Anil Parab Seeks Probe Into Rs 1,400 Crore Dighi Tender

A ₹1,400 crore public works tender is not just paperwork. It is roads, drains, power lines, jobs, and land values for thousands around Raigad.

That is why Anil Parab has pushed the Maharashtra government into an uncomfortable corner. The Shiv Sena MLC has alleged irregularities in the tender process for Phase 1 works at Dighi Port Industrial Area.

Parab has written to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and asked for an independent inquiry. His central claim is simple. He says the winning bidder did not meet the tender rules.

Why this tender matters

The tender covers infrastructure works under Package A at the industrial area in Raigad district. The estimated value stands near ₹1,400 crore.

For ordinary readers, this is not a small contract buried in a government file. This is the kind of project that decides how quickly an industrial zone becomes useful.

Factories do not come only because land exists. They need access roads, internal networks, drainage, power systems, and basic civic works.

If those works drag, investors wait. If quality suffers, businesses pay later. Workers and local suppliers feel the delay first.

The tender was floated by Maharashtra Industrial Township Limited, or MITL. The company handles industrial township development linked to such projects.

Parab has claimed the contract went to Ramky Infrastructure Limited, often shortened to RIL in tender documents. Ramky emerged as the lowest bidder, he said.

The company reportedly quoted nearly 12 percent below the project estimate. In government contracts, that can look attractive on day one.

But a low bid is not always the whole story. The real question is whether the bidder has the experience and papers required.

Parab questions Ramky’s eligibility

Parab’s complaint focuses on the eligibility conditions in the tender. He has alleged that Ramky submitted documents that were misleading or incomplete.

He said the company relied on project experience from 2010-11. According to his complaint, the tender allowed only projects completed within the last ten years.

That distinction matters in infrastructure. A company’s old project may prove history, but not current capacity.

Roads, industrial utilities, and township works now involve tighter timelines and stricter compliance. Governments ask for recent experience for that reason.

Parab also questioned documents linked to project cost, work orders, and the nature of completed work. He said some papers did not clearly prove that Ramky met the tender’s conditions.

This is where tender scrutiny becomes less boring than it sounds. A missing document can change who qualifies for a major contract.

A vague certificate can keep a stronger rival out. A loosely checked claim can move public money toward the wrong bidder.

Parab has asked the government to make Ramky’s eligibility documents public. That demand will test how transparent the state wants to be.

The certificate dispute

The sharpest part of the complaint concerns completion certificates. These are the documents that show a company finished similar work before.

Parab has alleged that several certificates submitted by Ramky were self-certified. He claimed some came from subsidiaries or affiliated entities linked to the bidder.

That raises a basic concern. If a bidder’s related company certifies its own experience, the government must examine it with extra care.

This does not automatically prove wrongdoing. But it does demand a clean explanation.

Tender systems depend on trust, but they cannot run only on trust. They need checks that any rival bidder, auditor, or citizen can understand.

Parab also claimed Ramky failed to qualify in a similar tender in Bihar. He referred to a tender floated by Bihar Integrated Manufacturing City Gaya Limited.

His argument is clear. If similar rules rejected the company elsewhere, Maharashtra officials should explain why they accepted it here.

That comparison may become a key pressure point. Different tender committees can read documents differently. But large public contracts need consistent standards.

Officials face scrutiny now

Parab has accused senior officials of ignoring objections raised by competing bidders. He named MITL chairman and industries department principal secretary Dr P Anbalagan.

He also referred to managing director P D Malikner in his complaint. According to Parab, objections reached these officials before the award.

This part matters because tender controversies often turn on process. Did officials receive objections? Did they examine them? Did they record reasons?

A transparent process can survive a political attack. A weak process struggles even when the final choice is defensible.

Parab has sought an inquiry by an officer of Additional Chief Secretary rank. He also wants the inquiry report submitted within 15 days.

That timeline sounds ambitious. But the demand itself puts the matter on the government’s desk.

For Fadnavis, the issue carries a business signal too. Maharashtra competes hard for investment. Industrial projects need investor confidence.

When a large contract faces eligibility questions, companies watch the response. They want speed, but they also want predictable rules.

Small contractors watch even more closely. They often believe big players get second chances that smaller firms never receive.

If the state clears the tender after scrutiny, it must show its reasoning. If it finds flaws, it must act without dragging the project into limbo.

What taxpayers should watch

The phrase EPC model appears in the tender discussion. It means engineering, procurement, and construction.

In plain English, one contractor takes responsibility for designing, buying materials, and building the project. The government wants one accountable hand.

That model can work well when the contractor has capacity. It can become painful when qualification checks fail.

A ₹1,400 crore project also carries a simple taxpayer risk. If the contractor underbids and later struggles, delays and disputes can follow.

Cost overruns do not always appear in one dramatic bill. They arrive through extensions, claims, arbitration, and maintenance headaches.

For people near the project area, the impact is more direct. Better infrastructure can bring factories, logistics firms, jobs, and land-linked opportunities.

But badly executed infrastructure can bring traffic, dust, half-built roads, and broken promises. Local communities often pay that price before anyone in Mumbai notices.

The government now has three basic tasks. It must verify the documents, answer the objections, and protect the project timeline.

Ramky’s side of the story will also matter. A serious allegation needs a serious response, especially when public money is involved.

For now, Parab has turned a technical tender into a political and business test. The state can treat it as noise, or use it to show that big contracts can survive daylight.

That is the real stake here. Maharashtra does need industrial infrastructure, and fast. But speed without clean rules usually becomes expensive later, for businesses, workers, and taxpayers alike.