Jaipur : Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department Rajasthan is once again facing allegations of favouritism and questionable procurement practices after the department’s Finance Committee (FC) rejected a proposal that allegedly sought to extend contracts and increase financial commitments for select suppliers without proper assessment of actual requirement.
The controversy surfaced during the 917th meeting of the Finance Committee, where a proposal related to the procurement of ISI-marked sluice valves under NIB No. Sluice Valve/2024-25/11 was placed for approval.
According to documents accessed by “Expose Now,” officials allegedly attempted to increase the financial commitment under existing contracts from ₹400 lakh to ₹600 lakh — a 50 percent increase — while simultaneously seeking a three-month extension of the existing rate contracts.
However, the proposal was reportedly deferred after the Finance Committee raised strong objections over the absence of any genuine demand assessment or need-based justification.
Alleged Attempt to Benefit Select Firms
Sources within the department claim that the proposal would have directly benefited several existing suppliers currently operating under PHED rate contracts.
More Read
The firms reportedly included:
- Hari Industries
- Paras Valves
- Sunil Industries
- Bikaner Engineering Works
- Arco Manufacturing Company
Officials allegedly argued that rates under the existing contracts for larger-sized valves ranging from 250 mm to 600 mm were 5 to 10 percent lower than prices emerging under fresh tenders. Based on this reasoning, the department sought extension of the contract period from May 14, 2026, to August 13, 2026.
At the same time, officials recommended increasing the financial ceiling by ₹200 lakh to continue procurement under the old contracts.
More Read
Finance Committee Questions Lack of “Actual Assessment”
During detailed deliberations, Finance Committee members reportedly questioned the basis on which the extension proposal had been prepared.
According to committee observations, officials failed to conduct any “need-based actual assessment” regarding the real requirement of sluice valves on the ground before proposing the extension and increase in financial commitment.
The committee reportedly expressed displeasure that the proposal was prepared merely on the basis of previously approved rates and old contract terms without any fresh evaluation of actual departmental demand.
Committee members concluded that extending contracts and increasing financial limits without a realistic requirement assessment would not be financially justified under procurement rules.
Proposal Deferred, Fresh Assessment Ordered
Following the objections, the Finance Committee deferred the entire proposal and directed the department to conduct a fresh, detailed assessment of actual valve requirements across projects before bringing any revised proposal for approval.
The decision effectively halted the department’s attempt to extend the tenure of existing suppliers and assign additional procurement worth crores of rupees under the old contracts.
More Read
Sources indicate that the Chief Engineer (Administration) has now been instructed to prepare a revised proposal backed by verified demand figures, field-level analysis, and proper financial justification.
Procurement Practices Under Increasing Scrutiny
The latest development adds to a growing series of procurement-related controversies surrounding PHED, where allegations of procedural irregularities, retrospective approvals, single-bid favoritism, and contract extensions have repeatedly surfaced in recent months.
Transparency advocates argue that the Finance Committee’s intervention prevented what could have become another financially questionable procurement decision involving public funds.
Experts note that extending contracts without competitive bidding or actual requirement assessment can potentially reduce transparency, limit fair competition, and increase the risk of preferential treatment toward existing contractors.
Questions Raised Over Internal Oversight
The controversy has once again triggered debate over accountability within PHED’s procurement system.
Observers are now raising several critical questions:
- Why was the proposal prepared without a verified requirement assessment?
- Was the extension intended to avoid fresh competitive procurement?
- How many similar extensions may have been approved in the past without detailed scrutiny?
- Are existing contractors receiving undue administrative protection through repeated contract extensions?
The Finance Committee’s decision is being viewed as a rare instance of internal resistance against alleged procedural manipulation and financial overreach within departmental procurement operations.