Corruption Case Against Former Pashupati Area Development Trust Member Secretary and 13 Others Set for Hearing

The hearing date has been set for the corruption case filed against former Member Secretary of the Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT), Dr. Milan Kumar Thapa, and 13 others. The hearing will take place before the bench comprising Special Court Chairman Sudarshan Dev Bhatta and members Hemanta Rawal and Dilliratna Shrestha.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) filed the corruption case on Ashar 8, 2082, against Member Secretary Thapa and 13 others concerning the procurement of a cremation machine at Pashupati. The defendants named in the case include former Member Secretary Dr. Thapa, former Acting Member Secretary Rajukumar Khatri, current Executive Director Ghanshyam Khatiwada, current Deputy Director Revatiraman Adhikari, former Deputy Director Sitaram Risal, engineers Pashupati Thakur, Dennis Upreti, Ramesh Puri, and others.

The accusation against the defendants is that they prepared an artificially inflated cost estimate for a cremation machine, valued at Indian Rupees 3,250,000, by showing it as Nepali Rupees 15,200,000, and by including allowances permitted by prevailing law in the cost estimation. The charge sheet mentions that necessary technical documents, competitive bidding, and on-site inspection were not conducted during the procurement process. Furthermore, an advance payment of NPR 18.2 million was made even though the work specified in the contract agreement had not been completed, according to the CIAA's charge sheet.

Also named as defendants in the case are PADT's Accounts Officer Chandra Prasad Khanal, Head of the Electrical Department at Pulchowk Campus Associate Professor Yuvraj Adhikari, Legal Advisor and Evaluation Committee Member of PADT Lain Bahadur Thapa, operators of Suppliers Company Map Entrepreneurs Manoj Puri and Yadunandan Bhattarai, and Managing Director of Apple Engineering Suraj Chapagain. A claim for compensation of NPR 18.2 million each has been sought from the defendants.

According to the charge sheet, the accused violated clear public procurement criteria and awarded the contract based on favoring certain companies as 'preferred and favored' rather than following due process. The charge sheet states that the prices presented as a 'cheap machine' were false, and the contract was awarded by inflating the cost of a 3.2 million rupee machine to 15.2 million rupees.

The CIAA's charge sheet mentions that the contract was awarded without a technical report, site inspection, or legal advice, payment was made before the agreement, the deadline was extended before the work was completed, a low-quality machine was installed, and it has still not been operational.