Pune: Allegations have surfaced that the project list for flood prevention and drainage improvement works, submitted by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), was altered after the funds were sanctioned.
According to sources within the PMC, the government’s July order approving the funds mentioned an attached list of projects, yet the PMC claims that this list was never received.
Upon further inquiry, the PMC was provided with a list that included projects from only five constituencies, all represented by BJP MLAs, sparking accusations of favoritism and misallocation.
This discrepancy has raised serious concerns that the original flood prevention projects recommended by the PMC were replaced or ignored, potentially compromising the city’s preparedness for future floods.
This issue has its roots in the devastating cloudburst that occurred on September 25, 2019, which led to severe flooding in the Ambil Odha area. The disaster caused the collapse of boundary walls in multiple housing societies and claimed more than 20 lives.
In response, the PMC undertook the construction of protective walls and bridges along Ambil Odha, though technical challenges delayed some work. Recognizing the need for comprehensive flood prevention measures, the state government allocated 200 crores, with the understanding that it would cover crucial projects across affected areas.
However, despite the PMC’s initial proposal covering all eight assembly constituencies with critical drainage issues, tenders were issued for works in only five constituencies: Khadakwasla, Shivajinagar, Cantonment, Parvati, and Kothrud, with the respective allocations as follows:
Khadakwasla – ₹41.23 crores
Shivajinagar – ₹24.80 crores
Cantonment – ₹39.04 crores
Parvati – ₹41.15 crores
Kothrud – ₹19.90 crores
Administrative and Political Ramifications
The alleged alteration of the project list has ignited debates within PMC’s administrative circles and among local political figures. The primary concern is that the altered list does not reflect the most urgent flood prevention needs, but rather a politically influenced selection. This situation not only undermines the city’s flood preparedness but also raises questions about transparency and accountability in public fund allocations.
