Corruption case related to Pashupati cremation machine purchase set for hearing

Kathmandu. The hearing for the corruption case related to the purchase of the Pashupati cremation machine has been scheduled at the Special Court. The corruption case against 14 individuals, including Dr. Milan Kumar Thapa, former member secretary of the Pashupati Area Development Trust, has been scheduled for hearing in the bench of Special Court Chairman Sudarshan Dev Bhatta and Dilliratan Shrestha.

The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had filed a corruption case against 14 individuals, including member secretary Thapa, on Asar 8, 2082, in connection with the Pashupati cremation machine purchase. In this case, former acting member secretary Rajukumar Khatri, current deputy director Revatiraman Adhikari, former acting deputy director Sitaram Risal, engineers Pashupati Thakur, Denis Upreti, Ramesh Puri, among others, have been named as defendants along with member secretary Dr. Thapa.

The defendants are accused of preparing an unusually high cost estimate by showing a cremation machine worth Indian Rupees 3.25 million as costing Nepali Rupees 15.2 million, and adding the exemptions allowed by prevailing law to the cost estimate.

The charge sheet mentions that the necessary technical documents, competitive bidding, and on-site inspection were not conducted for the purchase. The charge sheet also states that an advance payment of NPR 18.2 million was made without completing the work specified in the contract agreement.

Similarly, Chandra Prasad Khanal, accounting officer of the Pashupati Area Development Trust, Yuvraj Adhikari, head of the Electrical Department at Pulchowk Campus, Lain Bahadur Thapa, legal advisor and evaluation committee member of the Pashupati Area Development Trust, Manoj Puri and Yadunandan Bhattarai, proprietors of the supplier company Map Entrepreneurs, and Suraj Chapagain, managing director of Apple Engineering, have also been named as defendants in the case. A claim of NPR 18.2 million has been sought from each of the defendants.

According to the charge sheet, they violated the clear criteria of public procurement and selected some companies based on favoritism rather than following the proper procedure. The charge sheet states that the prices presented as 'cheapest machines' were false, and the contract was awarded by showing a machine worth 3.2 million as costing 15.2 million.