने की कोशिश की है कि आपका जो डिज़ाइन कंसोर्टियम है या टेक्निकल टीम है उसने यह बताया है कि किस काम ठिक होगा और समय पर पूरा होगा?

श्री पी○ सी○ सेठी: माननीय उपसभाध्यक्ष महोदय, … ने पहले अपने बयां में जो मैंने सुरेंद्र मोहन जी के बयां के बाद दिया था उसमे इस बात को साफ़ किया था की मेसर्स राज रेवाल का जो डिज़ाइन अप्प्रूव हुआ है उस डिज़ाइन मैं टेक्निकल समिति ने क्या-क्या खामियां पाई थी। मैं मणिनानिया अदस्य की जानकारी के लिए दोनों को जो मुद्दा है जिनकी वजह से डिमेरिट उनकी आती है वह बताने का फिर से प्रयास करूँगा। मैं यह बताना चाहता ह के मैसर्स रियल राम शर्मा और महेंद्र राज के डिज़ाइन मैं कॉम्प्लीकेशन्स बहोत हैं ? If you permit me, I will read it in English. That will be better.

”Because of the complexities of the design, a team of structural and other experts will be required to examine and explore the implications of the design submitted by M/s. Raj Rewal Ram Sharma and Mohinder Raj. This team is yet to be fixed up. The pile-loads in this design have not been worked so far. Various services have not been examined and provided … ”

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Is it fair to quote only a portion of that report? Objection was being taken to my quoting anything of that kind. It will be in fairness that both the reports of the Board of Assessors as well as the entire report of the technical committee are placed on the Table. Then I can understand it is fair. But it is not fair for him to identify the technical committee’s opinion about one of the entries and try to run it down publicly in this manner.

SHRI PRAKASH MEHROTRA: He is trying to reply to my question.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): Objection in your case, Mr. Advani, was taken because they said: How could you get hold of the minutes?

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: No, it was on the question of ethics. So far as I am concerned, I am entitled to get hold of any document from anywhere. It is the duty of Parliament Members. It was the point of ethics that was raised. And I conceded and I said I am not going to quote from it. It is one of the rules of Parliament that if you quote from a document and if any Member wants it to be laid on the Table, you have to lay it on the Table. Now, you have quoted it. In fairness of things I would say that both the reports of the Board of Assessors as well as of the technical committee should be laid on the Table.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): I do not think the Minister said that he was quoting from any document.

SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: He has quoted. Therefore, he switched from Hindi to English. He told you: If you permit me, I will quote in English.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR (Uttar Pradesh). It is the Minister’s personal opinion that he is reading out.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): Are you quoting from any document?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: I am not quoting from any document. I am reading from my notes. If Advaniji has got any objection to reading in English, then I would do it in Hindi also. 3. 00 P. M.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): Do whatever you like.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR: No, Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir. It means what he is quoting is from his own notes and is not his personal opinion. If he is not quoting, then it is his personal opinion. Or, if he has written notes, that means he is saying what has been said in the Report. Is that something different from the Report? (Interruptions).

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): Order, please. He is speaking as a Minister of the Government and he has right to express whatever views he likes on behalf of the Government.

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD MATHUR) : Certainly; but not the views of the Committee.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: I would again like to repeat that I am not reading the Report, either of the Experts Committee or of the Technical Committee. But, when this question is raised on this House, the Department concerned has got a right, and they have to, for the benefit of this House, prepare notes based on some information collected from here and there and the concerned authorities. Based on that information, the honourable Member has raised a few questions and if I won’t clarify them, the House may remain in the dark.

Now, Sir, only one point has been coming up again and again and it is this that the design is good and so, everything is good. Sometimes, Sir, even when the design is good, technically and structurally and from many other points of view, sometimes you have to consider the other schemes also. I am not expressing any opinion or saying that this will be finalised. But certain issues have been raised and I want to reply to them. Now, according to my information, the pile loads have not been worked out in Mr. Raj Rewal’s design. Various services have not been examined. Air conditioning provision which they have made may require substantial changes in the architectural and structural systems.

SHRI G. C. BHATTACHARYA: It is already there.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: what is the harm if I read it out? Some honourable Members might not have been here when I said it.

SHRI G. C. BHATTACHARYA: It is already there. (Interruptions).

SHRI PRAKASH MEHROTRA: It was asked ten times and he would like to read it out ten times.

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Perhaps arrangements for roofing are not satisfactory. It is also a fact that if the working of the seating arrangement and the roofing is not provided for separately, it might consume more time and from all these points of view the Technical Committee had examined it. Whether, from the structural point of view and from the point of view of construction, we would be able to complete the whole project in time and whether by accepting and sign which might appear to be better we would be consuming more time, we would be consuming mote money—all these issues have been examined by the Technical Committee. Neither the Technical Committee’s Report is final nor the Board’s Report is final. The DDA, in their own Board meeting, will go into the merits and demerits of both the Reports and, based on that, we hope, Sir, they will take a decision purely on merits.


SHRI PRAKASH MEHROTRA: What about air-conditioning and what will happen if there is a shortage of power?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: We are hoping for the best as far as power is concerned. It will be after two years that power will be required. I do not think that the darkness in which we are placed in Delhi from time to time will be there and the power position is going to improve and I hope we will get it. We are considering in the meantime whether We could get some generating sets.

SHRI G. C. BHATTACHARYA: Sir, I am only putting a few questions. The honourable Minister is aware that those rules which have been referred to by Mr. Kulkarni have been framed by the DDA. If the DDA has framed the rules, I would like to know whether these rules are binding on the DDA or hot. If those rules are binding on the DDA, then, what is the other source of power to overrule these rules which are binding 0n the DDA itself. Sir, you may kindly recollect that he as said that this is nothing and that the DDA has the power to accept or reject. Although the rules are binding on the DDA, they say that this should be final. I would like to know from the Minister, which is the provision of any other law, rule or order, etc., on the basis of which e is saying that the DDA has the authority to differ from the provisions of the rules, according to which the report of the assessors is final. I want to know specifically the authority on the basis of which this can be over-ruled by the DDA. Secondly, Sir, if the DDA has any such power, and if the inference is that there has been some interference somewhere, what is the convincing reason for this that there has been any such interference? The Minister is saying that he has not interfered. My friend has said that you are correct. But, Mr. Minister, even the Prime Minister over-rules certain things by means of extra-constitutional authorities. There is the extra-constitutional centre of power working in this country. It is not sufficient to say that you do not know from where this interference has come, where these rules have been violated. Your attention is being drawn to this. At least you should be candid enough to say that you will make an inquiry and will place the result of the inquiry on the table of the House. At least, are you ready to hold an inquiry how these rules have been violated and how this irregularity has happened, or who is the person who is responsible for violation of the rules, etc. ? After making an inquiry, will you place your report on the Table of the House? Sir, I also demand that both the reports of the assessor and also of the technical committee should be placed on the Table of the House, because this convention is based on > the report of the assessor and your contention is based on the report of the technical committee. For the satisfaction of Members, will you kindly place both the reports on the these rules which are kinding(!) on the Table cf the House?

SHRI P. C. SETHI: Sir; the time to place these on the Table of the House has not yet come. When it comes I would certainly have no objection; with your permission, I will do it. As far as the ruling which is being quoted here is concerned, he is quoting from the ‘Design Competition For An Indoor Stadium’. This booklet “was published when the people participated in the competition. It leads:

“The DDA undertakes to pay the following prize money within two months of the award of the assessors:

First Prize Rs. 50,000/-

Second Prize Rs. 30,000/-

Third Prize Rs. 20,000/-

Provided the entries in the hands of the Board of Assessors meet the required standard of drawings called for. ”

This is only a sort of guideline as to on what basis they are going to work. Now about this amount of Rs. 7000, i when it was found that it may work a little inadequately, was revised by the DDA and instead of Rs. 7000 it was made Rs. 10,000. Similarly, in the case of Rs. 20,000 also. Therefore, to say that rule or law is absolutely binding on them is not correct. Further more, as far as this is concerned, the decision of the Board of assessors in this respect and in respect of assessing which is the best design will be final. We are not challenging the Board of Assessors as to why they came to this conclusion that this is the best design. But the DDA, while considering the whole provision, will definitely, through the technical committee’s report and also, based on the discussions here, take any other help or guideline from any other person who is more competent and expert. The D. D. A. can take it. The Government can take it. Tht matter Is still at a very premature stage.

SHRI G. C. BHATTACHARYA: Are these guidelines not binding on the State?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): The discussion is over. Now, there is a statement by the hon. Minister of External Affairs.

DR. M. M. S. SIDDHU (Uttar Pradesh): One point has not been answered. It is a question of ethics. Any architectural design or any money …

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI R. R. MORARKA): That discussion is over, Dr. Siddhu. You will get some other opportunity. Then you can ask your question.