Irregularities and corruption worth of Rs.222 million was reported last week

Multan airport development project is facing a loss of Rs.222 million caused by financial irregularities and corruption. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has conducted an audit of the construction contractors, purchases of construction materials and the Aviation Division. The committee recommended to the government to immediately blacklist the contractors named ECIL Ltd.

The committee has said that all the corruption and irregularities resulted from the irregular award of license agreement of international cargo handling to Air Gate International. This agreement amounts to 2.18 billion rupees. This only agreement caused a massive loss to Civil Aviation Authority of Rs 671.38 million. Civil Aviation Authority and the FIA asked to submit their investigation reports to the committee within one month.

The audit committee has also found that the cargo handling license was awarded to Air Gate International for three years at 18,150, 000 rupees per month with an increase of 10 percent every year instead of the required 12.5 percent to 15 percent. A 3 percent loss every year.

The license was again granted for further four years at the same conditions of the agreement. This time the irregularities in the award of license amounted to 2.184 billion rupees and it is the direct loss to the Civil Aviation Authority.

The officials of the Civil Aviation Authority told the committee that the case of irregularities was filed in the court of law and the Air Gate had got a stay order. The PAC chairman has referred the case to the FIA and directed DG FIA to investigate the case within a month. The committee also learned that a contract was won by the Habib Rafique PVT Ltd because their bid was higher than that of the contractor company from China.

The audit officials told the committee that unfair enlargement and pre-qualification resulted in irregularities worth of 3.17 billion rupees. The CAA officials told the committee that the Chinese company was not able to win the contract because the objection that the company was unable to produce the original bank draft against earnest money but a photocopy.