Committee members have accused the commissioner of showing favouritism in awarding a Rs 12 crore contract to Saw Pipe (of the Jindal Group, the second largest manufacture of pipe in the country), even though it had failed to fulfill certain conditions as laid down by the committee for filing tenders. ``The tender should not have been accepted in the first place,'' they point out, adding the company, which in 1996 was blacklisted by the standing committee, was not the lowest bidder, yet it was awarded the contract as it agreed to supply pipes at much lower rates than quoted by other five companies, which had filed tenders.

``Despite the company failing to meet conditions, the commissioner has recommended that it is advantageous and in the corporation's interest to allot the contract to Saw Pipe,'' members point out. While the members have decided not to accept the commissioner's recommendation, Jagadeesan is unfazed and says he is open to debate with committee members.

``Let them explain why it is not in the corporation's interest,'' he says, claiming that the SMC stands to save Rs 58 lakh if the company was allotted the contract.

While Standing committee chairman Ajay Choksi could not be contacted for his comments, a committee member told Express Newsline that when Choksi called up the commissioner, expressing his displeasure, Jagadeesan told him that he was for awarding the contract. But if the standing committee decides otherwise, he would inform the state government.

Committee members Bakul Patel and Madansinh Atodaria, too, accuse Jagadeesan of favouritism, alleging that the civic chief was openly favouring a blacklisted company and the elected wing was yet to take cognizance of it.

In 1996-97, Saw Pipe was awarded the contract after the validity period had lapsed. Later, the company said it would not be able to supply pipes at prices quoted in the tender as prices had escalated. Legally, the contractor cannot be compelled to supply pipes at original rates, says a senior official, yet the standing committee decided to blacklist and ``initiate criminal and civil'' proceedings against the company.

Meanwhile, the SMC re-invited tenders. As Saw Pipe was blacklisted it could not file a tender. But it managed to revoke the censor and get a mandatory ISI certificate. Since it was not the lowest bidder, the commissioner decided to revise the offer and called tenderers for negotiation. Saw Pipe agreed to reduce Rs 2 crore, which, according to a standing committee member, does not seem to be ``workable''. The commissioner then send the proposal to the committee with a note, ``It is in the interest of the corporation to award the contract to Saw Pipe''.

Justifying extension of the date for inviting tenders, Jagadeesan asserted ``It is not unusual for corporations to extend the dates to get the best offer.'' On Saw Pipes not having an ISI mark, the commissioner pointed out that it did have an API certificate, which was internationally recognised. He has also alleged that some committee members were interested in promoting and awarding the contract to a particular company.