PM-KUSUM tenders row: Kerala government’s approval was not sought, says Power Minister in Assembly

The Chief Executive Officer of the Agency for New and Renewable Energy Research and Technology (Anert), who has since been replaced, had not sought the Kerala government’s approval for floating tenders for the implementation of the Centrally-aided PM-KUSUM scheme in Kerala, Electricity Minister K. Krishnankutty informed the Kerala Legislative Assembly on Wednesday.

The State government had not granted approval for the tenders either, Mr. Krishnankutty said in a written reply to questions in the House.

To a question by United Democratic Front (UDF) MLAs as to whether the then Anert CEO, Narendranath Veluri, had invited tenders worth ₹240 crore when he did not have the authority to exceed ₹5 crore, Mr. Krishnankutty said that a department-level investigation was in progress in the matter.

In August, the State government had shunted out Mr. Veluri as Anert CEO following a series of allegations levelled by senior Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala with respect to the implementation of PM-KUSUM scheme in Kerala.

The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha Evam Utthan Mahabhiyan (PM-KUSUM) envisages solarisation of individual grid-connected agricultural pumps.

Mr. Krishnankutty informed the Assembly that the government has taken note of the allegations about irregularities in the tendering process. “The Additional Chief Secretary (Power) had been directed to investigate the allegations and submit a report. Further measures will be adopted once the department-level report is made available. Strict directions have been issued to complete the probe in a time-bound manner,” Mr. Krishnankutty said in his written reply.

Meanwhile, the State government is yet to respond to Mr. Chennithala’s demand for investigations by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and a Legislative Assembly panel into the alleged corruption.

In a complaint to VACB director Manoj Abraham in August, Mr. Chennithala had accused top Anert officials of manipulating the bidding process and the award of contract work’s rate “with a view to obtaining undue pecuniary gains to the bidders as a whole and thereby caused wrongful loss to government.”