AMPLIFYING LOCAL VOICES TO DEMOCRATIZE DEVELOPMENT , says Bank Information Center “BIC”

Is this really happenning ? In World Bank ?

 An Unbelievable Act of World Bank

Dear Mr. Bhavnani,

Saturday morning i had a bitter taste of my coffee sip while reading a news of World Bank as linked below

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20870206~menuPK:702592~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:702586,00.html

Before patronizing/glamourizing a SCAM you would have done some Homework on your own or through your investigating agencies. Should we believe that World Bank has lost the basic motive of the Millenium Development Goal or eGovernance at large?

I had earlier informed the person incharge in World Bank Mr. Knut Leipold about the facts of eProcurement being practiced in Andhra Pradesh, long back and had requested him to assign suitable time for a demonstration about what other good inititaives had been taken in India, The Best Practice Real eProcurement in India, but since then I’m waiting for his confirmation.

You are requested to read the following link to understand the other side, story of SCAM in the name of eProcurement in Andhra Pradesh, India -

http://www.mpez.net//eprocurement-scam/default.asp

The above mentioned story tells the real truth of a big scam in the name of eGovernance (eProcurement) in Andhra Pradesh.

The representation had been lodged to all the concerned officials in Andhra Pradesh and GoI, but nothing has happened till now and as a sheer surprise World Bank is validating a SCAM and glorifying it to the World for practicing something opposite to the motive of World Bank Belief. Had it been posted under “eProcurement Scam” on World Bank’s website?

While pursuing it with the GoAP and GoI officials we concluded that they might have been working Hands in Glove with this SCAM but to our Ultimate surprise WORLD BANK could not even distnaced themselves of the similar apprehension.

Investigate the Corruption and inappropriate eProcurement charges got established while exchanging communication with the GoAP and APTS the implementing agency (Detailed in the Scam link above).

Why it had violated the IT Act 2000 till 2005? Does World Bank appreciate violation of Local Government Laws?

You mention in the case study of such report that “Encryption of data is happening on Server” what happens when it arrives on the server? did it not arrive in clear text on server? did the system administrator do not have access to these data?

a lot other you will find when reading the represented “eProcurement SCAM in Andhra Pradesh” Link.

With a sheer Shame and Great Disappointment “I WAS WORRIED TILL NOW FOR INDIA, NOW I AM WORRIED FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD” 

Had I skipped this News?…………

For Global Citizen’s shake investigate it properly and request GoI for penalizing all the guilty and culprits of this nature of affair.

As a request to Mr. Knut Leipold – I’m still waiting to demonstrate the real eProcurement system in practice (Working in FOSS environment) for which MDBs had drafted a guideline. Please assign us your valuable time.

Thanks & Regards

Dr. Manoj Verma

+ 919376128329

World Bank need to INVESTIGATE before PATRONIZING / GLAMOURIZING Andhra Pradesh eProcurment SCAM.

FYI & Investigation

manoj verma <drmkv@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear All,

I had sent the below mentioned mail to the concerned officials of World Bank last week which got bounced (This is one more IRONY of the World Bank’s eGovernance Management), I resent it from another mail_id which has yet not reported to be bounced back but i have yet not received any acknowledgement till this time. These acts compell us to believe World Bank’s functioning like a Taluka affair where you are on mercey of the officers if they wish to acknowledge you or favor you by responding.

The posting was as below:

————————————————————-

Dear Mr. Bhavnani,

Saturday morning i had a bitter taste of my coffee sip while reading a news of World Bank as linked below

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20870206~menuPK:702592~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:702586,00.html

Before patronizing/glamourizing a SCAM you would have done some Homework on your own or through your investigating agencies. Should we believe that World Bank has lost the basic motive of the Millenium Development Goal or eGovernance at large?

I had earlier informed the person incharge in World Bank Mr. Knut Leipold about the facts of eProcurement being practiced in Andhra Pradesh, long back and had requested him to assign suitable time for a demonstration about what other good inititaives had been taken in India, The Best Practice Real eProcurement in India, but since then I’m waiting for his confirmation.

You are requested to read the following link to understand the other side, story of SCAM in the name of eProcurement in Andhra Pradesh, India -

http://www.mpez.net//eprocurement-scam/default.asp

The above mentioned story tells the real truth of a big scam in the name of eGovernance (eProcurement) in Andhra Pradesh.

The representation had been lodged to all the concerned officials in Andhra Pradesh and GoI, but nothing has happened till now and as a sheer surprise World Bank is validating a SCAM and glorifying it to the World for practicing something opposite to the motive of World Bank Belief. Had it been posted under “eProcurement Scam” on World Bank’s website?

While pursuing it with the GoAP and GoI officials we concluded that they might have been working Hands in Glove with this SCAM but to our Ultimate surprise WORLD BANK could not even distnaced themselves of the similar apprehension.

Investigate the Corruption and inappropriate eProcurement charges got established while exchanging communication with the GoAP and APTS the implementing agency (Detailed in the Scam link above).

Why it had violated the IT Act 2000 till 2005? Does World Bank appreciate violation of Local Government Laws?

You mention in the case study of such report that “Encryption of data is happening on Server” what happens when it arrives on the server? did it not arrive in clear text on server? did the system administrator do not have access to these data?

a lot other you will find when reading the represented “eProcurement SCAM in Andhra Pradesh” Link.

With a sheer Shame and Great Disappointment “I WAS WORRIED TILL NOW FOR INDIA, NOW I AM WORRIED FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD” 

Had I skipped this News?…………

For Global Citizen’s shake investigate it properly and request GoI for penalizing all the guilty and culprits of this nature of affair.

As a request to Mr. Knut Leipold – I’m still waiting to demonstrate the real eProcurement system in practice (Working in FOSS environment) for which MDBs had drafted a guideline. Please assign us your valuable time.

Thanks & Regards

Dr. Manoj Verma

+ 919376128329

AP State eProcuremnet scam – why my integrity,credibility, capability is being questioned

 From: “Ramesh Sinha” <rsinha@tendercity.com> 

To: eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,  umashankarc@yahoo.com, vmkannada@gamail.com
CC: kemal.dervis@undp.org, egovindia@yahoogroups.com, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, dch@yojana.nic.in, mos@mit.gov.in, pmosb@pmo.nic.in, 10janpath@vsnl.net, soniagandhi@sansad.nic.in, nkchoudhary@sansad.nic.in, psgadhavi@sansad.nic.in, nivedita@sansad.nic.in, ddgasab@cag.delhi.nic.in, ssadel@cbi.nic.in, adco@cbi.nic.in, cvc@nic.in, mocit@mit.gov.in, secyegov-dpar@karnataka.gov.in, cs@karnataka.gov.in, cm@karnataka.gov.in, “‘Cc:’” <secy_it&c@ap.gov.in>, cmap@ap.nic.in, drysr@ap.gov.in, ksdir@hub.nic.in, moni@hub.nic.in, secretary@mit.gov.in, jsegov@mit.gov.in, ceo@nisg.org, vs@nisg.org, maxine.olson@undp.org, zephirin.diabre@undp.org, hafiz.pasha@undp.org, jan.mattsson@undp.org, david.lockwood@undp.org, terence.d.jones@undp.org, darshak.shah@undp.org, mari.matsumoto@undp.org, vmkumaraswamy@yahoo.com,  egovindia@yahoo.com, kkarnik@nasscom.org, saravade@gmail.com, mumbai@nasscom.org, mail@dqindia.com
Subject: FW: eProcuremnet scam – why my integrity,credibility, capability is being questioned
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:28:16 +0530
_____________________________

From: Ramesh Sinha [mailto:rsinha@tendercity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:26 AM
To: ‘addlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in’; ‘addlsecy_efst@ap.gov.in’; ‘addlsecy_hsng@ap.gov.in’; ‘addlsecy_ict@ap.gov.in’; ‘advgovt_fin@ap.gov.in’; ‘advisor_it@ap.gov.in’; ‘apstocm@ap.gov.in’; ‘asstsecy_letf@ap.gov.in’; ‘bethapudi@yahoo.com’; ‘binoy@ap.gov.in’; ‘cpro_cm@ap.gov.in’; ‘cs@ap.gov.in’; ‘cvsksarma@ap.gov.in’; ‘dfa_pmu@yahoo.com’; ‘drpsubrahmanyam@ap.gov.in’; ‘gopikrishna@ap.gov.in’; ‘healthsys@rediffmail.com’; ‘jannathussain@ap.gov.in’; ‘jdinfra_it&c@ap.gov.in’; ‘jtsecy_fin@ap.gov.in’; ‘jtsecy_rsad@ap.gov.in’; ‘mgvkbhanu@ap.gov.in’; ‘mnrao@ap.gov.in’; ‘murali@ap.gov.in’; ‘nshari@ap.gov.in’; ‘osd_fin@ap.gov.in’; ‘prabhakarreddy@ap.gov.in’; ‘prabhakert@ap.gov.in’; ‘praghuveer@ap.gov.in’; ‘pratapsp@gmail.com’; ‘prl.secyagr@ap.gov.in’; ‘prlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in’; ‘prlsecy_cm@ap.gov.in’; ‘prlsecy_hmfw@ap.gov.in’; ‘prlsecy_letf@ap.gov.in’; ‘prlsecy_minwelf@ap.gov.in’; ‘Prlsecy_sw@ap.gov.in’; ‘PS_CM@ap.gov.in’; ‘pstocm@ap.gov.in’; ‘ramakanth@ap.gov.in’; ‘ratnaprabha@ap.gov.in’; ‘rksuman@ap.gov.in’; ‘schanda@ap.gov.in’; ‘scio@ap.gov.in’; ‘seclegis@a.p.nic.in’; ‘Secy_BCW@ap.gov.in’; ‘secy_bud_fin@ap.gov.in’; ‘Secy_FOOD@ap.gov.in’; ‘secy_hmfw@ap.gov.in’; ‘secy_poll_gad@ap.gov.in’; ‘Secy_R&E_FIN@ap.gov.in’; ‘secy_rws_prrd@ap.gov.in’; ‘secy_se_edn@ap.gov.in’; ‘Secy_TW_SW@ap.gov.in’; ‘so_portal@ap.gov.in’; ‘SplSecy_efst@ap.gov.in’; ‘tchatterjee@ap.gov.in’; ‘tigdi@ap.gov.in’; ‘tparthas@ap.gov.in’; ‘cmap@ap.gov.in’; ‘cmap@ap.nic.in’; ‘drysr@ap.gov.in’; ‘NarsingRao’
Cc: ‘drverma@tendercity.com’
Subject: eProcuremnet scam – why my integrity,credibility, capability is being questioned

From: Ramesh Sinha [mailto:rsinha@tendercity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:23 AM
To: ‘pmeprocurement’
Cc: ‘NarsingRao’; ‘P Raghuveer’
Subject: RE: eProcurement- tender cityDear Sir,Instead of taking action against M/s. C1 India Pvt. Ltd. we are surprised to see that the Government of AP has started to grill us for bring out in public the loopholes in the eProcurement system www.eprocurement.gov.in it uses. I think whistle blowers in our great country
India, cannot escape it and hence we are complying with your request with this mail. I have not yet received any reply to the question raised by me on 24^th of November, 2005. Please let me know if It would be wrong to assume that Government of AP is trying to cover up the issue by asking irrelevant question and questioning my credibility, capabilities and integrity. Not that I have answered your email promptly, can I expect reply to the questions raised by me on 24^th of November after 6 days.Applitech Tendercity.com has enabled the first eTender in
India in July 2003 which complied to IT Act, and was digitally signed. Since then till date we have enabled eTenders & eAuctions for government department in excess of Rs. 8,000 Crores. Some of our customers includes Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, Government of Rajasthan, Gujarat
Narmada Valley Fertilizer Company, Indian Oil Corporations, etc.I have bought to your notice the major security loopholes because of which the secrecy of price bid can be compromised. There are 100’s of live tenders currently available on www.eprocurement.gov.in and because of which I had requested Government of AP to pull down the site immediately, which for some reasons beyond has been not done. I further take this opportunity to point that I had demonstrated our entire system to your colleague for almost 2 hours. I unfortunately do not recollect his name, but he was there when I met the IT secretary.Ramesh SinhaCEOApplitech Tendercity.com I Pvt. Ltd

9825021784

___________________________________________________

From: pmeprocurement [mailto:pmeprocurement@ap.gov.in]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:30 PM
To: rsinha@tendercity.com
Cc: NarsingRao; P Raghuveer
Subject: eProcurement- tender cityDear Mr.Ramesh Sinha,

Greetings!

Please indiciate the following details about the tender city eprocurement platform by 30th Nov 2005 ,

1. Please indicate the names of Government departments or Agecies using the tender city eprocurement portal for end to end (NIT publsihing to award of contract to the successful bidder) tender processing. Furnish client wise details on number of tenders com[pleted with their aggregated value on tendercity portal since last two years.

2. Who is the system administrator and data base administrator for the tedner city eprocurement portal used by your clients.

Yours Sincerely,
K.Bikshapathi
Project Manager,
eProcurement,
Ph.No.23451055
Fax.No.23450103

World Bank and UNDP please read letter from Tendercity to Sri. Narsing Rao , Secretary, ITC&C Dept. Andhra Pradesh State on eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh State in INDIA.

From: Ramesh Sinha [mailto:
rsinha@tendercity.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:07 AM
To: ‘pmeprocurement’
Cc: ‘NarsingRao’; ‘P Raghuveer’; ‘ratnaprabha’; ‘Sunitha Natti’; ‘drverma@tendercity.com’; ‘kinjal@tendercity.com’;
PAAVAN DUGGAL
Subject: RE: eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh).Dear Sir,Your reply has confirmed our doubt that Rs. 38,000 eProcurement scam did take place.  As requested, we are making your reply with our comments public. Let the contractors/public decide what good for them and how their money should be spent.

1. Service Provider fully controls and owns the eprocurement.gov.in site and all the data on that site
2. Encryption was done using internal algorithm for symmetric encryption on the server side, till Feb 2005.
3. Digital Certificates were not used till Feb 2005.  The GoAP accepts that Digital Certificates were available as on Jan 2003.
4. GoAP does not have any objection if price bids of all contracters can be accessed by the service provider before tender opening date, as the GoAP has blanket trust on the ethics of the Service Provider, C1 India Pvt Ltd.  This is despite the fact that 3 different companies have filed lawsuits involving C1 India charging them with various unethical practices.
5. We have demonstrated clearly to the GoAP IT Secy on 24 Nov, and APTS on 3 Dec the various technology issues and best practices.  The GoAP still insists on continuing their blind trust on the service provider.
6. The GoAP admits that the price bids reach the application in readable clear text, and subsequently are subject to encryption.  The GoAP is explained this loophole and still continues to use this site.
7. The GoAP is remaining silent on the fact that the SSL certificate is issued by a
   US based private company, which is not recognized by the CCA of India.  The GoAP also is not able to explain how the ownership of a .gov.in domain is given to a private limited company, as is mentioned in the Server Certificate.
8. PWC, who was asked to conduct a security audit, is a consortium partner with C1 India for eprocurement tender invited by other state governments.

 

 

We request that:

1. The site eprocurement.gov.in be pulled down immediately
2. All the 9841 tenders be investigated given the admissions of lack of secrecy.
3. To penalize the service provider and its champions within the government for willfully and knowingly supplying and using a sub standard eprocurement system.
4. As per you instructions of the IT Secretary, we are making the letter LR.No. 2852/eProcurement/IT&C Department/2005 Dated 5.-12-2005 public.  We request all interested and knowledgable people to carefully review the letter and send their comments to the IT Secretary, and educate him on technology.

 

 

---

From: pmeprocurement [mailto:pmeprocurement@ap.gov.in]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 6:41 PM
To:
rsinha@tendercity.com
Cc: NarsingRao; P Raghuveer; ratnaprabha; Sunitha Natti
Subject: Fw: eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh).

 

Dear Mr Ramesh Sinha,

Greetings.

Please find attached our reply to the issues raised in your mails dated 8/11/05, 26/11/05 on eProcurement platform of GoAP. A physical copy will follow. Meanwhile, it is requested to forward our reply immediately to all those to whom you have mailed letters( referred above) either in physical mode or email and host the reply prominantly in the  web site www.tendercity.indiatimes.com for 15 days at  your cost.

Yours Sincerely,
K.Bikshapathi
Project Manager,
eProcurement,
Ph.No.23451055
Fax.No.23450103

—– Forwarded by pmeprocurement/IT/HYD/APGOVT on 05/12/2005 06:26 PM —–

pmeprocurement/IT/HYD/APGOVT 26/11/2005 09:19 PM

To rsinha@tendercity.com cc NarsingRao/IAS/APGOVT@APGOVT, P Raghuveer/IFS/APGOVT@APGOVT Subject Fw: eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh).

Dear Mr Ramesh Sinha,

Greetings.

your mail has been forwarded to me and we are examining the issues raised there in.

Yours Sincerely,
K.Bikshapathi
Project Manager,
eProcurement,
Ph.No.23451055
Fax.No.23450103

—– Forwarded by pmeprocurement/IT/HYD/APGOVT on 26/11/2005 09:15 PM —–

 

“Ramesh Sinha” < rsinha@tendercity.com> 26/11/2005 02:22 PM Please respond to < rsinha@tendercity.com>

To < secy_it&c@ap.gov.in>, < cmap@ap.gov.in>, < cmap@ap.nic.in>, < drysr@ap.gov.in> cc < addlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in>, < addlsecy_efst@ap.gov.in>, < addlsecy_hsng@ap.gov.in>, < addlsecy_ict@ap.gov.in>, < advgovt_fin@ap.gov.in>, < advisor_it@ap.gov.in>, < a pstocm@ap.gov.in>, < asstsecy_letf@ap.gov.in>, < bethapudi@yahoo.com>, < binoy@ap.gov.in>, < cpro_cm@ap.gov.in>, < cs@ap.gov.in>, < cvsksarma@ap.gov.in>, < dfa_pmu@yahoo.com>, < drpsubrahmanyam@ap.gov.in>, < gopikrishna@ap.gov.in>, < healthsys@rediffmail.com>, < jannathussain@ap.gov.in>, < jdinfra_it&c@ap.gov.in>, < jtsecy_fin@ap.gov.in>, < jtsecy_rsad@ap.gov.in>, < mgvkbhanu@ap.gov.in>, < mnrao@ap.gov.in>, < murali@ap.gov.in>, < nshari@ap.gov.in>, < osd_fin@ap.gov.in>, < prabhakarreddy@ap.gov.in>, < prabhakert@ap.gov.in>, <praghuveer@ap.gov.in>, < pratapsp@gmail.com>, < prl.secyagr@ap.gov.in>, < prlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in>, < prlsecy_cm@ap.gov.in>, < prl secy_hmfw@ap.gov.in>, < prlsecy_letf@ap.gov.in>, < prlsecy_minwelf@ap.gov.in>, < Prlsecy_sw@ap.gov.in>, < PS_CM@ap.gov.in>, < pstocm@ap.gov.in>, < ramakanth@ap.gov.in>, < ratnaprabha@ap.gov.in>, < rksuman@ap.gov.in>, < schanda@ap.gov.in>, < scio@ap.gov.in>, < seclegis@a.p.nic.in>, < Secy_BCW@ap.gov.in>, < secy_bud_fin@ap.gov.in>, < Secy_FOOD@ap.gov.in>, < secy_hmfw@ap.gov.in>, < secy_poll_gad@ap.gov.in>, < Secy_R&E_FIN@ap.gov.in>, <secy_rws_prrd@ap.gov.in>, < secy_se_edn@ap.gov.in>, < Secy_TW_SW@ap.gov.in>, < so_portal@ap.gov.in>, < SplSecy_efst@ap.gov.in>, < tchatterjee@ap.gov.in>, < tigdi@ap.gov.in>, < tparthas@ap.gov.in> Subject eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh).

To
The Secretary
Information Technology and Communication Department
Room No. 433, 3^rd Floor, D Block, AP Secretarial
Hyderabad – 500 022
Date: 26^th November, 2005
Kind Attn. : Mr. Narsing Rao
 
Subject: eProcurement scam worth Rs. 38,000 Crores in Andhra Pradesh).
 
Dear Sir,
I am herewith listing the points discussed during our meeting at your office on 24^th of November, 2005 regarding the major security loopholes in www.eprocurement.gov.in. Further you are requested to immediately pull down the website as using the system till the time the below security loopholes are not patched, would mean compromising with the Public Procurement Practices at large where “Public Money” is at stake.
 
·        Though the Tender/Project was awarded under IT Act 2000, Digital Certificates were only incorporated after March 2005. This means that approx 5000
Tenders worth Rs.31,000 Crore were enabled in an insecure fashion where system administrator could access to the price bids submitted by 10’000 odd bidders before due date and time.
 
·        Though the government made it mandatory to introduce Digital certificate after March 2005, but as of November 2005, the “Goods” Tender are being submitted without being digitally Signed and are not stored in encrypted fashion (that is encryption is not done using Buyer’s Digital Certificate. When we logged into your system, we could actually edit our bid and this proves the above point.
 
·        As of November 2005, the “Works” Tender are only Digitally Signed, but are not stored in Encrypted Fashion using Digital Certificate.
 
·        As of November 2005, during bid submission process a detached digital signature is being generated because of which Original Bid and its Signature are separately stored in the database ie. If a bidders quotes Rs. 1000 as his price bid, Rs. 1000 is stored in database in readable format and Digital Signature of Rs. 1000 is separately stored. Because of this loophole the system administrator can have access to the price bid of a Bidder before due date and time. One of your officer who was present objected to this point and said that it was actually attached signature that was being generated. I suggested that we save the page from www.eprocuremnent.gov.in and call the TCS- CA (Certifying Authority), your CA Vendor and ask them to clarify to which I didn’t get any reply from yours or your colleague, which validates this loophole.
 
·        After the bid is submitted by a contractor, the system throws a message that “you can not edit the bid because it is encrypted” whereas in reality the bids are actually stored in a readable fashion which can be accessed by system administrator. As per your colleague’s comments, the encryption takes place at server level. If the bid reaches the server in readable fashion then there is no point of encryption in the system as the administrator can read it, make a copy of it, or share it. Ideally it should be encrypted at client machine and then transferred to the server. When we submitted the bid, there was no encryption done on client machine and as per your colleague it was done at Server level which compromise with security and thus secrecy of price bid.
 
·        M/s. C1
India, the service provider must have known the loopholes and yet didn’t do anything about it in spite of the fact that 10,000 e
Tenders worth Rs.38,000 Crore has been enabled. This validates the major flaw in Public Procurement system in Andhra Pradesh where www.eprocurement.gov.in is being used.
 
·        Inspite of offering a substandard and security lapse services M/s. C1 India is charging very high charges for the same other than what they are quoting to other Governments  1/10^th of the rate for similar services but still the Government of AP has not negotiated the rate with C1 India and not warned them for removing the flaws in security to check compromise with Public Procurement Practices.
 
·        We asked to tell us as who was the system administrator – Some AP Government officer or M/s. C1 India Pvt. Ltd and you had no idea about the same. The officer in charge of eProcurement who was also present during the meeting did not share as who was the system administrator. Given the fact that 10,000 Tender worth Rs. 38,000 Cr. were enabled on such insecure manner, we are forced to believe that it should be actually M/s. C1 India Pvt. Ltd, which basically strengthens our doubts and lapse in e-Tendering (could be intentional because of some vested interest). No government officer would have allowed such insecure application in the first place if he would have been the system administrator as he would have known the above mentioned serious and major lapse in the security & secrecy of the Bids.
 
Because of the above loopholes, you are requested to pull down the insecure website www.eprocurement.gov.in immediately. We eagerly wait for your immediate action in this regard.
 
If our request to pull down the site by November, 26^th 2005 is not entertained we will be forced to go to the public to inform them about the above loopholes and the risk contractors face, when they participate in e
Tenders. The public money is being risked and as a responsible citizen and socially conscious Company, we cannot allow this to continue any longer.
 
We have also requested to be given the opportunity to demonstrate the above loopholes in person to you or agency like Andhra Pradesh Technology Services on 25^th of November, 2005. We have not received any confirmation for the same till now.  We fear that M/s. C1 India will change the code of website if we do not get the opportunity to do it immediately.
 
We see the current eTendering system in Andhra Pradesh as mother of all scams to a tune of Rs. 38,000 Crores. We further request you initiate appropriate investigation and ask the Anti Corruption Bureau to look into the matter in this regard.
 
And also ensure that Key Government officers who were in charge of enabling www.eprocuremnet.gov.in and M/s. C1 India Key Officers should not get a chance to fly away and try to cover this major scam because of their influence.
 
Looking forward to hear form you soon.
 
Ramesh Sinha
Director/CEO
Applitech Tendercity.com I Pvt.  Ltd.
98250 21784
rsinha@tendercity.com

World Bank and UNDP to know how eprocurement in AP facilitates cartel formation

From: Ramesh Sinha [mailto:
rsinha@tendercity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:59 PM
To:
‘Sunitha Natti’;
‘sunitha.natti@timesgroup.in’
Subject: FW: How eprocurement in AP facilitates cartel formation

___________________________

From: Ramesh Sinha [mailto:
rsinha@tendercity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:55 PM
To:
‘secy_it&c@ap.gov.in’;
‘cmap@ap.gov.in’;
‘cmap@ap.nic.in’;
‘drysr@ap.gov.in’
Cc:
‘addlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in’;
‘addlsecy_efst@ap.gov.in’;
‘addlsecy_hsng@ap.gov.in’;
‘addlsecy_ict@ap.gov.in’;
‘advgovt_fin@ap.gov.in’;
‘advisor_it@ap.gov.in’;
‘apstocm@ap.gov.in’;
‘asstsecy_letf@ap.gov.in’;
‘bethapudi@yahoo.com’;
‘binoy@ap.gov.in’;
‘cpro_cm@ap.gov.in’;
‘cs@ap.gov.in’;
‘cvsksarma@ap.gov.in’;
‘dfa_pmu@yahoo.com’;
‘drpsubrahmanyam@ap.gov.in’;
‘gopikrishna@ap.gov.in’;
‘healthsys@rediffmail.com’;
‘jannathussain@ap.gov.in’;
‘jdinfra_it&c@ap.gov.in’;
‘jtsecy_fin@ap.gov.in’;
‘jtsecy_rsad@ap.gov.in’;
‘mgvkbhanu@ap.gov.in’;
‘mnrao@ap.gov.in’;
‘murali@ap.gov.in’;
‘nshari@ap.gov.in’;
‘osd_fin@ap.gov.in’;
‘prabhakarreddy@ap.gov.in’;
‘prabhakert@ap.gov.in’;
‘praghuveer@ap.gov.in’;
‘pratapsp@gmail.com’;
‘prl.secyagr@ap.gov.in’;
‘prlsecy_agr@ap.gov.in’;
‘prlsecy_cm@ap.gov.in’;
‘prlsecy_hmfw@ap.gov.in’;
‘prlsecy_letf@ap.gov.in’;
‘prlsecy_minwelf@ap.gov.in’;
‘Prlsecy_sw@ap.gov.in’;
‘PS_CM@ap.gov.in’;
‘pstocm@ap.gov.in’;
‘ramakanth@ap.gov.in’;
‘ratnaprabha@ap.gov.in’;
‘rksuman@ap.gov.in’;
‘schanda@ap.gov.in’;
‘scio@ap.gov.in’;
‘seclegis@a.p.nic.in’;
‘Secy_BCW@ap.gov.in’;
‘secy_bud_fin@ap.gov.in’;
‘Secy_FOOD@ap.gov.in’;
‘secy_hmfw@ap.gov.in’;
‘secy_poll_gad@ap.gov.in’;
‘Secy_R&E_FIN@ap.gov.in’;
‘secy_rws_prrd@ap.gov.in’;
‘secy_se_edn@ap.gov.in’;
‘Secy_TW_SW@ap.gov.in’;
‘so_portal@ap.gov.in’;
‘SplSecy_efst@ap.gov.in’;
‘tchatterjee@ap.gov.in’;
‘tigdi@ap.gov.in’;
‘tparthas@ap.gov.in’
Subject: How eprocurement in AP facilitates cartel formation

 

Dear Sir,On Andhra Pradesh eProcurement portal apart from security loopholes there is flaw where Service Provider M/s. C1 India Pvt. Ltd collect 0.24% of the tender value as processing fee from winning bidders, now it is 0.04% form all bidders. 

The Govt. of AP facilitates cartel formation, and this is how it works.

1. Govt. of AP Floats a Tenders
2. A supplier who wish to win this tender is aware that he has to pay a fee (as specified above) to the service provider C1 India Pvt. Ltd
3. The supplier also knows who the service provider is and where to contact him
4. The supplier know the security loophole in the system, because of which he can know the bid of other supplier, with system administrator assistance
5. The system administrator in case of AP is C1 India Pvt. Ltd and not a Govt. Officer
6. The supplier agrees to pay more the govt. approved service charges to Service Provider
7. The supplier wins a tender

 

State like
Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh have adopted eTendering and no where is a practice of charging Suppliers. PWD Tendering guidelines does not permit collection of participation fee from Suppliers. Even CVC does not support it. World Bank, Asian Development Bank, MDB out rightly rejects this practice. Please let us know as on what grounds GoAP has agreed on this business model, which facilitates cartel formation /corruption instead of removing it.  

e also provide eTendering/eProcurement on ASP model to various govt. department but nowhere we charge suppliers as participation fee. Ideally GoAP should collect the fee if at all it thinks it has right to do so, and then pay part of the fee to service provider for its software. M/s. C1
India Pvt. Ltd have quoted less then Rs. 10 Lakh for the software to various govt. department and yet, GoAP continues to give Crores of rupees to M/s. C1 India Pvt. Ltd as service fee – after all it public money, it can be drained. 

For more information please visit http://www.mpez.net/eprocurement-scam/default.asp 

Ramesh SinhaCEO
Applitech Tendercity9825021784rsinha@tendercity.com 

What WORLD BANK and UNDP need to know about eProcurement promoted by NISG, AP State. eGovINDIA member files Complaint against Mr. Rajiv Chawla IAS., and others in connection with criminal breach of trust and corruption in the processing of centralised e-procurement tender – regarding. Before the Hon’ble Lokayukta of Karnataka

 

 

                                    Before the Hon’ble Lokayukta of Karnataka

Bangalore

S. ANANDA  S/o Shri. Shankarappa, Post Box No. 8512, Bangalore 560 085

Vs.

1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

2. Shri.Rajiv Chawla IAS., Secretary to Government, e-governance Department, Government of Karnataka

Sub : Complaint against Mr. Rajiv Chawla IAS., and others in connection with criminal breach of trust and corruption in the processing of centralised e-procurement tender – regarding.

I am filing this application in public interest.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon’ble Lokayukta about the irregularity and corruption in the processing of tender for centralized e-procurement project. The said tender is floated by the e-governance department headed by Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., (Annexure A)

This is a case where the Secretary to Government, e-governance department Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., National Institute of Smart Government (NISG), a private limited company formed under the Indian companies Act, 1956, PriceWaterHouse Coopers (PWC), a multinational consultancy agency and C1 India Limited have colluded and framed the entire tendering process only to enable C1 India Limited, to bag the tender for the Karnataka e-procurement contract.

The tender for Karnataka centralized e-procurement project had already been floated with conditions suiting primarily, the consortium participated by C1 India Limited. The applicant submits that KEONICS, a Government of Karnataka undertaking which has been implementing an e-procurement software at an affordable cost in at least 5 departments of Karnataka Government for the past 3 years had been eliminated from the tender process by imposing unreasonable pre qualification conditions.

The applicant submits that equity and rationality demand that an existing player, that too a Government company that had been implementing a similar software solution should also have been enabled to participate in the tender. This had not been done so. The logic of imposing pre qualification conditions in a tender is to ensure that the bidders who are capable of handling the task alone are short listed. Here is the case where KEONICS which had already proved that it is capable of implementing e-procurement solution in Karnataka had been excluded by imposing unreasonable tender conditions.

The unreasonable tender conditions read as follows:

“Pre-qualification Criteria clause 4.5.2 (iv) of Volume II of the RFP states: “The Bidder (single) should have had an average annual turnover of Rs 25 Crores during the last 3 accounting years in IT related operations, as evidenced by the audited accounts of the company (or companies). In case of consortium bids, one of the partners should have had an average annual turnover of Rs. 15 Crores and the other should have had an average annual turnover of Rs. 10 Crores during the last 3 accounting years in IT related operations, as evidenced by the audited accounts of the company (or companies).”

Clause 4.5.2 (v) states :

“The single bidder and in case of consortiums, one of the bidders should be a SEI – CMM level 3 certified company”

      (Annexure B)

Knowing fully well that these conditions would automatically eliminate the existing team combination, viz., KEONICS and their alliance partner, the same had been framed. PSUs/ government organizations do not feel the need to go for the CMM Level 3 certification. Instead, the ISO 9001:2000 certification is obtained as this gives wider spectrum of on-going activities. The officials cannot argue that they had used the tender conditions used for other IT projects, including Bangalore One project, as the e-procurement project is not a new one to Karnataka Government. The present effort is only a refinement of an ongoing project. It is a well understood normal practice that the existing players are also enabled to take part in such tenders. But this had not been done in the present case. There is fraud and corruption in the above deal. The applicant submits that there are ample evidences to support that the above exclusion of KEONICS was not an accidental or bonafide action but an action intended to benefit C1 India Limited. The applicant submits that he had reliable information that KEONICS had objected to its exclusion from the tender process and the same had not been responded to by Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., (Annexure C)

The respondents cannot argue that the solution offered by KEONICS is costly or not acceptable as the departments of Karnataka have already been implementing it without any complaint at a cost of Rs.7500 per tender or even cheaper. (Annexure D)

The Committee formed for this evaluation and implementation process does not include the IT / BT Secretary. This clearly indicates the level of manipulation and rigging that has gone into the tender preparation.

The applicant submits that there is a design to plunder the tax payers’ money of Karnataka through the action of Mr.Rajiv Chawla and others by bringing in C1 India Limited which would charge a hefty sum for the e-procurement process directly from the vendors as compared to the KEONICS rates. The applicant submits that in the name of public private partnership (PPP), Mr.Rajiv Chawla and the other respondents herein have planned to hand over the entire revenue collection from the e-procurement process running into crores of rupees to C1 India Limited. On record, these corrupt officials and others attempt to show as though there was going to be a huge saving to government through the proposed PPP route. The fact is that though the Government would not spend money on the proposed centralized e-tender process, it does not mean that the Government is benefiting. The money lost on account of the private partner collecting it directly from the bidders is expected to be huge and the same is a loss to the Government. The entire revenue accruing to the private partner running into crores of rupees is actually the entitlement of the Government. This is chosen to be glossed over by these corrupt officials. If the Government receives the revenue from the bidders while paying a fixed charge to the PPP partner, then the Government would benefit from such huge revenue collection. This had not been done intentionally only to benefit the PPP partner. In order to facilitate this fraud, Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., wanted KEONICS which has been providing a cost effective solution to be out of the picture and that explains the unreasonable tender conditions.

The applicant submits that the Government of Karnataka had engaged NISG (National Institute of Smart Government), a private charitable company formed under Section 25 of the Companies Act to assist it in the tender document preparation. NISG is headed by Mr.J.Satyanarayana IAS., who earlier served as IT Secretary in Andhra Pradesh Government. No tender procedure had been adopted before handing over the consultancy project to NISG, which is a private company, not accountable to any Government audit or CBI or CVC jurisdiction. The respondents cannot argue that NISG had offered their consultancy services free of cost and so there is no loss to Government. Because if they had gone for open tender, there may be other professional agencies which might have offered the same on free of cost terms. NISG has no professional experience or expertise in e-procurement. It is a newly formed private limited company. NISG has to necessarily engage private consultants to carry out such projects because it has no in-house expertise to carry out this type of an assignment. NISG had carried out the current e-procurement consultancy contract by engaging the services of PWC only. There is a direct nexus between NISG and PWC to commit this fraud.

Annexure E is the proceedings of the meeting dated 9^th September 2005 which indicates the appointment of NISG as consultant of Karnataka Government for the e-procurement project.

Annexure F is the Consultancy report submitted by PWC to NISG on Karnataka e-procurement project during October 2005.

Annexure G is the copy of Minutes of the meeting of Project Implementation Committee on e-procurement dated 22^nd November 2005 wherein participant serial No.21 Subodh had been shown as member of NISG team whereas the said Subodh is an employee of PWC. This goes to prove that NISG has no technical competence and thus depends on PWC to carry out its operations. The partnership between NISG and PWC is shrouded in mystery. The payment made to PWC towards consultancy charges for this project by NISG is not known.

The applicant submits that NISG has been handling public money received from UNDP, an international donor agency. I submit that the taxpayer had paid for the consultancy services indirectly through NISG and hence the claim of free of cost service by NISG is only a ruse bring in PWC and to ward of healthy competition from other professional consultants.

The allegation is that Mr.J.Satyanarayana IAS., who heads NISG now, had illegally favoured the multi national consultant company Price WaterHouse Coopers (PWC) in majority of contracts handled by him. Dataquest, a leading IT magazine had enquired into the allegations against Mr.J.Satyanarayana and found the allegations substantiated in as much as that J.Satyanarayana had illegally favoured PWC during his assignment as IT Secretary in Andhra Pradesh and also as CEO of NISG. I am enclosing a copy of the Dataquest publication as Annexure H.

The applicant submits that NISG, under J.Satyanarayana IAS., had engaged PWC to act as its consultant in the preparation of the tender documents for Karnataka centralized e-procurement project. PWC had already been engaged by NISG to carry out the same task for other governments such as Andhra Pradesh and Chattisgarh. The applicant submits that preparation of such tender document does not require the services of PWC repeatedly as the task is the same for all over India. A tender document prepared earlier would have been sufficient. When matters stand like this, NISG in the name of providing free service to the States has been granting the consultancy work to PWC repeatedly thus offering it lakhs of rupees consultancy fee unnecessarily, if not illegally. The money handled by NISG belongs to Government of India. There is a sinister connection between J.Satyanarayana IAS., and PWC. 

The applicant submits that the sinister connection can be understood from the fact that PWC, after acting consultant for AP government had joined the implementing partner C1 India Limited in the implementation of e-procurement project in Andhra Pradesh itself.

Projects such as this one have two components viz., consultancy portion which results in preparation of tender / request for proposal (RFP) document and the second part is actual tendering to choose the vendor for execution of the project. Internationally there is a ban on a project consultant who prepares the RFP from taking part in the implementation. Because, the consultant in such contracts, takes over the Government’s role in preparing the tender/RFP documents. If the very same consultant bids and executes the project, then there is every reason to suspect that the consultant had pre configured the tender documents to illegally favour themselves. This would be a clear breach of trust. The applicant submits that a gross impropriety had been committed by PWC when it joined C1 India Limited in the implementation of e-procurement solution of Andhra Pradesh Government after acting as consultant for preparation of RFP. PWC again committed the same impropriety when it jointly bid for the e-procurement project along with C1 India Limited for the tender floated by National Informatics Centre (NIC), Delhi. The role of PWC in the NIC tender was not consultant but an implementing agency. When they were tender partners for implementation of e-procurement solution for NIC, Delhi, PWC continued to act as consultant for Government of Karnataka and Chattisgarh for the very same e-procurement project. In all these tenders, C1 India Limited had taken part in the tender process based on the tender documents prepared by PWC! This goes against the principles of equity, fairness and logic. The respondents cannot argue that they were not aware of the impropriety committed by PWC because DATAQUEST in its publication dated 2^nd September 2005 had published its research findings and openly questioned the modus operandi adopted by PWC and NISG. Moreover the respondents are directly involved in almost all these projects and thus lack of knowledge cannot be a defense at all.

Dataquest report had brought out the nexus between PWC and C1 India as follows:

“While PWC was a consultant for Government of AP e-procurement project that was bagged by C1 India, the two companies joined hands as partners to bid and bag NIC’s e-procurement project recently. All this, while PWC is still working as the consultant responsible for preparing the RFP (Request For Proposal) for the GoK (Government of Karnataka) and GOCG (Government of Chattisgarh) e-procurement projects”.

The applicant submits that there is corruption in the Karnataka centralized e-procurement project. The applicant submits that the respondents have to be prosecuted and punished through ordering an impartial enquiry into the tender rigging.

The applicant submits that the very same Mr.J.Satyanarayana IAS., is involved in the Bangalore One Project and chose the company viz., Ram Infotech / CMS consortium that had already implemented a similar project in Hyderabad. The Hon’ble Lokayukta has been investigating a complaint in this regard.

In the present case also, Mr.J.Satyanarayana IAS., acting as CEO of NISG is deeply involved in collaboration with Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., Secretary to Government, e-governance department to illegally favour PWC and its partner C1 India Limited. Both these officials wish to bring in PWC and its partner C1 India Limited which had implemented the AP’s e-procurement contract through corrupt and illegal means. There appears to be a direct invisible connection between Mr.J.Satyanarayana of NISG, PWC and its partner C1 India Limited in as much as one can presume that they all represent one entity.

The applicant submits that he had received the following analysis from a leading independent researcher about the current e-procurement tender vis a vis C1 India which is allegedly the favoured bidder of Rajiv Chawla IAS., and J.Satyanarayana IAS.,

“The ITI-C1 bid states that C1′s turnover in the last 3 financial years is Rs. 4 cr, Rs. 7 cr, and Rs. 21 cr, thus averaging Rs. 10.66 cr and therefore appearing to qualify. However, it is factually known (see  http://www.eprocurement.gov.in/news/leaderInepro.asp ) that C1′s turnover for 31st March 2005 was approximately Rs. 6 crores.

Furthermore, in the MPLUNL (Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited) tender which C1 won late last year, their declared turnover backed by CA certificates was: 2002-03: Rs. 3.65 cr, 2003-04: Rs. 3.46 cr, and 2004-05: Rs. 6.35 cr. An inquiry to the CMD of MPLUNL will confirm this.

Therefore, we can assume that their declared turnover in GOK correspond to 2003-04 (Rs. 4 cr), 2004-05 (Rs. 7 cr), and 2005-06 (Rs. 21 cr). However, GOK bids were submitted on 28th March 2006, and hence the big question is how could C1 have submitted audited accounts for 2005-06?”

If the allegation contained in the above information is true, then C1 India Limited had submitted fraudulent turnover figures to qualify in the bid. The applicant submits that C1 India Limited/ITI consortium had already been qualified in the Karnataka e-procurement tender. The applicant learns and believes that the information received above is dependable and thus the entire project needs to be probed by an independent agency to safeguard public interest.

Grounds

1. The e-governance department headed by Rajiv Chawla IAS., had chosen National Institute of Smart Government (NISG), a private limited company to carry out the consultancy assignment for the centralized e-procurement project without routing through tender process. There is corruption and fraud in the appointment of NISG without routing through tender process. NISG had been shown such favour only to bring in Pricewaterhouse Coopers, a multinational consultancy company through back door method to carry out a huge corrupt deal. There is a corrupt and illegal understanding among NISG and PWC to promote C1 India Limited, a partner of PWC all over India, including Karnataka. The appointment of PWC as consultant for the current project when its partner has been taking part in tenders based on the documents prepared by PWC itself indicates a gross criminal breach of trust.

1. KEONICS, which is a Government owned company has been successfully implementing an e-procurement solution in at least 5 departments of Karnataka Government for the past 3 years. In other words, KEONICS had proved beyond doubt its capability to carry out the e-procurement project. But KEONICS had been denied from participation in the tender illegally through unreasonable pre qualification conditions. There is fraud and corruption in such prescribing unreasonable conditions. An existing Government player had been denied their right to participate in this tender in order to favour C1 India Limited who are partners of PWC which had prepared the tender documents.

1. In as much as there is every reason to believe that there is an unholy nexus between Rajiv Chawla IAS., NISG headed by J. Satyanarayana IAS., PWC and C1 India Limited. The unholy nexus is intended to favour C1 India Limited to bag the e-procurement tender without allowing competitors to take part in the tender.

1. The intentions of the corrupt officials and others is to cause a huge loss to the Government and ensure that the revenue intended for the Government is cornered by the PPP partner, in this case C1 India Limited. This is sought to be achieved by allowing the PPP partner to directly collect a huge service charge from the bidders who take part in the e-tender. Thus, crores of rupees of money meant for government is sought to be routed to the PPP partner without any public interest.

1. PWC, which had acted as consultant in this project through NISG had already been executing e-procurement projects in partnership with C1 India Limited in Andhra Pradesh and Delhi Governments. Thus the entire tender process, using the services of PWC was a ruse to hand over the contract to their partner C1 India Limited. There is apparent cheating, fraud and corruption in the deal.

1. The nexus between J.Satyanarayana IAS., and PWC had been clearly brought out by a leading magazine, Dataquest which had been submitted as annexure herewith. The partnership between PWC and C1 India limited is an admitted fact.

1. Mr.Rajiv Chawla IAS., has a direct understanding with NISG and PWC to commit this fraud and is fully responsible for all the above misdeeds. Mr.Rajiv Chawla had allowed NISG & PWC to manage this project knowing fully well the criminal breach of trust committed by PWC and C1 India Limited by joining hands in execution of e-procurement projects elsewhere.

1. An allegation petition is already pending before the Hon’ble Karnataka Lokayukta against Rajiv Chawla IAS., and J.Satyanarayana IAS., of NISG on allegations of rigging the ‘Bangalore One’ tender to corner the tender in favour of a pre selected bidder M/s Ram Infotech / CMS consortium.

      

Prayer:

There is fraud, corruption and criminal breach of trust in the Karnataka e-procurement tendering. It is prayed that the Hon’ble Lokayukta may call for the original records pertaining to the Karnataka centralized e-procurement project and cancel the tender process declaring it void ab initio. The guilty should be appropriately proceeded against for the fraud, criminal breach of trust and corruption.

Interim relief, if any, sought for:

Pending the detailed enquiry, the Hon’ble Lokayukta may stay further proceedings of the e-procurement tender processing.

UNDP, NASSCOM, WORLD BANK need to know what is happenning in eGovernance in INDIA with the help of NISG

PIL against Bangalore One irregularities admitted by the Karnataka High Court

(RTI Act has also played an important role to get information)

13^th December 2005.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Bangalore One project filed by Mr.Veeresh who runs a non governmental organization called Brashtachara Nirmoolana Vedike (Forum for eradication of corruption) in Bangalore had been admitted by the Karnataka High Court today. The HC had ordered issue of notices to the respondents.

The Writ petition had raised serious issues about lack of transparency and corruption in the award of contract for the Bangalore One project.

Mr.Veeresh is a member of the egovINDIA – yahoo group which advocates true e-governance in India with special focus on benefits accruing to the common man in the form of reduction in corruption. Mr.Veeresh has been in the forefront of a wide variety of anti corruption activities in Karnataka.

Mr. Veeresh is also a member of EKAVI, INDIA RTI and INDIAWBA. Mr. Veeresh has used the RTI Act to get information from authorities.

The list of respondents includes Microsoft Corporation (I) Private Limited, New Delhi, Ram Infotech Limited, CMS computers limited, Government of Karnataka, Government of India, Mr.J.Satyanarayana, CEO of NISG among others.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the entire Bangalore One project was conceived to entrust to the contract to Respondents 3 and 4 (Ram Infotech and CMS Consortium). He had alleged serious corruption in the project.

He had also the legality of prescribing Microsoft technology which is proprietary and costed when open source software was available free. The MoU entered into between the Government of Karnataka and Microsoft had been challenged in the Writ Petition.

The petitioner had raised questions about the involvement of NISG and its CEO Mr.Satyanarayana.

We have received a part of the PIL documents. From out of the that we are giving the following excerpts.

V.M.Kumaraswamy,

Moderator, eGovINDIA group.

Excerpts from the Writ Petition:

“The petitioner submits that the entire exercise is intended to award the contract to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner submits that in this context the e-seva project implemented by respondents 3 and 4 in Andhra Pradesh and the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between respondents 3,4 and 6 to adopt Microsoft .NET platform in the implementation of e-seva project assumes significance. The involvement of 9^th respondent in advancing the business interest of respondents 3,4 and 6 is also explicit”.

The petitioner had questioned the legality of the MoU entered between Microsoft and the Government of Karnataka.

“The petitioner submits that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-2002 suffers from illegalities and infirmities. How and under what authority the 7^th respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 6^h respondent binding the state of Karnataka is not known. It is also contrary to the Karnataka Act 29 of 2000″.

“The petitioner submits that in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with Microsoft, Government of Karnataka has adopted the .NET platform for the B1 Project. Microsoft would provide the required software at a concessional rate as part of its responsibility under the Memorandum of Understanding. It would also provide consultancy to Government of Karnataka and help the successful tenderer.

The petitioner submits that the intention of the Government is clear. The tenderer has to use the software platform provided by the 6^th respondent only. All the major Indian software companies which use non Microsoft software platform are practically excluded. It is intriguing that when Indian companies are gaining world wide recognition in software industry, the Government of Karnataka is promoting Microsoft. Leading Indian companies cannot use their software built on non Microsoft platform. Even if they were to participate in the tender, they are obliged under the tender conditions to buy Microsoft’s .NET software and a host of other Microsoft software packages.

The petitioner submits under the heading ‘application architecture’ it is stipulated as follows: ” it is necessary for the bidders to adopt the Microsoft .NET platform. This is mandated in the light of the Memorandum of Understanding between Microsoft and Government of Karnataka, in relation to implementation of B1 Project. This requirement translates to the use of BizTalk Server for Application Integration, IIS for web server and SQL server for database. The bidders can propose appropriate products for other components like firewall, Storage etc., Subject to this requirement, the application architecture for B1 is indicated in this Section.

The petitioner submits that BizTalk server for application integration, Internet Information Server (IIS) for web server and Microsoft SQL server are the proprietary products of Microsoft. Thus the entire contract is conceived to promote the business interest of Microsoft in India in total disregard of national interest. Indian industries in the software field are totally bypassed”.

“The petitioner submits that except respondents 3 and 4, none else could satisfy the qualification prescribed, namely completing a similar project for a period of one year in India. Obviously while preparing the tender document , the e-seva project in Andhra Pradesh which was awarded to respondents 3 and 4 was operating in the minds of those who settled the tender conditions. The role of the 9^th respondent as the Chief Executive Officer in preparing such a document raises serious doubts. The 9^th respondent has a definite role in awarding the contract to respondents 3 and 4″.

Grounds for the Writ Petition.

The petitioner submits that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between respondents 6 and 7 dated 13-11-2004 and the contract entered into between the 1^st respondent and the 3^rd respondent dated 20-12-2004 are liable to be declared as illegal and invalid for the following among other grounds.

A: The Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-2002 has been entered into in total violation of law. It is opposed to public policy.

B: The government cannot enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to promote the business interest of the 6^th respondent in the manner it has been done.

C: The tender proposal for Bangalore One Project is prepared in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-2002. The tender proposal itself is thus conceived fraudulently. The entire transaction is vitiated.

D: The entire project is conceived to award the contract to respondents 3 and 4 who in turn have entered into an agreement with the 6^th respondent.

E: The committees constituted for preparing the tender documents and award of contract have only carried out the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-2002 entered into between respondents 6 and 7.

F: The 5^th respondent is not promoting eGovernance. The funds provided for eGovernance are diverted to enrich a few. The 9^th respondent is extending the e-seva project which was commenced in Andhra Pradesh when he was the Secretary to Government to other states. The public statements given by him apropos the role of the 5^th respondent in the promotion of e-governance proves that he is guilty of promoting private business interests in the name of e-governance.

G: The contract dated 20-12-2004 entered into between the 1^st respondent and 3^rd respondent is not a genuine contract to promote e-governance. The contract is brought about fraudulently to enrich respondents 3, 4 and 6 adverse to the interest of the general public and e-governance.

H: The concept of e-governance is misused to promote utility bill collections. There is no e-governance at all. The public are not benefited. True e-governance should help the people to obtain licences, permits, building plans, lay out approvals, social service benefits, rural development scheme benefits etc online using online two way transaction procedure.

I: Microsoft is interested in selling its proprietary and closed software. Even in America, companies such as IBM and Sun Micro Systems have introduced open source software systems. Indian companies who are acclaimed to be within the fortune 500 companies in the world are adopting open source software systems. The Government of Karnataka cannot in the circumstances, in the name of e-governance promote the sale of proprietary and priced software of Microsoft adverse to the interest of Indian companies. In fact the Indian companies have been practically excluded from competing for the tender. It is against public policy and national interest.

J: Indian companies who adopt open source software systems have world wide recognition. In the circumstances, execution of the contract under the Bangalore One project insisting on the adoption of only Microsoft .NET and other Microsoft products is illegal.

K: There is arbitrariness and corruption. The persons involved in promoting private business interests for extraneous consideration should be identified and prosecuted and punished in accordance with law.

L: The manner in which the tender conditions have been contrived to award the contracts to respondents 3 and 4 who in turn have business agreement with the 6^th respondent is fraudulent. There is a design to extend this contract throughout India under the auspicious of the 5^th respondent. Instead of promoting e-governance which is intended to eradicate corruption, in the name of e-governance an illegal contract is entered into.

In the above circumstances, having no other alternative and efficacious remedy the petitioner in genuine public interest is filing this writ petition.

The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or other proceedings with respect to the same cause of action.

The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of the writ calling for the records relating to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13-11-2002 entered into between respondent 7 and 9 and the agreement dated 20-12-2004 entered into between the first respondent and the 3^rd respondent quash the same and pass such other orders as the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice”.

 

Respondents:

 

1. State of Karnataka represented by the Secretary to Government,

Department of e-governance,

M.S. Building,

Bangalore.

2. The Director,

BangaloreOne Project,

Government of Karnataka,

Room No. 106, 1^st floor, Gate No.1, M.S.Building,

Bangalore 2.

3. CMS Computers Limited,

2^nd Floor, No. 52, St. Marks Road,

Bangalore.

represented by its Managing Director

4. Ram Informatics Limited,

2^nd Floor, Srinagar Colony,

Hyderabad

represented by its Managing Director.

5. National Institute of Smart Government (NISG),

IIIT Campus, Gachi Bowli,

Hyderabad -500 019 Andhra Pradesh

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.

6. Microsoft Corporation (I) Private Limited,

The Great Eastern Centre, 70 Nehru Place,

New Delhi 110 019.

represented by its Managing Director.

7. Director,

Department of Information Technology, Government of Karnataka,

M.S. Building,

Bangalore.

8. The Union of India represented by

The Secretary to Government,

Communication and Information Technology department,

New Delhi.

9. J.Satyanarayana IAS., CEO,

National Institute of Smart Government,

IIIT Campus, Gachi Bowli,

Hyderabad -500 019 Andhra Pradesh

———————————————————————————————–

I am V. M. Kumaraswamy MBA, is in business since 1971. Founder and Moderator of India’s largest e-governance yahoo-group under the title eGovINDIA. You can reach this group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eGovINDIAeGovINDIA is a group dedicated to promoting true e-governance in India, consisting of members from all walks of life from within INDIA and the World over. Many State Ministers and senior bureaucrats of India are members of this group. We do have lawyers, social activists, freelance writers and journalists in the group. The group is meant for serious activists only. Casual members are not allowed to join the group. The group is also moderated by an Indian Administrative Service  (IAS) Officer.  As on date, the group has nearly 2500 members.

The focus of this group is true e-governance and use of open source technology in e-governance. The members of this forum have a passion to see a truly e-governed India, resulting in transparency and easy access to government services by  the common man, notably the depressed class people (so called untouchables), women and people living in far flung and difficult areas of India.

eGovINDIA’s subsidiary groups:

India WhistleBlower Act: The Action Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDIA_WBA
 
Exclusive Discussion Group on Judicial and Legal Reforms in INDIA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JUDICIALREFORMS

Right to Information in INDIA discussion group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDIARTI

———————————————————————————————————————

 Read this Publication in Dataquest on e-gov corruption. It gives how NISG is handling eGovernance in INDIA. NASSCOM is MAJORITY(51%) partner in NISG. Even NASSCOM is playing into the hands of NISG.Data quest in its recent issue had written about the corruption in e-Govt.
http://www.dqindia.com/content/DQTop20_05/BestEmployers2005/2005/105090203.asp

The E-governance Muddle

What was expected to bring transparency in government transactions has got mired in a slew of allegations. Dataquest probes the charges made by an IAS officer against his own clan…

Shubhendu Parth

Friday, September 02, 2005

————————————————————————————————————————-

NICSTAFF@hub.nic.in  wrote: 
 
> Mr. Umashankar is very right in trying to get the truth of it. There are many such things happening in the name of E-gov during last four years without any tangible social benefits to the common man. Mr Umashankar is a man who has done work in grassroots level and has soiled his hand in doing things for common man.
  
  
  He is unlike others who mostly have been involving themselves discharging their financial and administrative powers only for outsourcing the establishment of networks after network and building organizations/egov-centers which are very easy but very expensive having little significance for common man. No doubt these activities are good for officers to make them IT champion and help them build their shelf image.
  
  
  This has been happening from the year 2000 when in one go we have 30 IT secretaries in states and 60 IT managers in central Governments without having any IT knowledge and experience.

GOI has spent crores of rupees in the name of E-governance. Now we have hundreds of networks like state wide networks and E-governance centres and Organisations like NISG. Since these are already established, therfore, they have to be functional. we know how these are functioning..

  All networks are mostly being used for personal e-mails (not necessarily official mail) without having much for any E-governance applications.
 
Lot of Recurring expenditures being borne by Govt of India for maintaining such networks.
  
  NISG may be section 25 company which can not be given project out rightly by any government agency without having any tender. But NISG bags projects directly from Govt department as single agency and it is surprising to note that NISG, in turn, awards project out rightly to single agency without having any tendering procedure. This is serious issue. Mr Umashankar has reason to raise this issue. We should support his observation.

I am sorry in case some one feels bad about what i wrote. But it is reality that we have to face it sooner or later… Any thing we do wrongly now it will have multiple effect and it will cost government India hugely. Mr. Umashankar has not blamed Mr.Satynarayana personally. May be Mr Satyanarayan has been posted to head an organisation where there is no work at present and has no significant agenda. He is doing it to justify his posting.
  
  Do you all know? when Mr Arun shourie was Minister for D/O Administrative Reforms , Govt Of India, has out rightly rejected the concept of NISG.
  
  Many influential people in India have been establishing organization for their own gratifications but least of them see that these organizations really deliver.

sorry to bother you all
regards
NICSTAFF

UNDP statement on the right to information

The UNDP made a statement about the importance of the right to information in an April 2006 report. It said: “UNDP can play an important role in promoting right to information in a number of ways including levering its relationships with host governments; acting as a catalyst for change by supporting different right to information initiatives; identifying opportunities for constructive intervention in the debates and discussions that are likely to be taking place; using its own global expertise and experience of working on democratic governance issues; and meeting the commitments set out in its own Information and Disclosure Policy (IDP).”

 http://foi.wikispaces.com/UNDP

UNDP Information Disclosure Policy

On June 21, 2004, I made a request for information to the Communications Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) under the UNDP Information Disclosure Policy. On August 25, 2004, I made a request for review of the refusal to provide information to the Oversight Panel established under the Policy. The Oversight Panel has not yet made a decision.

• Request for review of August 25, 2004: Roberts_UNDP_Aug25_04.pdf

 

Letters from civil society organizations asking the UNDP to complete its processing of the request:

 

• Letter from Article 19, February 6, 2006:  A19_UNDP.pdf
• UNDP response to Article 19, February 8, 2006:  A19_UNDP_Response.pdf
• Letter from the Bank Information Center, May 10, 2006:  BIC_UNDP.pdf
• UNDP response to the Bank Information Center, May 11, 2006:  BIC_UNDP_Response.pdf
• Letter from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, June 27, 2006:  CHRI_UNDP.pdf