MAIN REPORT OF THE SHUNGLU COMMITTEE

HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE

Organization and Conduct of Commonwealth Games 2010 Main Report of HLC

2011

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010

Contents Chapter

Particulars Acronyms

Page No. 2

Executive Summary

3

1

Introduction Introducti on

5

2.

Governance Structure

10

3.

Cost of the Games

17

4.

Group of Ministers

26

5.

Committee of Secretaries

36

6.

Ministries of Government of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Connected Entities

43

7.

Organizing Committee

52

8.

Terms of Reference

72

Appendix – 1 List of Professional Staff of HLC Appendix – 2 List of officers /persons interviewed by HLC

Page 1


Acronyms AITA

All India Tennis Association

CAG CBI CEO CGF CM COS CPWD CVC CWG DDA DGCA EFC EIL GNCTD GOI GOM HLC IOA ITPO LG MCD MHRD MYAS NDMC OC PM PMO SAI

Comptroller and Auditor General Central Bureau of Investigation Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Games Federation Chief Minister Committee of Secretaries Secretaries Central Public Works Department Central Vigilance Commission Commonwealth Games Delhi Development Authority Director General Civil Aviation Expenditure Finance Committee Engineers India Limited Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Government of India Group of Ministers High Level Committee Indian Olympic Association India Trade Promotion Organization Lieutenant Governor Municipal Corporation of Delhi Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports New Delhi Municipal Council Organising Committee Prime Minister Prime Minister ’s Office Sports Authority of India

Page 2


Executive Summary 1. Commonwealth Games were awarded to Government of India in 2003 and conducted at Delhi in October 2010.

2.

The Host City Contract, accepted without due consideration, committed Government to

underwrite the Games on the false promise of revenue neutrality. Several other obligations compromised decision making in our best interests.

3.

The role of President, CGF and its Chief Executive Officer was hardly what was expected from

this kind of agency and the kind of authority they enjoyed was not conducive to good management besides being expensive.

4.

A period of seven years was available availabl e to prepare for the Games. The first three years were

squandered in peripheral activity thereby compressing the time available to four years. In disregard of time lost, activity picked up belatedly and reached a feverish pitch so near the Games that most actions became ‘emergency’ decisions compromising cost and quality.

5.

Lack of explicit Budgetary ceiling compounded increasing costs and it was not entirely clear

whether Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, assigned the function to coordinate, possessed the authority to restrain entities. These (the entities) displayed no restraint; one and all overstated costs, misled the approving authority and wrongdoing became commonplace.

6.

The implicit decision to conduct the Games through a private non-profit non-pr ofit society was an ‘error

of judgment’ compounded by the personality of its chairman for whom the difference between fact and fiction was academic. His style and interests compromised proper preparation and efficient conduct of Games. Emergency measures ameliorated the situation but at a very high cost.

Page 3

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 7.

The Governance mechanism designed for oversight of what turned out to be a mammoth

undertaking proved unequal to the task and its facilitation function was often abused by entities it was meant to assist.

8.

Considerable legacy value has obtained from the very large sum expended on the Games and

in support of the Games. Measures to enhance value have been suggested both for infrastructure projects and for sports.

9.

Ownership of such a large enterprise has emerged as a key issue. For the future, ownership

must remain with Government while addressing several other connected issue including structure, staffing, finance, accountability etc.

Page 4


Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1

On 13th November, 2003 the Commonwealth Games Federation General Assembly voted to

award the XIX Commonwealth Commonwealth Games to the City of Delhi at Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The

Commonwealth Games were conducted at Delhi from October 3 – 14th, 2010. 2010. On October October 15th, 2010, responding to the public perception that the conduct of the Games left much to be desired, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a High Level Committee comprising of Shri V.K. Shunglu (Chairman) and Shri Shantanu Shantanu Consul (Member) (Member) effective effective

1 st November, 2010.

The terms of

reference of the Committee are at Annexure – I. The Committee was was required to submit its its report within 3 months. months. This was later extended to 31 st March, 2011.

1.2

This Report has been prepared in response to the terms of reference. In preparing the

Report, entities concerned with the preparation for and the execution of the Games have been taken into account viz. i) Government of India; ii) Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD); iii) Delhi Development Authority (DDA); iv) New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC); v) Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD); vi) Organizing Committee (OC); vii) Prasar Bharati / Doordarshan viii) Sports Authority of India (SAI); ix) All India Tennis Association (AITA); x) India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO); xi) CPWD. The Committee has not reviewed the conduct of Commonwealth Youth Games, except to the extent of noting expenditure incurred by the Organizing Committee.

1.3

The review is based on examination of files, reports, interviews with with officials / persons

connected with the conduct conduct of the Games. In certain cases information has has been obtained by issue of questionnaire and / or requests to relevant authorities, including Tax Authorities. The HLC also undertook ‘digital imaging’ of computers and information obtained from the same has also been

used.

Page 5

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 1.4

The review was conducted by the HLC and professional staff employed by the HLC. The

professional staff conducted its enquiries on site, i.e., at the premises of the entity.

A list of

professional staff is provided at Appendix – 1. Certain serving officials officials of Government Government of India were also seconded to the HLC. Their names are also included in the list at Appendix – 1. The list is displayed in alphabetical order.

1.5

Mobilizing over 70 persons, dependable and competent, could be accomplished only by

engagement of institutions. institutions. High Level Committee (HLC) engaged KPMG / BSR, Dinesh Mehta & Co., Grant Thornton and Red Flag. Besides human resources, these institutions institutions were able to provide specific skills needed for the inquiry viz. professional accountancy, forensic audit, engineering, taxation and and compliance. compliance.

HLC reports contain contain sufficient material material of wrong-doing wrong-doing elucidated by

systematic application application of these these skills.

Individuals, on temporary temporary assignment assignment from Government, Government,

retired Government officials with professional professional skills contributed in equal measure. measure. The success of our enterprise emerged from the ability of people, without previous acquaintance or future expectation, to work as a team. Multi-disciplinary approach enabled HLC to discover, in large measure, measure, what went wrong.

1.6

Keeping in view the vast scope of the Terms of Reference, the High Level Committee decided

to divide its work into distinct, identifiable sectors to enable submission of reports on the following:

1.7

i)

Host Broadcasting

ii)

Games Village

iii)

City Infrastructure

iv)

Games Venues

v)


vi)

Main Report – Organization and Conduct of CWG, 2010

The First Report on ‘Host Broadcasting ’ was submitted to the Government on 29 th January,

2011; the ‘Games Village’ Report on 7 th March, 2011; Third Report on ‘City Infrastructure’ on 18th March, 2011; ‘Games Venues’ Report and Fifth Report on ‘Organising Committee’ on 28th March,

Page 6

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 2011 and the Main Report on ‘Organization and Conduct of CWG 2010 ’ on 29th March, 2011. Each of the five Reports discussed governance and its outcome in respect of the specific areas covered, while all generic aspects of governance are are discussed in this Main Report. Where the documentation documentation supporting the Reports was voluminous, it was provided in a CD format. These Reports, along with Annexures and Relevant Documents, have also been uploaded on the web site and placed in the public domain so as to ensure complete transparency.

1.8

A large large number of officials met HLC from the entities which were under enquiry and provided

their version of events. These have been been taken into account account in reaching our findings. The list of officials is at Appendix -2. -2.

1.9

High Level Committee (HLC) was conscious that a number of institutions and agencies were

also enquiring into / investigating conduct of Commonwealth Games 2010 - in its broadest sense – in particular, Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and and the Tax authorities. Governance was our our focus, transactions and events directly elucidating outcome outcome of governance were under the scanner. scanner. In that sense, this Report is not a chronicle of all wrong doing even though HLC has strived to encompass as much as was reported in the press and emerged during our enquiries.

1.10

The limited time available did not permit HLC to review all the expenditure expenditure on the

organization and conduct of Games. A different threshold threshold emerged for each slice slice of expenditure incurred in organization and and conduct of the Games. In certain cases it was as high as 90% while while in others it was no more more than 50%. In aggregate, expenditure expenditure vis a vis CWG – 2010 reviewed by HLC is estimated at 57%. Major Head

Item Description

Agenc y

Approved Expenditure in Rs. Crore

Reveiwed by HLC in Rs. Crore

482.57

321.77

Remarks

Prasar Bharti Production & Coverage of CWG 2010 ITPO

246.00

Page 7

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Games Village

Total Project Cost of CWG Village

DDA

City Infrastructure Barapullah Elevated Road Ring Road Bye Pass Bus Parking near JLN Stadium Ghazipur grade seprator Naraina T Point Raja Ram Kohli Marg Street Scaping

3,031.33

549.00

498.00

654.39

654.39

324.00

303.00

245.56

245.56

119.76

119.76

230.00

229.68

454.79

454.10

94.15

94.15

346.69

346.69

60.00

60.00

10.00

26.00

4,459.48

2,776.12

2,460.00

996.47

GNCTD MCD GNCTD GNCTD GNCTD

Millenium Park Bus Parking Sewa Nagar RUB

MCD

Street Lighting

7,156.00 GNCTD

GNCTD , MCD & NDMC GNCTD , MCD & NDMC GNCTD , MCD & NDMC DTC

Signages

253.40

75.77 727.80

Rs. 253.4 Cr. was sanctioned only for Training venues inside the games Village. DDA had sanctioned the additional amount for Developing Games Village GoI grant to GNCTD was Rs. 2800 Crore. The remaining expenditure is by the agencies, total approval by GNCTD is approximately 29,000 crore excluding the expenditure on DMRC, Power Plants, Procurement of Buses, etc. The expenditure on City Infrastructure alone is of the order of Rs. 7156 crore. Out of this projects worth Rs. 3053.84 crore were reviewed by HLC

Games Venue SAI DU, JMI, AITA, CRPF 444.86

406.65

CRPF was not reviewed

Delhi University 304.00 Jamia Milia Islamia University 43.51 AITA 59.14

Page 8

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 DDA 574.45

741.00

416.76

297.00

GNCTD NDMC

Organisation Committee

310.00

335.00

1,649.00

1,131.00

Total 14,000.45 14,000.45

7,988.02

Final Sanctioned amount was Rs. 335 Cr.

The total amount calculated without considering the projects undertaken by Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Health and Pune Games. It includes additional expenditure provided by DDA on Games Village and by GNCTD on City Infrastructure, etc.

57.1%

1.11

Except for initial problems probl ems in obtaining files and documents, the Committee faced no

hindrance in gaining access to files, papers and documents in the offices of the different agencies involved with CWG 2010. The quality of the report was enhanced considerably by the information supplied by the Customs and Income Tax Authorities. The experience shows that if the will exists, ways can be found. Government should face no problem whatsoever in obtaining data, documents, and facts required for any study or inquiry.

Page 9


Chapter 2: Gov Governance ernance Structure Struc ture “In his conversations with his friends, he frequently acknowledged that of all the arts the most difficult was the art of o f reigning.” reigning.” - Diocletian Imperator 284-305 CE. 2.1

On 9th May, 2002, Shri Suresh Kalmadi, President of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA)

addressed a letter to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYA&S) seeking the support of the Ministry for making India’s Bid for the Commonwealth Games at the forthcoming meeting of CGF at

Manchester. The then Minister of Sports Ms. Uma Bharati agreed to participate at the General Assembly of CGF at Manchester Manchester (23.07.2002).

However, the Ministry declined to provide any

financial commitment in the endeavour of President, IOA.

The Bid Saga 2.2

India’s interest in hosting Commonwealth Games was thus registered but the Ministry did not

pursue the matter for the remaining part of 2002. It seems that there was a discussion on this issue between the then Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Chandrababu Naidu and Shri Suresh Kalmadi, President, IOA during the Closing Ceremony of the National Games at Hyderabad on 23 rd December, 2002. The then Prime Minister’s reaction to hosting the Commonwealth Games was positive and accordingly, Shri Kalmadi addressed a letter to the new Minister, MYA&S Shri Vikram Verma, requesting support for canvassing at the forthcoming meeting of the Executive Board of CGF (February 7 – 10, 2003). 2003). Shri Verma recorded a Note for consideration of the Prime Minister on 29 th January, 2003. This Note was approved by the Prime Minister and Shri Verma provided the required letter of comfort to Shri Kalmadi to enable him to register India’s seriousness in hosting CWG – 2010.

2.3

After the Cape Town meeting of the Executive Board of CGF, Shri Randhir Singh, Secretary

General, IOA informed Government that 30 th May, 2003 was the last date for submission of Bids for CWG XIX to be held in 2010. He went on to outline outline likely receipts from and payments for hosting hosting the Games and forecast a ‘modest surplus ’ in case it was decided to bid for the Games. A request in

Page 10

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 April, 2003 for 1.61 crore was made to support support IOA in meeting the expenditure involved in bidding for the Games. Briefly, the issues described below below needed immediate affirmation affirmation in order to enable enable IOA to proceed to bid for the CWG XIX. 

To allow the Indian Olympic Association to bid for XIX Commonwealth Games, 2010.



To approve, in principle, holding of the XIX Commonwealth Games, 2010 in case the IOA is successful in its bid to host the Games at Delhi.



To allow the Ministry of Finance and the MYA&S to settle between themselves the financial arrangements for estimated expenditure expenditure of 1,61,53,600/- towards the bidding process for the Games.



To allow the MYAS to issue the following guarantees :i)

Undertaking to support the bid of Delhi to host the Games;

ii)

Guaranteeing free entry for all accredited athletes and delegations of all participating countries; and

iii)

Guaranteeing that the Games will be organized in accordance with the Constitution and Protocols & Regulations of the Commonwealth Games Federation.

2.4

Since the Draft Cabinet Notes circulated by MYAS on 25th April, 2003 and 15 th May, 2003 to

secure these assurances from Government of India had not been taken up by the Cabinet, the sanction of Prime Minister, in anticipation of Cabinet approval, was sought and secured on 24.05.2003. (Annexure (Annexure - 2) 2)

2.5

The Bid Document was prepared by President IOA with inputs from Chief Minister,

Government of Delhi and the Lt. Governor, Delhi, who stated that a suitable site for the Games Village had been identified identified by him and so on. on. These documents, issued issued after approval of of Prime Minister, formed a part of the Bid submitted by President, IOA on 30 th May, 2003 in the presence of Minister, MYAS and Lt. Governor, Delhi at London.

Page 11


President, IOA petitioned Government that the amount of 1.61 crore sanctioned for bidding

for the CWG was inadequate inadequate and, in fact, he would would require 3.33 crore. It would be pertinent to note that expenses have been exceeded, inter-alia, because Shri Kalmadi had included in his retinue two persons from Wizcraft to to accompany him to to London viz. Shri Virat Sarkari Sarkari and Shri Ajay Rao. What is interesting is that the Commonwealth Youth Games Opening and Closing Ceremonies were conducted by Wizcraft in particular, Shri Virat Sarkari and the Commonwealth Games Ceremonies were entrusted to Wizcraft with Shri Virat Sarkari being the prima-donna, including at GOM meetings.

2.7

This is also the time when the visit of the CGF Evaluation Commission was imminent. Shri

Kalmadi, not satisfied satisfied with the budget budget of 25 lakh approved for meeting expenditure expenditure related to Evaluation Commission on 28 th July, 2003, petitions Shri Vikram Verma and manages to extract another

7 lakh on the same day from the the Minister on the ground that publicity publicity budget needed to be

hiked1. It is i s unclear what required to be publicised.

2.8

These modest additional demands for funds are being noted because it would become part of

Shri Kalmadi’s studied approach, whenever the issue of money to support CWG came up. Meanwhile,

CGF sent a team consisting of Mr. Dick McColgan, Vice Chairman, CGF (Chairman), Edgar Rogers, Regional Vice President, Africa, Michael Hooper, CEO, CGF, Richard Palmer, Special Adviser, Perry Crosswhite, CEO, ACGA to evaluate India’s bid for CWG. The team visited Delhi from August August 3 – 8, 2003. A major issue raised raised by the team was regarding regarding the financing of the Games. Games. According to the the Evaluation Commission, Government of India was obligated to underwrite the difference between receipts and payments vis-à-vis Commonwealth Games. In other words, the shortfall shortfall in financing the Games would be met by Government of of India. On the facilities for hosting the Games, the Evaluation Commission seemed to be well satisfied with the caveat that modernization and up-gradation of facilities at various various stadia would be needed.

The Commission was was also comfortable comfortable with the

proposed location of the Games Village suggested by Lt. Governor, Delhi on the river bed next to Akshardham Temple, where the Village Vi llage was eventually constructed.

1

See Annexure 3 Page 12

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 ‘Revenue Neutral’ Games 2.9

In order order to provide the guarantee of Government of India described in the previous

paragraph, MYAS Cabinet Note dated 10 th September, 2003 stated that even though the proposed expenditure on on the Games had had increased increased to 400 crore, there would would still be a surplus of 50 to 60 crore. Thus, Cabinet was approached approached on the premise premise that the Games would not only be ‘revenue neutral’ but would also generate generate a small surplus. This premise was the basis basis on which between 2003 and 2010 nearly nearly 30,000 crore was was secured from the Government even though, after a point, it was was very clear that the Games Games would place considerable considerable financial burden on the the Government. In any event, Cabinet approved the proposal to underwrite the Games, approved the location of Games Village next to Akshardham Temple and deferred its decision on how the accommodation -4) constructed in the Village for the Games would be utilized /disposed off. (Annexure ( Annexure -4)

2.10

After receiving these assurances, the CGF regarded Delhi’s Bid to secure the Games complete

in all respects and Government knew that their Bid would be taken up around 10 th November, 2003 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. Jamaica. There was one other Bid in contention, contention, that of Hamilton, Canada. The comparative analysis of these bids by the Evaluation Commission of CGF, which was forwarded to all 5). members in October 2003, showed that Delhi’s Bid was much stronger. (Annexure – 5).

2.11

A delegation consisting of Minister, MYAS, Secretary Secretary (YAS), Joint Secretary (Sports), Lt.

Governor, Delhi, President, IOA, other officials of IOA and a few eminent sports persons was deputed th

to Jamaica to canvass for India’s bid. On 13 November, 2003, CGF announced the assignment of

CWG XIX to Delhi since it had secured the majority of the votes.

2.12

There is no official official record of the events at this meeting in Jamaica. Jamaica. The Ministry of Youth

Affairs and Sports did not prepare any Report on the foreign deputation, even though an important decision had been made which required action to be taken expeditiously, inter-alia because the agreement signed between IOA and CGF, after award of the Games required formation of the Organizing Committee for conduct conduct of the Games within six months. This agreement was not available available on the file of MYAS at that time. No other action was also taken. The Minister, YA&S did make some some attempt to set-up a meeting with President, IOA in February – March 2003, but was rebuffed on the Page 13

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 grounds that Shri Kalmadi was was not available. Things continued to drift in this manner till August – September, 2004. The notable notable developments in the meanwhile were were – Parliamentary Elections in May, 2004 leading to swearing-in of the late Shri Sunil Dutt as the Minister and the retirement of Shri Rajeeva Srivastava, Secretary, Secretary, MYAS. The last is being noted noted because from June, 2004 he joined joined Shri Kalmadi and continued continued with him till November, 2010. 2010.

It is our understanding understanding that that he left his

association with the OC, the legal entity which employed him, soon after this Committee was formed and around the time of our meeting with him.

Brief is exceeded 2.13

In September, 2004, Shri Rajkumar Sacheti, Sacheti, Director Director (Coordination), (Coordination), Indian Olympic

Association informed Government Government of an an additional liability of of US $ 7.2 million. This had arisen because President, IOA had announced a training grant of US $ 100,000 to each of the 72 Commonwealth Games Associations at Montego Bay during the General Assembly in November, 2003. Although Ministry was was aware of this announcement announcement since it had had answered a Parliament Parliament Question on 2 nd December, 2003 on this subject, it feigned complete ignorance and seemed surprised. To this day, this has remained its stand. In our meeting with Shri R.K Mishra, Mishra, the then Joint Secretary in the Ministry of of YA&S, he chose to remain silent on this matter. Our query to the then Minister Shri Vikram Verma, shows that the announcement was made by Shri Kalmadi without any authority or prior consultation 2. On being asked, Shri Kalmadi stated stated that he had had taken the prior approval of the then Prime Minister telephonically 3. According to the Prime Minister’s Office there is no record of such such approval. Our review and interaction interaction with the the concerned officials leads us to believe that the announcement was made unilaterally by Shri Kalmadi, he had no authority to do so and he is not being truthful in now making out that he had secured the approval of the then Prime Minister telephonically. In any event, it became became an additional commitment which MYAS decided to honour. Shri Kalmadi’s assertions that there was intense l obbying in support of Hamilton, that they were also offering monetary inducements etc. are all afterthoughts, neither validated by contemporaneous records records nor vouchsafed by others present present at Montego Bay. HLC specifically asked Shri Vikram Verma whether this matter matter was discussed with with him. He has answered in in the negative.

2 3

Refer Annexure 6 See Annexure 7 Page 14

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 The announcement was not a part of India’s bid, Shri Kalmadi had no authority to commit Government and therefore Government could have very well maintained that they were not obliged to honour the commitment.

Constitution of Organizing Committee 2.14

There was was also the issue of making suitable administrative arrangements for the Games. The

Host City Contract required constitution of an Organizing Committee for conduct of the Games. From November 2003 to September, 2004 (10 months) there was little progress on these. These issues are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.

2.15

In September, September, 2004, 2004, Shri Sunil Dutt, Dutt, Minister, Minister, MYAS MYAS was was informed informed by by the Cabinet Secretariat rd

of Prime Minister’s Orders dated 3 September, 2004 stating “it has been decided, with the approval

of the Prime Minister, to constitute a Core Group of Ministers (GOM) for coordinating the work relating to the organization of the Games. ” Cabinet Secretariat further stated that the First Meeting of the GOM would be held on 25.10.2004 and would be chaired by by the Prime Minister. At the first meeting, it was decided to:

i)

Set-up mile-stones for various activities;

ii)

Authorize MYAS to review and monitor arrangements for CWG;

iii)

Create sports and tourists infrastructure, including training facility;

iv)

Strengthen MYAS by setting-up of International Sports Division (ISD) to be headed by Joint Secretary;

v)

Set-up an Empowered Committee under Lt. Governor, Delhi to monitor construction;

vi)

Set-up Committee of Secretaries (COS) to implement decisions of GOM;

vii)

Set-up a Coordination Committee under Chief Secretary, Delhi to mirror the functions of COS.

2.16

These structures were set up by the concerned entities. The issue which remained was

incorporation of an Organizing Committee for conduct of the Commonwealth Games as required by the Host City Contract.

Page 15


The Organizing Committee (OC) (OC) was was set up in February, 2005 with an Executive Executive Board of of 15

Members. Its functioning is discussed discussed in detail in a separate chapter.

Group of Ministers (GOM) 2.18

The GOM was to be serviced by MYAS. MYAS was designated the the Nodal Ministry for OC plus

others who secure money money from Government for the Games or in the name name of the Games. In addition, MYAS set up a web based Monitoring System by 2008 to capture and report progress vis-a-vis preparation for Games. It is also the parent parent Ministry for the Sports Authority of India India (SAI). In brief, these are the main functions of MYAS.

2.19

The Sports Authority of India is a Registered Society and the the field organization of the the Ministry

for games and sports. sports. It is also the custodian of sports stadia owned by GOI viz. Jawaharlal Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Major Dhyan Chand Stadium, SP Mukherjee Swimming Pool, Indira Gandhi Stadium and Karni Singh Shooting Range. Range. It also carries the responsibility responsibility of training Indian Indian participants in sports events and has been assigned the task of preparing the Indian contingent for CWG – 2010.

Committee of Secretaries 2.20

Committee of of Secretaries Secretaries (COS) is an established mechanism for coordination coordination and resolution

of Inter-Ministerial issues. It is chaired chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. Secretary. Its functioning gained momentum with the passage of time.

2.21

The governance governance mechanism was thus complete. It did not take into account Cabinet or its its

Committees. Our review shows that their role in the governance governance structure was was limited to financial sanctions. This is examined in the Chapter Chapter on the Cost of the the Games. In succeeding chapters chapters the role played by each arm of the governance structure has been examined.

Page 16


Chapter 3: Cost of the Games 3.1

In a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports at the conclusion of the

Games, the cost of the Games in terms of approved expenditure is estimated as follows:

3.2

Approved expenditure of Govt. of India

11,687.25 crore

Approximate cost of projects of Govt. of Delhi

16,560.00 crore

In sum, a little over 28000 crore was spent on organizing the Games: a galactic jump from

300 – 400 crore estimated by Shri Randhir Singh (April – May 2003) and reiterated by Shri Kalmadi (August 2003) prior to Cabinet approval underwriting underwriting the Games Games in September, 2003. This issue, “cost of Games” was periodically placed before the Cabinet seeking enhancements in financial

outlays. These were provided by the Cabinet. At no stage was was an overall budget budget prepared by MYAS or required by any other entity e.g. Ministry of Finance and / or Cabinet. The closest the exercise came to a budgetary overview was in April, 2007 when it considered the Note for the Cabinet of MYAS dated 6th March, 2007. The background background to this Note was was a meeting taken by the Prime Minister in August, 20064 where several decisions were taken including, finalization of requirement of entities, completion of EFC procedures, computation of total financial outlays required for the Games and sanctions. Ministries were also urged to set out timelines and to ensure that that completion of projects takes place in a timely manner.

3.3

After the allotment of CWG – 2010 to India on the basis of Cabinet approval of September,

2003, the Cabinet is next approached after 3-1/2 years in March, 2007. In the meanwhile, incorporation of OC has taken 18 months, that committee has engaged EKS to outline the requirements for the Games and all this has taken 3-1/2 years 5. The Cabinet Note Note suggests that the the

4

Minutes of the Meeting taken by PM are at Annexure 8 What is inexplicable is prolonged hiatus between between one stage and the next. Thus, even though EKS report is ready by August, 2005 OC takes four months and GOM finally approves proposals for Games Venues in

5

Page 17

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 earlier estimates have now been updated and the the Games are now estimated to cost 3,566 crore ± 300 crore.

The Cabinet approval approval is on the basis of consideration consideration of these proposals proposals by the

Expenditure Finance Finance Committee (EFC) held in September, September, 2006. It is somewhat unfortunate that that it has taken six months for the preparation of Cabinet Note after after approval of the EFC. It is also curious that the Cabinet Note states “in view of the above, as per present estimates the total expenditure of

the Games Games would be around 3566 ± 300 crore …“. (Para 12.6) It is also the case that the estimates appended with the EFC Minutes at Annexure – XI - describes the estimates as “Rough Cost” and to arrive at a rough cost it has has taken all this time. Estimates have gone up by ten times in 3-1/2 years and all we we have are rough rough costs. Two other points are noteworthy. First, let out value of CPWD contracts is 1341 crore,6 but this is not highlighted in 2007. Also since the contracts contracts have have been awarded for this price, it is inappropriate inappropriate to describe these these are rough costs. All this seems to have been known, but is recorded recorded two years later. Secondly, the EFC mechanism deliberates deliberates at length but is unable to discern discern and therefore therefore does not record this issue. issue. In any event, Cabinet Cabinet approval approval is accorded to these requests.

Myth of ‘revenue neutral’ Games 3.4

The Cabinet sanction includes an amount of 767 crore for Conduct of the Games by OC. It

should be noted that these estimates have effectively destroyed the hypothesis of Organizing Committee that the Games would be ‘revenue neutral’. In other words, the income from the Games would be equal to the expenditure. expenditure. The propaganda propaganda after the Melbourne Games of of a revenue surplus is being systematically systematically used to this end. It is another matter that the Accounts of the State State of Victoria7 have been audited by the Auditor General of Australia and he has found a deficit of Australian Dollars 265.53 million in the Accounts of the Commonwealth Games Corporation, statutorily incorporated to conduct conduct the Games. A grant from the State of Victoria has met the deficit. Unfortunately, even though these these facts are known, known, they are not placed before before the Cabinet. The then Minister, MYAS had pointed out the myth of revenue neutral Games (October – November, 2004). January, 2006. The next stage, consideration by EFC is reached in September, 2006 (9 months) and Cabinet another six months thereafter. 6 In this connection discussion summarized in the Minutes of EFC held on 20 th & 25th February, 2009 is illuminating. 7 Independent Audit Report of Auditor General of Victoria conducted for the period 15 th July, 1999 to 31 st August, 2006. Page 18


It is worth noting that the letter of Shri Randhir Singh, Secretary General, IOA to Department

of Sports (March, 2003) is fictional 8. Likewise, the letter of Shri Kalmadi, President, IOA (August 2003) is a marginal improvement on the fiction. These letters were only designed to obtain the approval approval of the Government under pretext that the Games would be ‘revenue neutral’, that there would be virtually no financial liability for Government to meet and therefore it would be quite safe to underwrite the Games, a requirement of CGF. These letters are at Annexure -9. -9 .

Absence of Budgetary Ceiling 3.6

In relation to the estimates of the Organizing Committee, the MYAS is increasingly uneasy and

it is also clear that the machinery of the Government is not adequate to address the micro-issues involving examination examination of the requirements of OC. OC.

Accordingly, MYAS appointed an Expert

Committee (June/July 2007) to scrutinize the periodic demands for increased amounts being made by the Organizing Committee. By mid 2007, more than 100 crore has been released to OC leaving both sides frustrated. There is now demand for funds for the forthcoming Commonwealth Commonwealth Youth Games in 2008 and all this requires detailed scrutiny. scrutiny. Expert Committee is expected expected to do it. The Expert Committee looks at the Budget of OC for Commonwealth Youth Games (CWYG) and recommends an amount of 66.50 crore, crore, an amount wholly unacceptable unacceptable to OC. The discussions, discussions, numerous, numerous, at several levels and all levels are becoming acrimonious. Shri Kalmadi describes the the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports as ‘cartoons sitting in one room in Shastri Bhawan’ 9. Not surprisingly, surprisingly, the Ministry reluctantly gives in and, for the year 2007-08, OC ends up collecting 95.00 crore from Government Government vis a vis expenditure expenditure of 52.00 crore. Its cash balance increases to 76.00 crore crore at the end of of March, March, 2008 from 33.00 crore at the the end of March, March, 2007.

3.7

Around this time, it is decided to abolish the Expert Committee and submit the requirements

of OC as well as other entities seeking funds to the EFC procedure 10. Between 2007 2007 and 2010, right right upto the conduct of the Games, entities continue to revise costs and secure Cabinet / CCEA approval. The idea that there there is an overall Budget Budget of 3566 crore or any other amount never enters the Agenda. Agenda. 8

The letter was accompanied by asupporting letter from SMAM, the infamous company later engaged by OC at the instance of President and CEO, CGF as the marketing agency for CWG 2010. 9 See letter of Minister, MYAS addressed to PM in October 2007 placed at Annexure 15 10 HLC believes that Expert Committee was much better equipped to examine the kind of requirements which were put forth by OC. Its abolition was an instance of Shri Kalmadi’s influence. Page 19

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 We note that in the Annexures with certain Cabinet papers i.e. CCEA (27.3.2008), Cabinet (3.10.2008) and Cabinet (4.12.2008), information regarding the mounting costs of the Games is included. However, there is no write-up during the period March 2007 and April 2009 regarding a budgetary ceiling for the Games. Mere aggregation of financial sanctions does not constitute constitute a Budget. What was envisaged in Prime Minister’s meeting of August, 2006 was a budget for the Games and for the

Ministries / entities to work within that established established Budget. This has not taken place. place. All that has has been done is that the cost of the Games to the exchequer is being periodically revised and reported as the Budget for the Games. On the last such such occasion at at the 32 nd meeting of the GOM held on 22.09.2010 the GOM is informed of the the Budget having increased increased to 11687 crore with the sanction of 193.42 crore to Organizing Committee. What has increased increased is the financial outlay, not the Budget. Budget. It is a misnomer to describe describe the periodic increases increases in sanctioned sanctioned outlays as a Budget. These are merely cost revisions. The absence of budgetary ceiling seems to be an important important cause of ballooning expenditure because entities seemed to feel that after “due process,” sanctions would follow and,

follow they did.

3.8

Government, or should we say say the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, was remiss in not

framing a Budget11 for the Games and not restricting restricting entities to financial ceilings ceilings set by the Budget. It should be noted that by this time an elaborate exercise for assessing what is required for the Games has been conducted by EKS, has been considered by all stake holders, its outcome has been put through Inter Departmental process and nothing further further remains to be done. done.

Despite this this

considerable progress in the planning planning process, no Budgetary Ceiling is set. Ever increasing costs are a direct outcome of failure to set a Budgetary Ceiling.

3.9

The next round-of sanctions commence in April, 2009 and continue till September, 2010. In

April 2009, Cabinet agrees to revise CPWD requirements requirements to 2460 crore crore from from 1000 crore crore in 2007. On that date all all contracting has been completed by CPWD. So called ‘cost estimates ’ placed before Cabinet are really an aggregation of price at which contracts contracts have been let out. In other words, after

11

Minutes of Prime Minister’s meeting (August, 2006) are clear and required a Budget for the Games.

Page 20

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 the award of Games, it has taken 5-1/2 years for reliable estimates to emerge and, in a sense, they are not estimates at all because they are the value of contracts awarded by CPWD.

No dearth of money 3.10

By 2009 there is certainly an impression impression that that money is not a constraint constraint for for delivering the ‘best

ever Games’, for showcasing India. Call it what you may, there is a tinge of hubris. hubris. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. All entities follow this precedent and their their costs / sanctions sanctions are revised. Table 3.1 below provides provides the relevant relevant information. Table 3.1: Cost Estimates of the Projects ( in crore) crore) Sl. No.

Item of Expenditure

Estimates approved by Cabinet on 15.3.2007

Estimates presented before CCEA on 27.3.2008

Estimates presented before Cabinet on 03.10.2008

Estimates presented before Cabinet on 4.12.2008

Sanctions in 2009- 2010

1.

Sports Authority of India for Sports Infrastructure

1000 (plus minus 10%)

1450

2195

2195

Estimate revised to 2460 crore in April 2009

2.

Venue for Tennis (AITA)

30.00 (plus minus 15%)

30.00

30.00

62.75

3.

OC for conduct of Games

767 (plus minus 15%)

1518 110

1518 110

1518

Estimates approved by Cabinet on 8.10.2009 65.65 crore Estimates approved by Cabinet on 5.11.2009 1620 crore

4.

Sports Infrastructure for Commonwealth Youth Games Pune, 2008 Civic Infrastructure for Pune

210.00

210.00

210.00

210.00

-

134.32

134.32

134.32

-

7.16

7.16

7.16

631.55

631.55

631.55

770

770

770

5.

6.

7.

8.

Security arrangements for CWYG Infrastructure DDA for International Zone, etc of Games Village and Sports Infrastructure GNCTD for civic infrastructure

325 (plus minus 25% recommended by EFC on 22.8.2006 770

Estimates presented before Cabinet on 15.10.2009 827.85 crore

Page 21

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 9

Preparation Teams

of

10.

Overlays

11.

Upgradation/creati on of Competition and Training Venues- DU, JMI and DPS

678 (approved by CCEA on 12.6.2008) 200

257.41 (approved by CCEA on 27.3.2008)

802

678

678

400

400

400

257.41

339

339

12

Security MHA

through

172

264

264

277

13.

Host Broadcaster DD/AIR International Broadcasting Centre PIB for Publicity etc.

415

494

415

415

-

20

20

20

-

28

28

28

542

463

463

25.75

25.75

25.75

15

15

15

70.72

70.72

ITPO Total of 13 14.

15.

16.

Archeological Survey of India for refurbishment of monuments Construction of Big Bore Shooting Range at CRPF Centre Construction & Operationalization of Sports medicine and Injury Centre at Safdarjang Hospital

-

15

70.72

-

Estimates approved by the Cabinet on 19.3.2010 687.06 crore Estimates approved by the Cabinet 8.10.2009 306.41 crs. + 42.57 crore

Estimates approved by the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure on 19.10.2009 370 crore

Estimates approved by the Cabinet on 8.10.2009 28.50 crore

17

MTNL for incremental Telecom Infrastructure Infrastructure approved by Cabinet on o n 18.2.2010 for an amount of 182.00 crore

18

OC for Timing Scoring Result (TSR System) and Sports Equipment approved by Competent Page 22

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Authority on

87.25 crore

19

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for construction and operationalization of Sports Medicine and Injury Centre at Safdarjang Hospital for an amount of 70.72 crore[ approved by ccompetent ompetent authority]

20

Ministry of Home Affairs for Intelligent Traffic Management System approved by CCEA on 13.8.2009 for an amount of 200 crore

3.11

It is also the case that by September, 2010 all projects are complete, are handed over and the

Games have taken place in October, October, 2010. Nevertheless, none of of the projects of any entity are shown, on the files, as complete. A considerable amount amount of savings are available for meeting liabilities. What these these liabilities could be, be, is another matter. In the absence of of any monitoring procedure and in the absence of this kind of enquiry these matters would have remained opaque. Table 3.2 below shows the amounts available with the entities in relation to sanctions as of December, 2010 / January, 2011: Table 3.2: 3.2: Unspent Balance

( in crore crore)) #

1 2 3 4 5

Project Items

Sanctioned Amount

Expenditure upto January 2011

Unspent Amount

Games Venues

4854.24

3972.82**

881.42

Infrastructure

6773.68

5778.18

995.50


2580.73

1785.97*

794.76

Games Village

538.84

416.72

122.12

Training of Indian Contingent for Commonwealth Games

678.00

283.00

395.00

Grand Total * Expenditure upto February 2011

15425.49 12

12236.69

3188.80

** Expenditure of SAI included in the figures shown are upto Feb.2011

3.12

We believe that this was the outcome outcome of the decision made made by GOM GOM on 4.01.2006. The

manner in which that decision was made is described in the next chapter and the consequences are 12

Out of 11,687.75 crore of approved expenditure, the details are available for 8274 crore and expenditure indicated corresponds to this sanctioned sanctione d amount. Further, sanctioned cost of GNCTD projects is 7155.99 rd crore. (Refer HLC 3 Report). Page 23

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 detailed in all five Reports on various aspects aspects of the Games. What it did was to empower empower OC and executing agencies without over-sight, without a budgetary ceiling and at one stroke eliminate Sports Authority of India from the the decision making process. process. Department of Sports had failed; at some level was complicit. We return to this theme theme at relevant points in the report.

3.13

Not all the blame blame lies with the the above captioned decision because because in relation to the Organising

Committee, the savings to date are nearly a third of estimates. Unsurprisingly, Shri Kalmadi wrote to Secretary, Department of Sports on 30 thJune, 2010 describing OC’s dire financial position and requesting for a further sum of 900 crore crore13. Luckily, Government procedures prevented the fruition of this unseemly proposal.

3.14

Cabinet was concerned with the scale of expenditure. While considering the Cabinet Note of

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports dated 06.03.2007 it decided that a system of concurrent Audit should be put in place effective April 2008. 2008. Nobody is very clear what this entailed entailed e.g. what did concurrent Audit mean, mean, what entities were to to be covered and by whom? whom? Department of Sports Sports addressed OC and was informed by the latter that a comprehensive system of Internal Audit exists. There is sufficient correspondence between Department of Sports and Controller General of Accounts; on the ground ground nothing much happens. happens. Department of Sports addresses Comptroller Comptroller and Auditor General also and an Audit party commences commences Inspection of OC in November 2008. In essence Cabinet decision of April, 2008 was not implemented.

Cabinet – sanctioning authority 3.15

Cabinet has by and large acted as a sanctioning authority. The progress in relation to the

Games has not been reported to it probably probably because it was treated as the function function of GOM. It is also the case that in December, 2008 MYAS reports to Cabinet on the state of preparedness for the Games, takes credit for setting up a web- based monitoring system and asserts “the updated progress is reviewed by the monitoring agencies on-line and issues / bottlenecks are addressed appropriately” (para 18 of Note dated 27 th November, 2008). Cabinet is unimpressed unimpressed and decides “…. directed full 13


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 review by Ministers of Urban Development, Tourism & Culture, Science & Technology and Youth Affairs & Sports and report within two weeks”. It is unfortunate and somewhat inexplicable that

these orders of the Cabinet are not acted upon. upon. This Group of Ministers met on three occasions after after the Cabinet meeting, in terms of the Cabinet decision, but they deal with issues not germane to the Cabinet decision. These three meetings are described described in the Chapter on on GOM.

3.16

From the records provided provided to us, it appears appears that there have been about about 20 meetings of

Cabinet / CCEA on Commonwealth Games – 2010. These meetings have been held to secure secure Cabinet / CCEA approval for the ever increasing increasing cost of the the Games. We have therefore concluded concluded that Cabinet / CCEA by and large functioned as a sanctioning authority for the cost of the Games.

Page 25


Chapter 4: Group of Ministers (GOM) 4.1

It would be recalled that this body was set up by the Prime Minister in September, 2004 with

the object of coordinating all matters concerning the Commonwealth Games – 2010. A copy copy of the Cabinet Secretariat Memo setting up the GOM, its membership, its functions etc. is appended 14. The First meeting of the GOM was held on 25.10.2004 and chaired by the Prime Minister. Minister.

Thereafter 13

meetings were held. These meetings were chaired by late Shri Arjun Singh, the then Minister, Minister, Human Resource Development (HRD). Unfortunately, no meeting took place place between January, 2006 and November, 2006 and again between 9 th April, 2008 and 2nd July, 2009. The latter was was in fact the first meeting of the reconstituted GOM after Parliamentary elections in May, 2009.

4.2

The recurring themes of meetings of the first GOM were: 

Organizing Committee (OC);



Games Village; and



Games Venues.

In fact, the first 4 GOM meetings were devoted to the Organizing Committee. In the succeeding paragraphs these themes are discussed.

Organizing Committee 4.3

The First GOM met in October, 2004. Thereafter, there is a gap of over two months during

which the issue of chairmanship chairmanship of OC is being discussed discussed informally and remains to be resolved. The second meeting of GOM is held on 14 th January, 2005 and, even though Minutes did not issue, the approved Minutes state as follows: “It was observed that material changes in financial as well as structural aspects of the

Organizing Committee, as proposed in the original Bid Document (which formed the basis for allotment of Games to India) were made made by IOA unilaterally. This revised Bid Document was was sent to the Ministry only in September, 2004.”

14

See Annexure - 11 Page 26


Unfortunately, no further action / decision was taken and the matter was allowed to rest. On

29th January, 2005 certain decisions seem to have have been taken by the GOM. These are circulated on 7th February, 2005 by the the MYAS. From the record it seems that a formal meeting meeting has perhaps not taken place. The crucial decision relates to chairmanship chairmanship of the Organizing Committee which which goes to Shri Suresh Kalmadi.

4.5

At the next meeting of the GOM (Fourth meeting) held on 17.03.2005, Chairman, Chairman, Organizing

Committee, Shri Suresh Kalmadi informs GOM that OC has been registered and provides it with Memorandum of OC. This document is heavily heavily weighed in favour of the Chairman and the the OC. Unfortunately, no discussion takes place in the GOM on this issue.

4.6

On 10.05.2005 Chairman, GOM informs Minister, Youth Affairs and Sports of his having

approved membership of Organizing Committee 15.

While this decision belonged to GOM, GOM, fait

accompli is accepted by the Minister / Ministry of Youth Youth Affairs and Sports. Sports. Unfortunately the then then Minister Shri Sunil Dutt passed away on 25 th May, 2005.

4.7

At the 9th meeting of the GOM held on 04.01.2006, Chairman, OC declared that the Executive

Board of the Organizing Committee has decided that the Commonwealth Youth Games cannot be organized in Delhi and he would take up this issue with Commonwealth Games Federation and finalize the location. location. At its next next meeting held held on 9th November, 2006 (10th GOM meeting) Chairman, rd

OC states “the 3

Commonwealth Youth Games will be held in Pune (Maharashtra) from 12 – 18th

October, 2008”.

4.8

At the 13th meeting of the GOM (held on 10.03.2008), Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports

makes a powerful plea for restricting the absolute power of Organizing Committee by a suitable amendment to the Memorandum of the Organizing Committee. This is circulated as Agenda Item No.16 “Institutional Issues of the Organizing Committee CWG – 2010”. While the Minutes are are silent,

it appears this item is deferred. It is placed at the Agenda of the next meeting. Unfortunately this

15


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 item is once again not taken up (14 th meeting of the GOM held on 9.04.2008) because Shri Kalmadi does not attend. The GOM was unable unable to act on this important issue, issue, concerned with coordination coordination with the Games. Its compulsions (GOM) have have not been recorded; its consequences consequences will continue continue to be debated. Howsoever this matter is viewed, the conclusion that Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi gains, cannot be avoided.

4.9

While the First GOM was set up to coordinate issues with regard to CWG – 2010 it has begun

to take substantive decisions which may / may not have belonged to GOM because the GOM was not empowered in terms of the Notification issued by by the Cabinet Secretariat on the subject. subject. Thus OC is able to secure GOM approval for the appointment of EKS for functions which are not entirely clear at the 10th GOM.

In the main, OC has been been able to secure secure what it wants from the GOM while

Government has been unable to use the GOM for exercising control over OC.

4.10

It would would be perhaps not wrong to conclude conclude that GOM during the period 2005 – 2009 is largely

supportive of OC and, as a result, some functions which did not belong to OC became their preserve. In fact having approved the appointment of Shri Kalmadi as the Chairman of OC it was all the more necessary to decide what functions would be performed by it and the remaining would naturally remain with Ministry of Youth Affairs Affairs and Sports. The dysfunctionality of Sports Authority Authority of India was largely a result of OC encroaching on territory territory belonging to the latter. It may well be that MYAS having lost every battle had given up the struggle.

Games Village 4.11

One important important matter, matter, which which is periodically placed before the the GOM, is the CWG – 2010

Games Village at at Akshar Dham.

In January, 2006 the GOM decides that the Village may may be

constructed on a PPP model. model. A large number of social activists, including Shri Kuldip Nayyar are up up in arms. ‘Yamuna Jia Abhiyaan’, a Group led by Shri Mishra is particularly particularly active in opposing the location

of the Games Village in the Yamuna Yamuna Flood Plains to press GOM GOM for hearing. Unfortunately, for a considerable period of time these these groups do not not secure a hearing from the GOM. At last they are heard in November, 2007. By then the hearing has become an academic academic exercise because tendering tendering Page 28

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 process is complete and DDA, the executing agency, has signed the project development agreement with EMMAR-MGF Construction Construction Company Limited for executing executing the project. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to conclude that GOM had little interest in this cause.

4.12

It is also also not clear why why the manner of execution of the Games Village Village Project needed

consideration and approval approval by the GOM. Cabinet had decided decided location as well well as execution of the Commonwealth Games Games Village. The site fixed was next to Akshardham and and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had been named the the executing agency. In fact, DDA had also prepared estimates for execution of the project. project. DDA is a fully empowered body body and did not need need endorsement / approval from GOM or any consultation on the manner manner in which it wish to execute execute the project. Unfortunately, GOM discussed this issue in several meetings (IV to IX meetings) and approved the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode; another instance of decision making by GOM.

Games Venues 4.13

The games venues were were brought brought to the attention attention of the GOM at its 4 th meeting held on

17.03.2005 and Chairman, OC was insistent that a supplementary reappraisal of venues by EKS was required. This was authorized and DDA (through (through its Vice Chairman, who was present) agreed to bear the cost. Even though EKS completed its work by September, 2005, GOM was unable to take up venue development, as proposed by EKS in that meeting or the next meeting held on 7th November, 2005 (in its VIII meeting). meeting). Eventually, GOM takes this subject at the 9th Meeting (held on 04.01.2006) and decides “Identification and Development of Venue Infrastructure for Commonwealth Games – 2010”: The OC made a detailed presentation related to venue infrastructure covering 15 approved

disciplines and 3 new disciplines of Archery, Billiards & Snooker and Tennis.

4.14

The GOM, on the basis of the presentation and in the light of the proposal proposal submitted submitted by the

members before it, decided to approve the 18 venues subject to the conditions that : a) Respective Agencies should proceed with the process of concept plan and design on the basis of global tendering.

Page 29

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 b) The Plan and design should be finalized in consultation with the OC to ensure that the technical requirements for various disciplines are taken care of. c) The infrastructure is completed in all respects and with required quality well in advance before the Commonwealth Games, 2010.

4.15

This decision decision had far reaching reaching consequences. First, it was superfluous vis a vis approval approval of

venues. These had been identified identified during evaluation evaluation (August 2003) and there there was never much much dispute on that score. score. Second, it empowered OC without without any Budgetary limitation and considerably considerably enhanced the discretion of of executing agencies (CPWD, DDA DDA and GNCTD, PWD). It retained no oversight for Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports or for that matter GOM and Sports Authority of India was, at one stroke, eliminated from the process.

4.16

In the drafting of GOM GOM Minutes, the phraseology added what the GOM GOM did not not intend. intend. Shri

V.K. Gautam, Director, Department of Sports at that time, one time Collector of Pune, was doing the needful for Shri Kalmadi. In a few months he he would join the OC on completion completion of tenure.

4.17

It was also unfortunate that during during 2005-2006, Ministerial arrangements for MYAS were ad-

hoc. The far reaching consequences consequences of this decision are discussed in our our Fourth Report on ‘Games Venues’.

Meetings of Group Appointed by Cabinet 4.18

It is also surprising that despite despite the existence of the GOM, three meetings meetings are chaired by

Minister of Urban Development Development on 16.12.2208, 16.1.2009 and 6.2.2009. 6.2.2009.

These meetings are

primarily concerned with selecting a Director for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of CWG – D2010. To what extent it was the mandate mandate of the GOM to select the Director is certainly an issue; more important is the issue of answering the question as to how could this Group, with a different mandate, agree to deal deal with with this issue. HLC did not receive receive any clear answer answer from MYAS.

What

seems to have triggered these meetings is the observation in the Cocom Report – “The creative concept was to be developed by September, 2008 but the producers are yet to be appointed”

(Cocom Report November 10 -11, 2008 paragraph paragraph 3.2.5). In any event the last meeting meeting of the Group Page 30

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 on 6.2.2009 approved unanimously the selection of Shri Bharat Bala as the Director for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. That matter is discussed discussed in Chapter 7 and Fifth Report of HLC on Organising Organising Committee.

4.19

In conclusion conclusion the the first GOM was was meant meant to coordinate activities in relation to the organization

and conduct of the CWG – 2010. In some cases it did not decide issues which which belonged to it while in other cases it took decisions on matters matters not within its ambit. ambit. For surveillance of preparation preparation for the Games the kind of periodicity which ought to have existed during this crucial period of 2004 – 2009 did not follow.

Second GOM June 2009 – October 2010 4.20

In June, 2009 the GOM was reconstituted16 under the chairmanship of Shri Jaipal Reddy,

Minister of Urban Development at at that time. A copy of the Cabinet Secretariat Secretariat Memorandum setting setting up the GOM is appended. appended. This GOM held 34 meetings between July, 2009 and 18th October, 2010 when the last meeting was was held. In constituting the the Group it is stated: “It has been decided with the approval of the Prime Minister to constitute a Group of

Ministers (GOM) to review the progress and take decisions as required to facilitate smooth implementation of all activities connected with the Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi in 2010”

4.21

By October, October, 2009 Government is seriously seriously concerned concerned about about the tardy progress progress made for CWG

– 2010 and, in partial modification of the earlier Memo constituting the Group, provides: i) the Group

may meet every week and ii) the work of the Organizing Committee will be supervised regularly by the Group of Ministers. Ministers. For discharging these these functions, Secretary (Sports) (Sports) and Chairman, OC OC will report weekly to GOM. Between October, 2009 and the conclusion conclusion of the Games (October, (October, 2010), 20 meetings take place, about half of those envisaged.

4.22

In the succeeding paragraphs an attempt attempt will be made to review the themes addressed addressed by the the

reconstituted GOM, GOM, the decisions decisions taken and and the efficacy of this mechanism. mechanism. The main themes themes 16


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 addressed were : i) preparedness for the Games, mainly physical infrastructure; ii) Opening and Closing Ceremonies; iii) progress achieved by Organizing Committee vis a vis preparation for the Games; and iv) certain connected miscellaneous issues.

Preparedness for the Games 4.23

Secretary (Sports) (Sports) was obligated to report to the GOM at its meeting on on completion completion of

physical infrastructure. infrastructure. These reports were dutifully dutifully made and occasionally occasionally supplemented through through field visits prior to the meeting. By this time it has become clear that that the monitoring mechanism mechanism set up by Department of Sports Sports is not working. working. Hence reliance has to be placed on what what CPWD and other executing agencies report report in relation to the progress made. made. These reports are unable to forecast completion because because the progress made is never accurately accurately revealed. It is also the case that, that, on certain occasions, progress is reported and promises made by DG, CPWD and yet dates of completion continue to elude targets. HLC has been informed that in addition addition to the GOM, progress of CPWD executed Games projects are being monitored very regularly by Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. It is not clear why he is not asked asked to report progress instead instead of Secretary (Sports) whose information is second hand hand hearsay. It needs to be pointed out that in July, 2009 CAG submits a report to Government “Preparedness for the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010”. This Report Report is not discussed by the GOM. It has pointed out out a number of projects as High / Medium Risk including key Games complexes SPM Aquatics, JLN Stadium Stadium and Games Village. Projects are delayed and get completed in their own time. The empowerment of GOM does not seem to have helped even even though its Chairman is Minister for Urban Development, in charge of CPWD and DDA.

Opening & Closing Ceremonies 4.24

With a few exceptions, exceptions, Opening Opening and Closing Ceremonies Ceremonies are discussed at nearly nearly all the

meetings of GOM. Progress, provision of resources, resources, form and content, physical physical aids all come up for consideration / decision before the GOM. By and large, Organizing Organizing Committee, in-charge in-charge of the Ceremonies uses GOM to secure decisions where it would be useful to assign responsibility to GOM. Thus for example when OC wishes to appoint Mark Fisher for a consideration of half a million Dollars it places the matter before before GOM. When GOM decides that that his services are no longer necessary because it has been decided not to construct the Band Stand, which he has been hired to design, OC Page 32

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 ignores the decision. Mark Fisher continues and and is now in-charge of Aerostat. It is another another matter that GOM is virtually presented presented with a fait accompli on this issue. Likewise, Bharat Bala has been been hired, is in receipt of a very large sum of money, he is now seeking enhanced remuneration remuneration and the matter is promptly placed before the GOM; GOM; happily it is approved. approved. A much bigger contract, where where there are allegations of serious conflict of interest i.e. the appointment of Wizcraft has taken place without the approval of GOM. By August, 2010 2010 (28th meeting 26.08.2010) GOM has lost patience and when it is asked to authorize payment for M/s. K Events, Chairman, GOM and Minister (YA&S) expressed strong reservation reservation on bringing this matter matter before the GOM. It was reiterated that “matter such as this are internal to OC and and should be approved at the appropriate level by OC. They should not be brought before GOM ” (Minutes of 28th Meeting of GOM Item No.4).

4.25

In so far as the theme theme and content of Opening Opening and Closing Ceremonies are concerned, concerned, there

are periodic discussions about about action since not much progress has been made during the Calendar year 2009. During this time OC is assisted in in this function by Shri Bharat Bharat Bala and other experts. experts. When this topic is raised in December, 2009, after nearly one year GOM is promptly informed that the funds available are inadequate inadequate and that instead of 106.50 crore they would need much much more. GOM agrees to raise the money for Opening and Closing Ceremonies to 200.00 crore. By June, 2010 2010 GOM is again very restive with regard to progress, the matter of financial resources is again agitated by Chairman Chairman OC and Chairman Chairman GOM GOM increases increases the ceiling for Ceremonies Ceremonies to 300.00 crore. It is hoped that there will be no further further increases. Nevertheless at the 24 th meeting (held on 14.0.7.2010) OC requested requested for another 75.00 crore. Till date, date, very little has been reported reported on the progress. Finally, at the 26th meeting (15.08.2010) partial progress is reported and it is stated that rehearsal will start shortly. On the suggestion suggestion of GOM GOM elements of Islamic Islamic and Buddhists Buddhists culture culture have been included in the Ceremonies. Ceremonies. Unfortunately there is now the risk of rain affecting affecting these Ceremonies and GOM (29 th meeting – 01.09.2010) agrees with Mr. Virat Sarkari “insistence now will be on feasibility of the show and not on the grandeur”. GOM continues to express unhappiness at the poor

progress and has to satisfy itself by directing that Shri Bharat Bala will remain in Delhi till the conclusion of the Closing Ceremony. The Ceremonies have have not been fully budgeted and and GOM

Page 33

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 enhances the budget budget of OC on 23.09.2010 to 1813.42 crore crore through through an additional loan of of 193.42 crore.

Progress made by OC vis a vis Preparation for the Games 4.26

It would be recalled that in October, 2009 GOM was obligated obligated to meet meet every week week and

Chairman, OC was required to report progress made by OC in relation to preparation for the Games. Commencing with the 11 th meeting (held on 29.12.2009) CEO, OC Shri Jarnail Singh was assigned the duty of reporting progress progress to GOM. He is present in the meetings, he reports reports progress, but these these reports say very little.

For example, at at this very meeting GOM raises raises the issue issue of delay in

procurement of timing and scoring scoring system. system. Nobody has has any any information information on this. Likewise, the catering contract has has been held up, this fact is known but but not reported to GOM. The file has been lying with Chairman, OC for over two weeks by this date. date. In this manner progress progress reports are made as a matter of form at meetings of GOM but these are low on conte nt and it is anybody’s guess what is going on. This is despite the fact that that commencing October, October, 2009 Government has has inducted Shri Jarnail Singh as CEO of OC and there is team of specially selected officials to virtually run key functions in OC. Our interaction with the officials officials assigned by Government to OC suggests that for for a considerable period of time they were not assigned any work / function; more on that in our Chapter on OC.

4.27

There are are some some miscellaneous miscellaneous issues which are are raised before the GOM. One such issue is Bus Bus

ticketing during the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games, an euphemism for supply of free tickets. tickets. It is debated on numerous occasion where after Government of Delhi agrees to provide a few crore of subsidy. Likewise the lack of progress in relation to Commonwealth Games Village is agitated but does not lead to any direction or decision. Security issues, accreditation, accreditation, etc. are also mentioned from time time to time. It cannot cannot be said that that GOM decides / directs the the course of events on these these issues. Host Broadcasting Agreement and delays in executing it are mentioned on a few occasions without any outcome.

Page 34


To sum up, GOM was set up first to coordinate, coordinate, second to decide and third third to ensure the

delivery of the Games. It lacked a sense of ownership ownership because the Games nominally seemed to belong to the Ministry of Youth Youth Affairs and Sports. Sports. That Ministry underwent several Ministerial changes between May, May, 2004 and April, 2008. Dr. M.S. Gill, Minister for YAS at the time of the Games had been in the Ministry from the second quarter of calendar 2008.

4.29

Cabinet responsibility for successful conduct of Games was delegated to GOM. Was GOM

effective as a customized instrument instrument of Governance? Between 2004 and 2009 its role was, was, in the main, to coordinate coordinate the work relating to the organization organization of the Games. Games. It seems its efforts got coupled to the indifferent health of then Chairman, GOM (late Shri Arjun Singh) with the result that for 14 months, as preparations gathered steam, GOM was unable to meet, (April 2008 – July 2009). Crucial decisions, i.e. membership of Organizing Committee, were taken by Chairman instead of GOM. Even after it was empowered empowered (June, 2009), it was faced with with issues which did not not belong to it.

4.30

There is also the vexed vexed issue issue of Ministerial responsibility derived from Allocation Allocation of Business Business

and the oversight role presumably contemplated for the GOM and especially for the empowered GOM. Perusal of GOM deliberations and decisions reveal that subjects which individual ministries / Minister chose to bring before the GOM were discussed rather than those which ought to have been discussed if any oversight role had to be discharged by GOM. Thus, even if an oversight role was contemplated for GOM, in practice it was unable to assert that role.

4.31

HLC observations are more delineation of boundaries boundaries of GOM rather rather than than critique critique of its

deliberations. Should then then things be done differently? We attempt attempt an answer to this question question in responding to the Terms of Reference.

Page 35


Chapter 5: Committee of Secretaries (COS) 5.1

In December, 2004 PMO communicated the institutional arrangements which would be put in

place to hold Commonwealth Commonwealth Games 2010 to the Group of Minister (GOM). (GOM). Based on a Note of the then Minister of Human Resources Development, the institutional arrangements were confirmed by the PMO in February, 2005.

These arrangements, arrangements, inter alia, provided that “A Committee of

Secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary will be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the GOM regarding the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games. The Sports Department Department through its Secretary will service this Committee”.

5.2

Constituted in 2005 January, the Committee of Secretaries (COS) met for the first time only in

May, 2006. By this time the GOM GOM had held nine meetings. Between May, 2006 and October, 2010, the COS met about 89 times with the following break-up- :

5.3

#

Period

No. of meetings

1

May, 2006 to December, 2006

8

2

2007

7

3

2008

10

4

2009

14

5

2010

Approximately 50 meetings (including more than one on a single day)

It would would be observed that the COS COS got got off to a late start, had a slow slow take off till 2010 when

there was feverish activity. In this review it is proposed to cover two important important areas and see how the COS dealt with the subject; take a look at some interesting issues which were raised and discussed in this body and also examine a few cases where an attempt was made to use the COS or where the intervention of COS was sought on matters which were not really within its ambit.

Page 36


The Cabinet Secretary in the very first meeting of the COS held on 5th May, 2006 pointed out

that it was important to identify and finalize the various activities and projects, taking an over view of the requirements of all the Departments and fix milestones for their timely completion. In the meeting held on 1st September, 2006 the Cabinet Secretary observed that the concerned agencies should ensure that all construction activities pertaining to the Games should begin around April, 2007, before the onset of the monsoon, and should should be completed by November, 2009. Towards this end all EFCs were to be cleared by September, 2006 and detailed design estimates finalized by October – November, 2006. Further an Empowered Committee was to be set up to facilitate requests for clearances of various projects.

5.5

In the meeting held on 28th June, 2007 the timelines for various projects were presented.

Most of the Games Games projects were to start in late 2007 or early 2008. Interestingly, Secretary, MYAS pointed out that parallel execution of works would create competing demands on skilled manpower and machinery and therefore very tight monitoring would be required.

5.6

Thereafter, in subsequent meetings progress of Games of Games Venues was reported as follows:

9th September, 2009 17th February, 2009

21st May, 2009

10th July, 2009

4th December, 2009

12th March, 2010

It was noted that work on all stadia was progressing on target for completion by December, 2009 It was noted that outstanding problems have been overcome and construction work is progressing satisfactorily with constant monitoring at all levels. It was reported that all stadia will be completed by December, 2009 except the Cycling Velodrome and the Games Village which will be completed by March, 2010. The COS discussed a Report prepared by CAG in which delays up to 18 months had been reported. Secretary (Sports), (Sports), however, however, took the stand that all delays had been made made good. Fears expressed about the timely completion of the Games Village were also set at rest by the the Vice Chairman, Chairman, DDA. It was decided decided that documents should be provided to the Audit Team to share the confidence that the works will be completed on time. Secretary (Sports) informed the COS that most of the Games venues civil works were were nearing completion. completion. Secretary, UD reported that that all Games works will will be completed by the target dates. dates. It was also stated that Training Venues will be completed by 31 st July, 2010. Representative of OC observe that timelines given by CPWD do not Page 37


9th April, 2010

11th July, 2010

5.7

appear to be realistic. Secretary (Sports) also felt that the completion of Venues for Cycling, Weightlifting, Badminton and Squash were were likely to be delayed. She felt that high risk venues should be identified and concentrated on intensively. Secretary (Sports) reported that 9 Venues had been completed; 3 would be completed by end April, 2010 and 6 more between 31 st May and 30th June, 2010. Cabinet Secretary expressed his serious concern that in many areas there are time overruns and and slippages. It was reported that that most of the stadia and venues under construction give an impression of lack of coordination.

From this this review review it is clear clear that that in spite spite of of all its efforts, even the the COS was unable to get the the

agencies to complete complete the works works in time.

It is observed that incorrect reporting and lack of

coordination at lower levels prevented the COS from taking corrective action at stages earlier than they actually did. Early warnings were ignored ignored by the implementing agencies. agencies.

5.8

The Second project selected for review is the construction of the Games Village and

deliberations connected to that project. Date of CoS Meeting

Details of deliberations

5th May, 2006

COS suggested that the DDA should should use use the best of suggestions suggestions to make use of the Games Village within the laid down procedures.

23rd June, 2006

It was reported that the concept plan for the Games Village will be put up to the GOM by September, 2006 and the Village would be ready by December, 2009.

28th June, 2007

It was reported that the work on construction of the Village would start by 31st August, 2007 and completed by 31 st December, 2009.

17th February, 2009

A proposal proposal for purchase of flats flats by DDA was brought brought before the COS, which advised that approval of the appropriate authority should be taken and proper valuation of the flats should be done through an independent agency in a transparent manner. It was reported that the work is going on in full swing and would be completed by 31 st March, 2010.

10th July, 2009

Page 38

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 th

11 May, 2010

11th June, 2010

17th August, 2010

26th August, 2010

31st August, 2010

5.9

It was reported that the Games Village work had been completed. However, landscaping, provision of water and electric connections was in progress. Furniture was was being received and installed. installed. It was reported that handing over to OC will commence in the 3 rd week of June, 2010. External development development work had not not yet completed. completed. Kitchen design was was not yet in place. DDA would complete the work work th only by 15 September, 2010. 17 Towers had been completed and furnishing and cleaning teams had moved in. Remaining towers were supposed supposed to be handed over by by 30 th August, 2010. But this appeared difficult difficult unless night shifts were initiated. Dates for installation installation of OC Overlays were not available. However, the OC representative reported that this would be done by the 11 th September, 2010. It was reported that that two towers needed to be erected for receiving telecom signals. It was reported that the main kitchen was ready. Teams of DDA, ITDC and the Developer were at work to remove the defects and for furnishing the flats. External development development works was under progress.

It is thus clear that while a major part of the civil work work may may have have competed by 31 31 st March,

2010 many other works like provision of water and electricity, land leveling and landscaping, supply and installation of furniture took much longer and work pertaining to catering and kitchen was pushed dangerously close to the actual actual starting date of the Games. The role of the Officers appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, in ensuring coordination, solving problems and in expediting the works is praise worthy. The HLC is however of the view that this step of appointing appointing Special Officers should have been taken earlier perhaps in June, 2010.

5.10

It would be instructive instructive to cite a few interesting interesting and revealing issues which which were were brought brought forth forth

in the COS meetings and the decisions taken on these issues. a) In the Meeting held on 11 th May, 2010, Secretary, Urban Development mentioned that in respect of a large number of items of procurement, single tender proposals were being placed before the Finance Finance Committee of the OC for approval.

Additional Secretary Secretary

(Expenditure) stated that many works were being taken up on Single Tender basis at the last minute, without any scope for retendering and the trend is very worrying. Secretary, UD stated that works are being forced to be given at rates at much higher than their Page 39

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 initially estimated value. Cabinet Secretary desired that that this issue should be placed placed before the GOM on CWG. The HLC is of the view that these statements bring bring out the brazen manner in which the OC was pushing decisions without following the prescribed procedures.

b) The OC had been constantly harping on the theme that the Games were going to be amount in the range of 1700.00 crore would would be raised raised ‘revenue neutral’ because a huge amount as revenue. Such a statement was made made in the COS COS meeting of 4th June, 2010. A doubt was raised by the COS whether the estimated estimated revenue would be generated. In the same meeting the Cabinet Secretary advised the OC that it should assess what is essential and what is not and take a decision by 20 th June, 2010. He explained that the COS could not not give permission for approving approving advances beyond available budget budget provisions. He further observed that any case of act of omission / commission in procurement and financial dealings should immediately be brought to the notice of the Chairman, OC, Cabinet Secretary or the Finance Ministry. Ministry. The HLC is of the view that this is a telling comment on the manner in which the OC was mismanaging its financial matters.

c) In the meeting held on 24th August, 2010, the CEO of the OC stated that the artists and those involved in arranging the Ceremony were increasing their costs and adding new items, but were not willing to give anything anything in writing. The Cabinet Secretary stated stated the Secretary, Coordination should review the issue and the needs may be frozen within the approved budget. This frank statement of the CEO, OC is being cited because because the Opening / Closing Ceremony story is about a never ending appetite for larger funds to be spent without any responsibility to account for the expenditure.

5.11

A couple of instances instances were were noticed where implementing implementing agencies agencies / departments brought

certain issues before the COS which did not merit consideration by that body. a) In the meeting held 17th February, 2009, the Ministry of Urban Development brought a subject before the COS regarding a proposal being considered by the DDA for purchasing

Page 40

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 flats from the project developer developer of the Games Village. This was under consideration consideration to given some relief to the project developer which was facing financial difficulties. The Minutes record that the Lt. Governor had already given approval to the DDA to purchase the flats. Cabinet Secretary advised that this option could could be explored after after getting requisite approvals and exhorted that proper valuation of flats should be done through an independent agency agency in a transparent manner.

The HLC is of of the view that the Lt.

Governor having already given approval to purchase the flats, there was no point in bringing this subject subject to the COS. Apparently, the matter was was brought before the the COS to try and get an endorsement and a validation for a decision already taken.

b) In the meeting held on 29 th December, 2009, the Ministry of Tourism brought before the COS the issues of DGCA giving height clearance for the Vasant Kunj Housing Complex that fell within the revised flight path funnel of the airport. The representative of the the Ministry of Civil Aviation Avi ation mentioned that the four additional stories constructed were apparently in violation of the aviation aviation norms. The Cabinet Secretary desired that since the the structures had come up, the Ministry of Civil Aviation may consider all factors and take a positive view in the context of of the requirements for the Commonwealth Games. Games. The HLC is of the view that this matter should not have been considered by the COS as it involved statutory issues.

5.12

To summarize, summarize, the Committee of of Secretaries, Secretaries, as a part part of the governance governance set set –up of the

Commonwealth Games, had an important role to play. Though officially the task envisaged for the CoS was that it would ensure that the decisions of the GoM are implemented, in actual practice it played a much bigger role. It became a forum for coordination, for problem solving and it also gave advice and directions. In some ways it was more “driven” than being in the driver’s seat. Different implementing agencies and departments brought to the CoS issues / problems on which they wanted advice / decisions /solutions and the CoS readily obliged. In spite of the large number of meetings held and decisions taken, the CoS could not ensure completion of the Game’s related infrastructure

Page 41

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 in time. Ultimately in August 2010, special officers had to be appointed to supervise and coordinate work at different venues and their contribution has been acknowledged and admired.

Page 42


Chapter 6: Ministries of Government of India, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and connected entities Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) 6.1

The first brush of the Ministry with CWG was, it would be recalled in July, 2002 when

President, Indian Olympic Association (IOA) addressed it and sought its support to bid for International events in particular particular Commonwealth Commonwealth Games, 2010. Its position on the games remained reactive. In other words, Ministry Ministry reacted to initiatives taken by by others in relation to CWG – 2010. The decision to bid for the Commonwealth Games Games was taken by the Prime Minister. In fact the Note submitted by the then Sports Minister, Shri Vikram Verma 17 seems to be in response to do so from the Prime Minister’s Office. While Minister, Youth Affairs and Sports Sports was expected expected to attend the Executive Board meeting at Cape Town (February 7 – 10, 2003), he was unable to do so. so. In any event after the Executive Board meeting IOA requested the Ministry to take steps to enable it to submit th

submission of the bid, India’s bid within the time frame, 30 May, 2003. The events leading to the submission bid evaluation and its success have been noted in Chapter 2. It is also been noted noted that no action action seem to have occurred between November, 2003 and September, 2004.

6.2

The Ministry, more particularly then Minister Shri Verma sought to engage Shri Kalmadi in

March, 2004.

However, he is informed that Shri Kalmadi is busy with forthcoming Lok Sabha

Elections and will be available available thereafter. What is particularly surprising surprising is that the Ministry Ministry does not seem to have a file on the subject, even though the Host City Contract has been signed at Montego Bay in November, 2003, the signed document is with the Ministry but no file is opened on this subject. Our repeated attempts to trace trace a file with regard to what takes place / ought to have taken place have met with no success. success. HLC concludes that Ministry was remiss in not opening a file, not initiating action and in delaying delaying action by at least 10 months. months. Action in the Ministry commences commences in 17


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 September, 2004 when IOA sends India’s “revised bid document” to the Ministry. By October, 2004

the GOM has been constituted constituted and Ministry Ministry is assigned the function function of servicing GOM. It does so from January, 2005 through through October, 2010. We have reviewed the discharge discharge of this function by the Ministry in Chapter – 4 (Group of Ministers).

6.3

It should should be noted noted that the first GOM chaired by the Prime Minister in October, 2004 also also

decided to strengthen MYAS. MYAS. This was accomplished by creation creation of International Sports Division Division (ISD) headed by a Joint Secretary and assisted by a staff of 20, including one Director, two Under Secretaries and two full Sections. Sections. It is somewhat surprising that that after GOM decision of 25 th October, 2004 which was presided by the Prime Minister it took two years to activate the decision. For over ten months the Department Department of Sports did not not take any action. Thereafter Ministry of Finance took its own time and the selected Joint Secretary took charge towards the end of 2006. This kind of delay in setting up the governance structure in the Department which was supposed to discharge the key function in relation to the Games is puzzling.

6.4

It is this set set up up which which is expected to perform the role role of coordination in relation to CWG –

the real function function assigned to it. It is not 2010. We use the word word ‘coordination’ ‘coordination’ because that is the responsible for venues because that responsibility is with venue owners; it is not responsible for infrastructure because that has been assigned to DDA / GNCTD; the Games will be conducted by Organizing Committee and, hence, MYAS becomes the focal point for coordinating / assist in coordinating all activities necessary necessary for successful preparation and delivery of CWG - 2010.

6.5

The decisions decisions of GOM GOM are to be given effect to by the Committee of Secretaries Secretaries (COS) headed

by the Cabinet Secretary. This forum is also to be be serviced by ISD of MYAS.

6.6

In order to perform this function, MYAS undertakes to create web based monitoring system.

This system is designed by TCS and operated operated by NIC. All entities connected with CWG 2010 are expected to provide periodic inputs so that the system remains updated on the progress made and the tedium of calling reports and so on is obviated. It is not clear when the system becomes fully

Page 44

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 functional but certainly by late 2007 / early 2008, Cabinet is being informed that the system is fully operational. The limitation of this system is that the inputs provided by entities, the the basis of output, cannot be cross checked. checked. In consequence, when time lines become strained strained and frequent reviews reviews commence, referred to in in Chapter 4 (GOM), the web web based monitoring monitoring system is not very useful. useful. JS (ISD) is obligated to undertake field visits to stadia stadia to report progress. Our review of the web based output show that it was was unable to serve serve its purpose purpose despite an investment of more than 3.25 crore in its implementation.

6.7

The Organizing Committee (OC) was expected to deal with Government through MYAS. It ’s

budgetary requirements were to be evaluated by ISD and overlapping functions in relation to CWG – 2010 were to be jointly performed by both. It would be no exaggeration exaggeration to state that the situation situation was ripe for a tug of war. The intensity of the contest varied from time to time but the rope always always remained taut. In short, OC was ready for more while MYAS was was trying to to press the brakes. brakes. By and large, OC succeeded in obtaining what it wished as would be clear from the succeeding paragraphs:

a) The Budget of OC was a constant constant point of debate. debate. When the Games were conceived conceived in 2003, it was estimated that that the the conduct conduct of the Games would cost cost 295.50 crore. By the time the Games concluded concluded the Budget Budget of OC had increased to over 2,500 crore. This was true of of every transaction. For instance for CWYG, the Expert Group Group appointed by MYAS limited the requirement of OC to 66.50 crore. However, OC secured an increase to 110.00 crore, not far short of 123.00 crore it had originally demanded. demanded. The approved approved budget budget (October, (October, 2009) for Opening and Closing Ceremonies by the Cabinet Cabinet was was fixed at 106.00 crore. By December, 2009, OC OC had managed an increase of 93.00 crore with a ceiling of 200.00 crore. In June, 2010 another another 100.00 crore was added to make a total of 300.00 crore. It is another matter that despite liberal outlays to showcase India the actual expenditure is estimated at about 250.00 crore. b) When the first sanction of funds to OC was issued in July, 2005, the sanction Memo of the Ministry clearly stated “all expenditure on establishment has to be against posts sanctioned / filled up as per approved process and procedures laid down by Government of India” and Page 45

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 further “the salary perquisites and other faci lities to staff / officers of the Organizing

Committee has to be in conformity with the guidelines, rules prescribed by Government of India”. OC did not follow these conditions, which became part of all sanctions by GOI to OC,

at any point. Officials were appointed without without due process, in many instances instances in disregard of qualifications / suitability, suitability, at whims and fancies of OC. Similarly their pay and perquisites were fixed in an arbitrary manner which had no connection with uniformity, merit or any other principle. In both these matters matters the Ministry was was unable to enforce enforce the conditions conditions it had laid down.

c) In 2007 Cabinet decided that in view of the large sum of money being expended on CWG – 2010 it would be proper to introduce introduce a system of concurrent concurrent Audit vis a vis OC. Ministry attempted to introduce introduce internal audit in OC unsuccessfully. unsuccessfully. OC stated that they had had a proper system of internal audit, no outside intervention was required and, hence, there was no need for any action. This matter was allowed allowed to rest by the Ministry. Ministry.

d) The Ministry, through through its Secretary was a Member of the Executive Executive Board of OC. As the activity of OC picked up, it became apparent that this representation was at best inadequate and generally ineffective. Firstly, Chairman OC had had full powers under the the Rules of OC to take decisions in anticipation of the Executive Board and secondly, Government representatives on the Board of OC were in a minority. Even if they wished wished to assert themselves, themselves, they could not overcome the brute majority commanded commanded by Chairman, OC. OC. Their participation in Executive Board meetings produced the first symptoms of frustration and strain.

e) Their increasingly strained relationship engendered a situation where the Ministry sought a redefinition by appealing to the Prime Minister’s Office and placing the matter before GOM. As has been mentioned in an earlier Chapter, this matter was not taken up by GOM for consideration either at its 13 th meeting (March, 2008) or its 14 th meeting (April, 2008). Thereafter the matter was was not pressed by the Ministry. Ministry. It may be noted that that in April, 2008, Page 46

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Dr. M.S. Gill replaced Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar as Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports. Further the late Shri Sudhir Nath replaced the late Shri S.K. Arora as Secretary, Department of Sports in May 2008. The crisis in management was was fast approaching though though it seems to have become dormant for a variety of reasons examined later on in this Report.

6.8

We may conclude that the Department of Sports was unable to rein in OC and that whatever

power of oversight it commanded, in particular because of holding the purse strings, appeared impressive in theory, ineffective in practice.

6.9

It would would be recalled that PMO and GOM had directed / decided that MYAS would constitute

an Apex Committee: Committee: i) which will have overriding powers and responsibilities for overseeing and coordinating CWG – 2010. It seems that this this Committee existed for for a short period of time during 2006; was by and large ineffective and, therea fter not reconstituted because “This has happened despite my personal decision not to operationalise the Apex Committee authorized by GOM after Kalmadi’s vociferous opposition to the Apex Committee at the meeting in August, 2006 convened at your level” (DO letter of Minister, Panchayati Raj, Youth Affairs and Sports to PM dated 25

th

October,

200718). It is idle to speculate what may have been had this oversight mechanism mechanism continued.

6.10

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports Sports is supported by a field organization organization namely Sports Authority

of India (SAI).

That authority authority is the custodian custodian of four large stadia: stadia: i) J.L.N. Stadium, ii) Major

Dhyanchand Stadium, iii) I.G. Stadium and iv) SP Mukherjee Swimming Pool plus v) Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range. Range. By 2009 Cabinet had sanctioned 2460.00 crore for the upgradation of these venues for CWG – 2010. The upgradation was was based on the base line survey conducted conducted by EKS in terms of CGF contractual obligation plus a reappraisal at the behest of Organizing Committee and at the cost of DDA was also carried out by EKS. By 2005 (September), this exercise was largely largely complete and was to remain the basis for action with regard to all the venues for the Games including those mentioned above.

We notice that that in this exercise, exercise, which ought ought to have been conducted conducted with the the full

participation of SAI, it did not not play any role. In the run up to the Games, at the time of of planning,

18


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 during implementation, at at times of crisis and so on SAI played a peripheral role. The reasons for this are far from clear. MYAS is happy to deal with with executing agencies such such as CPWD directly directly and SAI is unfazed at its diminished role. Even in the matter of monitoring of project execution, SAI does not play any noticeable noticeable role. In other words, at venues of of which SAI is the custodian, far reaching changes are being made at the say so of the Ministry, of Organizing Committee, of the GOM and so on and SAI seems to have nothing to say.

6.11

A probable probable explanation for the limited involvement of SAI in CWG – 2010 seems to be the

constant encroachment encroachment by OC. For example, many matters relating to the the field of play were never assigned to OC.

These belonged to the National Games Federations Federations / their international international

organizations. If issues relating to surface surface for Games Venues etc. etc. were to be debated / decided, that function belonged to SAI and the National Games Federation. Federation.

Unfortunately, OC usurped this

function to the consternation consternation of SAI and confusion confusion at Games Venues. Some examples on this are provided in our Report Report on the Games Venues. In the end, SAI is left left with preparations preparations of Indian participants at the Commonwealth Games after OC has made an unsuccessful attempt to secure that too.

Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) 6.12

With the exception of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports the the most important Ministry in

relation to the Games was Ministry of Urban Development.

6.13

All the stadia stadia under under the management of Sports Authority of India were were to be upgraded by by

CPWD for which the the MoUD was the administrative administrative Ministry. DDA was assigned assigned construction of Games Village, up-gradation up-gradation of its stadia stadia and addition addition of tourist infrastructure. DDA reports to Ministry of Urban Development. Development. Thus, the Ministry of Urban Development Development had a crucial crucial role to play in the preparation for CWG – 2010.

In our interaction interaction with Secretary, Ministry of Urban Urban

Development, we were given the impression that the Ministry has no role to play in relation to what CPWD executes. The concerned entities make budgetary provisions, provisions, place the funds at the disposal disposal of CPWD and the project, its scope, its progress, etc. are matters between the client (entity Ministry etc.) and CPWD. In other words, all the construction construction activity undertaken by the CPWD was was neither Page 48

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 the responsibility of the Ministry nor did it exercise any oversight oversight function. This extreme position of washing their hands off the whole mess can hardly be accepted considering that the Minister for Urban Development was a Member of the GOM for the entire preparatory period leading to the Commonwealth Games. From 2009, the Minister of Urban Development was the Chairman of the GOM. It was certainly the responsibility of GOM to ensure that preparations preparations are properly made made and in due time. Furthermore, when projects executed executed by the CPWD faced faced delays, the Committee Committee of Secretaries directed Secretary, Urban Development to review at short intervals of time the progress of CPWD works. Unfortunately, he did not carry carry out this decision of the COS and made no effort to do so. Given this background, it became the the duty of Ministry of Urban Development to have tracked tracked the progress of works vis a vis CWG – 2010. Even if it is ordinarily not not its function, the circumstances circumstances during 2009 – 2010, were extraordinary and it could not remain an indifferent onlooker.

6.14

Besides CPWD projects, the Ministry Ministry is administratively administratively responsible for DDA: in that that sense

accountable for a proper proper site for the location of the Games Village. It was better placed to make that judgment because while DDA is aware of land parcels owned by it the Ministry, being also in-charge of L&DO, is aware of possibilities possibilities in relation to L&DO owned land. During the controversy controversy on the location of the Games Village and even at the commencement of the preparations for choosing a separate site (April – May, 2003), the Ministry played no role to explore options and was pleased to leave this important matter entirely to the DDA; in practice, Lt. Governor, restricted to DDA owned parcels of land, made a choice which was sub-optimal.

6.15

While in these two two matters, matters, the Ministry of of Urban Urban Development Development played played a passive role, role, when it it

came to problems faced by Emaar/MGF (2008 – 2009) it played an active role. This was a matter entirely within the competence of the DDA and yet the Ministry played a pro-active role, Secretary (UD) attended crucial meetings and, as we have brought out in our Report on the ‘Games Village’,

was party to the decision making group chaired by Lt. Governor which conceived and approved the bailout package.

Page 49


It would be seen from the above that that the stand of the Ministry in relation to its role has been

inconsistent. It discharged discharged its functions selectively. The basis for this inconsistency is unclear. Suffice it to say, it was not conducive to efficiency; in particular, timely construction of CWG projects.

6.17

There were were a number of other Ministries concerned, in part, with CWG – 2010. For example,

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting through Prasar Bharati was responsible for the Host Broadcasting Agreement. Agreement. Ministry of Home Affairs was responsible for security, security, traffic management, etc. In relation to other Ministries the Department of Sports played a peripheral role. Sometimes their estimates were consolidated consolidated by the Department Department of Sports. With the passage of of time these Ministries followed their own time table, secured their approvals and at best kept Department of Sports informed. It seems that no particular role was played by the Ministry in this behalf. We have reviewed the role of Information I nformation & Broadcasting Ministry in the First Report.

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) 6.18

The Host City Agreement Agreement was was signed inter-alia by Lt. Governor of Delhi on behalf behalf of GNCTD.

Chief Minister of Delhi stated (in 2003) that it was committed to provide upgraded infrastructure for CWG – 2010. According to Chief Minister, about about 74 infrastructure projects were were in the pipeline. At the 1st meeting of the GOM (25.10.2004) chaired by Prime Minister, it was decided that GNCTD will set up a Committee Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. This Committee would would coordinate all all Games related activities under its charge. In fact, our Report on ‘City Infrastructure’ points out that this Committee, it was termed as the Empowered Empowered Committee was constituted in 2006. In other words in nearly 3 years, very little activity took place in relation to development of city infrastructure for CWG – 2010.

6.19

Once the activity commenced, commenced, it was taken forward forward at a feverish pitch pitch reaching a crescendo crescendo

during 2010 when it emerged emerged that the governance governance structure had not been able able to deliver. More detailed discussion on these issues forms part of HLC’s Report on the ‘City Infrastructure’. At this

point, it is only necessary to note that the governance structure does not seem to have particularly helped matters.

Page 50

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Connected entities 6.20

A number of public public sector sector undertakings undertakings including ITDC, TCIL, MTNL, EIL, RITES also played played a

role in the preparation for the Games. Games. It has been the practice during during the preparatory phase phase of the Games to assign projects / components to Public Sector undertaking because due process was considered unnecessary. unnecessary.

The outcome has been poor, as would would be clear from the following following

examples:

a) Project Management, euphemism for project implementation, for construction of stadium for Rugby 7 and development of practice venues at Delhi University was assigned to Engineers India Limited. EIL, in turn, without following any any principle of procurement, contracted contracted works to various contractors / suppliers. As a result efficiency and economy were were the twin victims. Details are provided in HLC Report on the Games Venues. b) ITDC was requested to furnish Games Village flats. HLC report on Games Games Village shows that that there are many failures in discharge of this function. c) ITDC was requested to furnish Vasant Kunj flats in order to upgrade them to 3-Star facilities. ‘HLC Report on City Infrastructure’ elicits the confusion which prevailed between DDA and

ITDC in the discharge of this function. d) MTNL was tasked with providing inter-connectivity between Games venues and the broadcasting centre centre at ITPO.

Its costs were were so high that a Working Group had to be

constituted and costs were reduced to less than half of what had been propsed. e) TCIL: Several acts of omission and commission in the procurement of equipment on behalf of the OC have been pointed out in the Fifth Report.

6.21

The strategy of assigning work to Public Sector Undertakings on the ground that they

are Public Sector Undertaking was neither successful nor transparent and certainly not cost effective. HLC believes that that when goods goods and services have to to be procured procured by Government Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings ought to be used as any other provider after due process.

Page 51


Chapter 7: Organizing Committee “I am made for the exception and not for the rule.”

- Oscar Wilde 7.1

In the the Bid Document, as submitted by IOA in May 2003, it was mentioned that Chairman of

the Organizing Committee would be appointed appointed by the Government. However, by the time these these discussions on the incorporation of the Organizing Committee commenced, a document (at Annexure purported to be the Revised Bid Document. The origin of this – III) had been received from IOA which purported document is in contention because because Sports Ministry disowns disowns it. Mr. R.K. Mishra, Joint Secretary during 2003 does not recall any amendment having taken place to the Bid Document (Shri Mishra met HLC on3rd January, 2011). In any case, according to the the case made out by IOA on behalf of Shri Kalmadi, the amended Bid Document was put together in December, 2003, i.e. nearly one month after the award of the Games to India / Delhi. An amended bid document document created after after the award of the Games in November, 2003 has no validity whatsoever. We have therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this Document was created by Shri Kalmadi or at his behest in IOA for being specifically used to secure his ends, i.e. Chairmanship of OC and justification for the commitments made by him at Montego Bay without without any authority. It would be also pertinent to mention mention that all attempts made by Ministry of Sports to open a dialogue with Shri Kalmadi between November, 2003 and September, 2004 on the action to be taken for CWG 2010 were unsuccessful because Shri Kalmadi was unwilling to open negotiation till he was assured of the Chairmanship of the Organizing Committee. In March, 2004 the then Minister Shri Vikram Verma requests Shri Kalmadi for a discussion. Brig. Singh replies that Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi is busy with the elections. elections. In August, 2004 Secretary (MYAS) attempts to arrange a meeting and is unsuccessful.

7.2

According to the Host City Contract the Organizing Committee was to be constituted within six

months of the signing of the contract contract by May, 2004. CGF periodically reminds Shri Kalmadi to do so, but to no avail. In August, 2004 Shri Kalmadi promises Mr. Mr. Fennell that there would be no further delay and OC would be constituted constituted by December, 2004. This does not happen. Precious time is thus Page 52

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 lost because Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi was unwilling to accept accept anything less than the the chairmanship of OC. He addressed the Prime Minister and sought his intervention and the debate continued beyond the meeting of 25.10.2004 chaired by the Prime Minister.

7.3

During the months of November and December, 2004 Shri Kalmadi kept insisting on past

precedents, including the Asian Games, 1982 that he ought to be the Chairman, while the then Sports Minister stated that on the the precedent of 1982 he ought ought to chair the Organising Committee. The late Shri Sunil Dutt is extremely agitated by these developments, tries to point out that Shri Kalmadi is factually wrong and appeals to the Prime Minister. 19

7.4

On 06.12.2004 a Note was sent by the Prime Minister’s Office20 on the organizational

structure for the conduct conduct of the Games. This Note suggested: (a) GOM headed by Shri Arjun Singh, Minister, HRD to oversee the conduct of the Games; (b) An Empowered Committee for construction of stadia etc headed by MYAS; and (c) An Organizing Committee headed by Shri Suresh Kalmadi. The Note went on to state “PM has directed that institutional arrangements m entioned above may

be sent to Shri Arjun Singh who heads GOM for consideration in the next meeting of GOM”.

7.5

This Note was placed before the Second Meeting of GOM held on 14.01.2005 21. Even though

Minutes of the GOM were not issued, i ssued, the recorded Minutes stated inter-alia: “It was observed that material changes in financial as well as structural aspects of the

Organizing Committee, as proposed in the original Bid Document, were made by IOA unilaterally. This revised Bid Document Document was sent to the Ministry only in September, September, 2004”.

After detailed deliberations, the GOM authorized the Chairman to hold the discussions with Shri Sunil Dutt, Minister (MYAS) and Shri Suresh Kalmadi, President, IOA on various aspects of conducting of the Commonwealth Games 2010.

19

See Annexure 16 See Annexure 17 21 See Annexure 18 20

Page 53


It would would be clear from the above that the Chairmanship of OC was holding up further

progress. These Minutes were approved by then then HRM, even though there is no date to the approval. approval. The next date for GOM was set for 28 th January, 2005 at 4.00 pm at the same venue.

A meeting seemed to have been held on 29th January, 2005 in the chamber of Chairman, GOM

7.7

(Minister of HRD) and the decisions were circulated by Joint Secretary (ISD), Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports stating “A copy of the Note indicating decisions taken in the above meet ing approved by

the Chairman, GOM (Human Resourced Development Minister) is enclosed for kind information and necessary action”. There is no supporting material such as list of persons persons who attended, reasons for

change of date from 28 th to 29th January to show that a GOM was held. All that can be concluded concluded is the assertion of the then Minister, HRD that a meeting had taken place and at the meeting the following decisions were taken: “An Apex Committee headed by Minister of Sports, Shri Sunil Dutt shall be constituted, which

will have the over-riding power and responsibility for over-seeing and coordinating the Commonwealth Games. The Minutes of all other Committees Committees related to the conduct conduct of the Games shall be submitted to the Apex Apex Committee periodically for its information.

The

Chairman of the Apex Committee can also call for information ….” 

The Organizing Committee shall be headed by the Chairman, Indian Olympic Association, Shri Suresh Kalmadi and this Committee will conduct conduct the Commonwealth Games, 2010. The Executive Board of the Organizing Committee will have 15 members, including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. The Members of the Committee will be appointed appointed by the Chairman in consultation with GOM.



A 3-Member Sub-Committee of the GOM headed by the Finance Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram will supervise and deal with all financial matters.



The Lt. Governor of Delhi will have an over-all responsibility regarding the games with specific reference to security law and order and matters coming under DDA.



There will be a Sub-Committee headed by Chief Minister of Delhi which will look after all other issues that come under the jurisdiction of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as per the Constitution. Page 54




A Committee of Secretaries (COS) headed by the Cabinet Secretary will be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the the GOM regarding the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games. The Sports Department through its Secretary will service this Committee.



All the arrangements worked out above shall apply only to the Common Wealth Games – 2010.

7.8

It bears bears repetition that the process for making these decisions is opaque and further some

items are repetitions of the administrative arrangements arrangements outlined by Prime Minister. The key issue validated is the Chairmanship of OC.

7.9

On 10th February, 2005 Shri Kalmadi got a Society named Organizing Committee registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 1860. This Society, its Memorandum, Memorandum, its Rules, its Executive Executive Board, its membership etc. etc. ought to have been been approved by the GOM. GOM. However, no such approval was taken. Ministry of Youth Affairs and and Sports was also not informed or consulted. At the next next meeting of GOM held on 17 th March, 2005, the Memorandum of the Organizing Committee was circulated by Shri Suresh Kalmadi, now Chairman of Organizing Committee by virtue of the Memorandum.

7.10

It may be pointed out out that the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports had had framed a

Memorandum of Association a few months back and a copy of same is available on the files of the Ministry. The file does not not show this document document having having been available to Shri Kalmadi. To the contrary the note of the then Secretary, YA&S states that this be not provided to Shri Kalmadi. However, it seems that this document was made available to Shri Kalmadi from the Ministry.

7.11

A comparison comparison of the document document available available on the file of the Ministry with with the the one Registered by

Shri Kalmadi on 10 th February, 2005 shows a number of material changes made by him with the object of concentrating concentrating all powers in his hands. hands. The table below illustratively provides provides some of the key issues:

Page 55

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Memorandum and Rules & Regulations of Organising Committee Clause

4.

Provisions in the draft prepared by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports

Provisions in the MOA prepared and adopted by the Organising Committee

Objects (a) to prepare for and hold the Commonwealth Games, 2010 in Delhi allotted by the Commonwealth Games Federation in its meeting on 13th November, 2003 in Montego Bay, Jamaica

(a) to prepare for, organise and conduct in NCR of Delhi the CWG-2010 allotted to Indian Olympic Association by CWG Federation...... The Games shall belong to Indian Olympic Association, an autonomous body, who has been assured by the Government of India and Govt of NCT of Delhi their full support in the successful completion of the CWG and have undertaken to abide and follow the principles as laid down by constitution of the CWG Federation.

Objects incidental to the Main Objects (c) On winding up or dissolution of the society, after clearing of its debts and liabilities, any property or surplus remaining with the Society will be transferred to Central Government of the extent of its contribution towards conduct of the Games. The balance, if any will be distributed between Government and IOA, as determined by the Organising Committee

(c) to wind up or dissolve the Society after conducting the CWG-2010 and to transfer any property (moveable or immoveable) immoveable) remaining r emaining with the Society after clearing of its debts and liabilities, to the Indian Olympics Association. Association.

Rules & Regulations 4.

The Executive Board shall consist of not more than 13 and not less than 8 members including the office bearers who shall be nominated by the Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman. The Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman shall assign work to the members of the Executive Board.

The Executive Board shall consist of fifteen members.

The Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman may make such additions or alternations in the composition of the Executive Board from time to time as

The Chairman may make such additions or alterations in the composition of the Executive Board from time to time as deemed necessary in the interest of the Society's aim and Page 56


6

deemed necessary in the interest of the Society's aims and objectives.

objective

If the office of any office bearer in the Executive Board is vacated, the resultant vacancy may be filled by the Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman

If the office of any office bearer in the Executive Board is vacated, the Chairman may fill the resultant casual vacancy.

The Chairman or the Vice Chairman in the absence of Chairman shall have full authority to conduct the meeting including the authority to decide in the admissibility of any question, expunging any remarks, directing the conclusion of debate and putting any motion to vote. The Chairman's or the Working Chairman's (in the absence of Chairman), decision on the conduct of the meeting shall be final.

The Chairman shall have full authority to conduct the meeting including the authority to decide on the admissibility of any question, expunging any remarks, directing the conclusion of debate and putting any motion to vote. The Chairman's decision on the conduct of a meeting shall be final.

Committee and Sub Committee The Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman may form one or more Committees or Sub Committees and bodies for the preparation of staging the CWG-2010

The Chairman may form one or more Committees, Sub Committees or Advisory bodies and aid and advise him in the preparation of and staging of the CWG-2010

The Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman may appoint such persons to those committees who are prominent in their respective fields such as sports, higher learning, academics, specialized professions, industry, commerce, trade, as well as other realms of public life.

The Chairman may appoint such persons to those committees who are prominent in their respective fields such as academics, specialized professions, higher learning, industry, commerce, trade, sports as well as other realms of public life.

The Chairman in consultation with the Vice Chairman may appoint any suitable person as Chairman of such committees. These committees shall meet at such time and place and conduct their business in such directions as may be issued by the Chairman/Vice Chairman.

The Chairman may appoint suitable persons, not more than twelve each, being Deputy Chairmen and Joint Secretaries to assist him in coordinating with various committees / subcommittees.

Duties & Responsibilities Responsibilities 7

Chairman shall preside over the meetings

Clause 8 He shall

be

executive

head

and

chief Page 57

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 of the Organizing Committee and the Executive Board and exercise general supervision over its office bearers, subject, however, to the control of the Executive Board.

administrator responsible for the due discharge of function and policies as laid down by the Executive Board and will exercise general supervision over the affairs of the Society, preside over the meetings of the Executive Board and General Body Meetings. In case of emergency, the Chairman shall take decisions in the interest of the society and shall inform the Executive Board in its next meeting which shall be ratified by the Executive Board. Clause 12 (a) Any dispute between the members relating to this Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations shall be decided by the Chairman and the decision so given shall be binding and conclusive, without any further appeal before any court.

7.12

Thus, officials of the the Ministry have assisted assisted Shri Kalmadi. He has has made radical changes and

after doing so, got it registered. It is also the case that the Draft Memorandum Memorandum prepared by the Ministry was on the crucial crucial assumption that that Chairman of OC would be a Government nominee. It was not envisaged, in framing the draft Memorandum that Shri Kalmadi would be the Chairman in perpetuity. Hence this draft was inappropriate for the purpose for for which it was used. Moreover, instead of making changes relevant to the changed circumstances Shri Kalmadi made changes for his personal advantage as would would be amply clear from the above table. Unfortunately despite despite all this the Memorandum registered by Shri Kalmadi remained unchanged.

7.13

This document at Article - 6 states “the names, addresses, occupations and designations of the

present Members of the Executive Board to whom the Management and Affairs of the Society are entrusted as required under Section 2 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 …. are as follows : Shri

Suresh Kalmadi is designated as Chairman ”.

To set at at rest any any further debate the Rules and and

Regulations of Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games – 2010 provides in Rule 4 (IV) “Shri Suresh Kalmadi shall be the Chairman Chairman …”. In other words taking advantage of the GOM decision, Shri Page 58

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Kalmadi had appointed himself as Chairman in perpetuity without any consultation consultation / approval. approval. GOM did approve his (Shri Kalmadi) chairmanship but the decision of the GOM cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination to mean that he would be Chairman in perpetuity without there being any power to change him.

7.14

The Organizing Committee is at the present time without without any members, other other than the 9

Members shown as members members of the Executive Board Board in the Memorandum.

The Rules and

Regulations of Organizing Committee provide: i) The Society shall consist of not more than 500 persons, who shall be invited to become members by the Chairman. v) A Membership Register shall be maintained by the Secretary General which shall be signed by such member in token of his Membership. Both these these are Sub Rules of Rule 3 of Rules and Regulations. A list of about 471 Members was drawn-up by Shri Suresh Kalmadi, in consultation with the then Minister of HRD, Shri Arjun Singh. This list was enclosed with Shri Arjun Singh’s letter22 which stated, “I approve the names of persons mentioned mentioned in the list.” This list underwent periodic changes depending on the

whims and fancies of Shri Kalmadi; but, in our opinion, these lists have little value in as much as the OC has not maintained maintained any Register Register of Members. There being no register, the question of any Member having signed the Register in token of his acceptance has therefore remained academic. HLC repeatedly pressed OC to provide all documentation in relation to Membership of OC in terms of Rules and Regulations of OC. OC was unable to provide any documentation documentation with regard regard to: a) issue of invitation to join OC by the Chairman, Shri Kalmadi; b) existence of Register of Members duly signed by Members in token of acceptance of Membership; and c) any other documentation, supportive of the fact that the process envisaged envisaged under Rule 3 have been followed. In brief, approval by the then Minister, HRD of a list of persons suitable for membership of OC did not per se confer membership on those persons, unless unless the requirements requirements of Rule 3 had had been followed. The HLC has therefore therefore concluded that none of the persons displayed in typed lists maintained by OC and periodically amended are / became members of of OC. Most of them did not attend attend the Annual General Meeting of of OC. Interestingly, a sizeable number of persons persons who attended the the OC meetings were not on that that date Members of OC.

22



7.15

The decision to appoint Shri Kalmadi was to cost dear. Was a different decision possible? possible? At

the time (2004-2005) Government had three options:

(a) (b)

To organize the Games on the precedent of 1982 Asian Games; To appointment Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports Chairman of Organizing Committee;

(c)

7.16

To appointment Shri Kalmadi or some other person Chairman of OC;

It is generally generally recognized that Asian Games 1982 were de facto organized by PMO,

irrespective of the de jure jure arrangements. While the precedent of 1982 1982 was neither suggested suggested nor considered, it ought to be acknowledged that there was not much in common between PMO (1980 – 82) and PMO (2004-05). For that matter it would would be no exaggeration to conclude that PMOs ’ post 1984 were a different cup of tea; some less, some more, very different nevertheless.

In 2004 the

clock could not be put back by two decades and hence 1982 precedent was not an option.

7.17

It was certainly possible possible to appoint Minister, Youth Youth Affairs and Sports Sports Chairman Chairman of of Organizing Organizing

Committee. But that Ministry scarcely commanded commanded the authority to direct preparation preparation for the Games i.e. Games Venues, City Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Games Village, etc. Minister, Youth Affairs and and Sports could scarcely neglect ministerial responsibility / duty and therefore unlikely to find time to manage OC. The scale of CWG – 2010 was larger, grander. India was to be “showcased” and all that required a high degree of empowerment. This much is clear that from an organizational organizational point of view for CWG – 2010 whole time attention would be required. In other words, in case Minister (YA&S) was was to chair the Organizing Committee, there would have to be a Chief Executive Officer, executing the multifarious functions which would be in its domain sooner or later. At the time it was not possible to appoint Minister (YAS) as Chairperson and Shri Kalmadi as the Chief Executive Officer because this would have been wholly unacceptable to President of IOA.

Whether such a structure structure was

appropriate in case of a non-profit society is another matter.

Page 60


The remaining option was to appoint Shri Kalmadi or some other person. There does not

seem to have been any other other candidate besides Shri Kalmadi.

He also ‘claimed’ to possess

impeccable credentials, Member of Parliament, as President of Indian Olympic Association he had succeeded in winning CWG – 2010 for India and and had been Minister Minister of State for Railways. It is still possible to criticize this selection; but but with the benefit of hindsight. hindsight. What is in question are not not his credentials but his conduct of the Games. HLC has reviewed the latter in the the Fifth Report on ‘Organisation Committee’.

7.19

In essence what was was decided decided was for OC to be a non-profit Society and and for Shri Kalmadi to be

its Chairman. In the previous CWG Games when the the Government of Australia / State State of Victoria faced this issue they answered answered it by creating creating a Corporation. This kind of option option does not seem to to have entered Government’s consideration at that stage.

7.20

Howsoever the the arrangements arrangements are are viewed, including with with the benefit of hindsight, hindsight, in one

respect they were flawed. It was possible for Government, Government, in particular Ministry of of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) to have ensured the resignation of Shri Kalmadi from the Presidentship of IOA. Protocol 2(1.1) of the Games Management Protocols of the Commonwealth Games Federation states: “The Federation shall entrust the CGA of the host country with organization of the Games. The CGA shall establish an OC which shall have legal status and shall delegate the organization of the Games to OC, which shall work in conjunction with the CGA and shall jointly and severally responsible with the CGA for all commitments including financial commitments in regard to the organization and staging of the Games”.

7.21

The CGA, meaning the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Association in case case of India was was the Indian

Olympic Association. This may well have strengthened strengthened Shri Shri Kalmadi’s claim to Chairmanship Chairmanship of

Organizing Committee, but the above captioned Protocol clearly called for complete independence of Organizing Committee in in the conduct conduct of the Games. Games. By leaving this issue unaddressed, unaddressed, Organizing Committee remained an adjunct of Indian Olympic Association.

Page 61


His continuance continuance in both offices was was not conducive conducive to the efficient conduct conduct of CWG – D2010.

More importantly there were were areas of conflict of interests interests between the two two entities. These conflicts and their outcome are described in the Fifth Report of HLC on Organising Committee including the fiduciary dealings between between OC and IOA. Shri Kalmadi for his part, part, was ready to receive more, never to restrict his empire.

7.23

In this background, we would would have expected action from the MYAS, but that was was not to be

because the relationship between the Ministry and Shri Kalmadi was, in the main, warm and became cozy. One need only recall the manner in which the the Ministry dealt with the bid for the Games and its aftermath. That Shri Kalmadi had, had, unauthorisedly unauthorisedly announced Training Training Grants for all all participating entities was known to the the then Minister, YA&S and and then Secretary (YA&S) in November, November, 2003. The Ministry got to know about it in the end of November, 2003, when that information officially become part of records and a Parliament Question was answered. answered. Nothing was done about it expect that this co-operative attitude secured the then Secretary, Shri Rajeeva Srivastava about six years of post retirement employment with Shri Kalmadi. He engages him in OC as a part of its formation in 2005, 2005, where he continued to facilitate facilitate matters. Some important episodes of co-operation co-operation are mentioned in the Fifth Report. It is also the case case that this attitude attitude continued, in the Ministry of YA&S after after his departure.

7.24

While the then Minister Shri Shri Vikram Verma has has denied denied having authorised the Training Training Grant Grant

announced by Shri Kalmadi at Montego Bay, it is also the case that the events are within his knowledge. It is he who has answered the Parliament question in December 2003 and yet he decides to remain silent. It is our impression that when a Minister leads a delegation abroad, it is his responsibility to submit a Report on his visit. Even though the t he events at Montego Bay have been both momentous and beyond the remit of the delegation, no report is prepared by Shri Verma or at his behest. We therefore must conclude that commencing February 2003 to the end of that year, Shri Kalmadi and Shri Verma shared a warm relationship.

Page 62


It is a sad reflection of our times that Shri V.K. Gautam (IAS : MH:1987), under a cloud in the

Ministry of Power while functioning as PS to then Minister, Power, is selected by the CSB for being posted to the Department of Sports. His suspect integrity is discussed but is not considered considered sufficient ground to deny him a Directorship in MoYA&S. He is assigned to the MYAS with the specific direction that he should not be assigned a sensitive desk. But surprisingly, soon after joining he is assigned, by a singular coincidence to look-after SP-II Section, which at that time was naturally dealing with Shri Kalmadi’s area of interest. Shri Gautam is an erstwhile Collector Pune, knows Shri Kalmadi very well

and is inducted as Chief Operating Officer in Organizing Committee, another very sensitive post, after finishing his tenure.

7.26

He is more more than equal to what is expected of him as would be clear from the following:

a) There is some evidence to suggest that the Minutes of the First GOM – 25.10.2004 were materially different to what was discussed; b) The Minutes of the Second GOM approved by the Chairman are not issued; c) The Third GOM does not seem to have taken place in any formal sense and it records the key decision of appointing Shri Kalmadi as the Chairman; d) On the additional commitment made by Shri Kalmadi regarding training grant ($ 7.5 million) the GOM (17.03.2005) decided that the matter be placed before the Cabinet with full justification. This does not take take place and instead instead this obligation is merged merged with the overall requirement of OC and EFC / Cabinet approval obtained. e) We have mentioned in Chapter – 3 what was accomplished by clever drafting in relation to depriving Department of Sports / Sports Authority of India (SAI) of their functions and assigning the same to OC. f) When Shri Gautam decides that he is no longer in sync with the likes of Shri Lalit Bhanot and Shri V.K.Verma, Shri Kalmadi is accommodative and sancti ons him over a year’s leave, ex post facto in November, 2010.

7.27

The other outcome of this cooperative / compliant attitude was that extraordinary provisions

in the Memorandum and Rules Rules of OC remained unchallenged unchallenged till the second half of 2007. We may

Page 63

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 take note of the absolute control of the Executive Board enjoyed by the Chairman, the fact that decisions taken by him in anticipation of the Board had to be ratified by the Board; in essence unbridled power on all matters within the purview purview of OC. If it meant hiring accommodation accommodation at outrageous rates for Mr. Hooper, he could do so; if it meant showering favors on cohorts he was free to do so and so on. In short, “the Society was constituted by the President and a few members of the IOA, to retain absolute and unhindered control on the Commonwealth Games, 2010 through a sham 23

society with much lesser accountability and transparency even in comparison to the IOA”.

7.28

These facts were common common knowledge. In the First Report Report of CGF Coordination Commission Commission

(CoCom) (November 20 – 23, 2006) lack of progress due to a complex governance framework was mentioned. It was also observed that the the structure had undergone undergone a change within within a few days of its presentation to CGF and further that the decision making was highly centralized. centralized. In other other words, 21 months after Registration, 3 years after allotment of the Games to India, OC was unable to finalize its governance structure. structure. In the next Report (May 14 – 16, 2007) it was stated “OC significantly behind in developing its planning and organization capacity” and “OC’s development requires immediate acceleration with the recruitment and productive productive development of staff” (Para 3.1). It was noted that

there was no general organizational plan, that Games planning was 12 months (plus) behind schedule and that Sub-Committees formed were doing very little. The next Report of Cocom (January 14 – 18, 2008) states “Little practical progress has been made by OC since the last Cocom review in May, 2007” and “although many commitments were made during Cocom in May 2007, few have been delivered ….” The next Cocom Report (November 10 -11, 2008) notes some progress though not

enough because only 28 of the 34 functional areas have been activated, there is a shortage of experienced personnel and the procurement list is not not yet ready. It looks as if OC is not particularly particularly concerned about these observations because the next meeting of Cocom (May 11 – 13, 2009) observes “OC ignored advice on Consultants ….” and further “ the centralist approach leads to the

conclusion that the OC management is largely dysfunctional ”.

23



These setbacks setbacks in progress were handled handled by Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi by concealment concealment and denial. The

Cocom Reports were not not placed before before the Executive Board. After the May 2007 meeting meeting of Cocom and before the next Report of Cocom (January 14 – 18, 2008) Shri Kalmadi volunteered “Chairman, OC stated that in the recently concluded Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) General Assembly meeting in Colombo, the CGF had appreciated that the preparations for the Commonwealth Youth Games Pune, 2008 were ahead of schedule and preparations for the Commonwealth Games Delhi were on schedule”. Clearly Chairman, OC was was in no mood to inform GOM the true state state of affairs;

(refer Minutes of 12th Meeting of GOM held on 12.11.2007) every assertion made by the Shri Kalmadi in the above quotation was designed to contradict the Cocom reports without any connection with truth.

7.30

Observations made by Cocom initially came to the attention of then Secretary Sports.

Shri

S.K. Arora, then Secretary, Department of Sports had analyzed the Memorandum of OC including Rules and pointed out the centralized power structure; he had suggested the need for change. During 2007 – 2008 Government thinking seems to have been to reform OC by diluting the absolute power exercised by its Chairman, Shri Suresh Kalmadi. Kalmadi. Shri Kalmadi, tremendously tremendously well informed about developments, writes a detailed letter to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and promises to reform OC24. It is thus possible possible that the proposals put forward forward by Ministry of Sports are not discussed in GOM meetings (held on 13 th Meeting on 10.03.2008 and 14 th Meeting on 09.04.2008). The debates, the promises not withstanding withstanding Shri Kalmadi decides to do nothing and his centralized power emerging from Memorandum and Rules remains intact.

7.31

Around this time (April, 2008) 2008) Dr. M.S. Gill replaced Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar as Sports Sports

Minister.

Late Shri Sudhir Sudhir Nath is the the new Sports Secretary (May, 2008).

Government policy

remained “let sleeping dogs lie”. The Games were now 16 months away and progress had to take

place irrespective of organizational organizational constrains, constrains, personal whims whims and misinformation.

Crisis was

inevitable, not distant and, if we may say so, inherent in the personality of Shri Kalmadi.

24


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Crisis Management 7.32

The year 2008 – 2009 ought to be viewed as a period of transition. transition. First round of sanctions

have taken place / contracting contracting is complete. OC has secured all it wants wants for the CWYG at Pune. Elections in May 2009 complete the transition. transition. After reconstitution of GOM GOM (June, 2009) CWG – 2010 is back on the agenda. On the commitments made made to Government on reform of OC, Shri Kalmadi has done nothing.

7.33

During September, September, 2009 the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Federation Federation (CGF), (CGF), in particular its

Chairman, Michael Fennell, concluded that the time for private remonstration and public support was past. It was now necessary necessary to debate, in public the inadequate preparedness preparedness for the Games in so far as Organizing Committee and its Chairman Chairman were concerned. concerned. This was accomplished accomplished through a letter dated 13th September, 2009 addressed to the Executive Board and copied to its Members as well as to Members of the Executive Executive Board of Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Federation. Federation. Mr. Fennell went public during September, 2009, sought appointments with Minister, Youth Affairs and Sports and Prime Minister during his planned visit to Delhi (first week of October, 2009) and generally publicized the 21 . issue. His letter dated 13 13th September, 2009 is at Annexure 21.

7.34

The then Minister for for Youth Affairs and Sports reviewed the situation and noted noted that that there

was considerable progress in so far as Government and preparation for the Games was concerned. “But the question raised by Fennell is, about the ability and the capability of the Organizing

Committee and its its higher staff staff to deliver the Games to the quality expected. expected. They are expected to look after 17000 sportspersons and officials from the time they leave they (sic) country, their travel costs, unfortunately being our burden, to the 16 th of October, when they depart. Every aspect of their living in Delhi, and and their competitions are to be organized organized with clockwork precision. The OC have 23 Sub-Committees, which which have rarely met, or performed performed in the situation situation described described above. Yesterday 25th September, 2009, the Chairman of all these Committees were called by the OC Chairman, I suppose in view of the current controversy and given an exhortation, in the hope that they will will buckle down to the job. The competence of

Page 66

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 the Committees and the decentralization, necessary for them, to function effectively is yet to be seen”.

Dr. M.S. Gill then MYAS went on to state: “In this background, I have had intensive meetings with Shri Kalmadi and Shri Randhir Singh

the Secretary General, and with Delhi Chief Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, and Shri T.K. Nair. We have devised a line of action, to strengthen the management, inside the Organizing Committee, immediately.

The structure cannot be changed, but this is the essential

minimum now, with no time to lose ” – letter of Dr. M.S. Gill to Prime Minister dated 26th September, 2009.25

7.35

Government concluded that the professional capability of OC required required to be supplemented supplemented by

induction of experienced experienced Government Government officials. It was immediately decided to appoint Shri Shri Jarnail Singh to OC. After some wrangling, Chairman, OC accepted accepted him as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). (CEO). By a suitable adjustment adjustment he was also appointed appointed to the Executive Executive Board of OC. He alone could hardly be expected to deliver. Hence a set of Officers Officers were inducted inducted by Government. Government. It was expected expected that they would be assigned or secure secure responsibility for some of the the key functional areas. Shri Jiji Thomson was one such officer and he became responsible for catering (Games Village), Transport and Press Operations. Shri Sanjeev Mittal was another another such officer and he was assigned the responsibility responsibility of Ticketing, Catering (Venues) (Venues) and procurement. procurement. Shri Sudhir Mittal was assigned assigned Games Village, Village, Media & Environment. Environment. Shri G.C. Chaturvedi was was assigned Finance. Finance. In the succeeding succeeding paragraphs paragraphs we we have tried to recapitulate recapitulate events through through the eyes of these these officials.

They were individually individually

interviewed by HLC, they provided written briefs of events and some of them interacted with us on more than one occasion.

7.36

Shri Jarnail Jarnail Singh was appointed as CEO in October, 2009.

According to him the most

important task facing OC was to award contracts for goods and services required for the conduct of the Games. Of the 400 or more contracts contracts to be awarded awarded by the time he joined, joined, only 50 or 60

25


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 contracts had been awarded. awarded.

All the contracts were awarded thereafter.

He functioned functioned as a

facilitator and a bridge between Chairman, OC and the functional heads, in particular where such functional heads heads were not the trusted lieutenants lieutenants of Chairman. Chairman.

While many things things were thus thus

facilitated, his ability to either speed up contracting or introduce transparency were unsuccessful. Chairman listened to him politely and did as as he pleased. Given the crisis situation situation GOM had been mandated to meet more frequently, for OC to report to it on progress made and these reports were made by the CEO. CEO. From the Minutes of the GOM it is clear that CEO was either lacking any information or unable to obtain information of what what was going on. In other words, Chairman, OC was unwilling to share information which which would in any way way compromise him. And this went on right to the conclusion of the Games. Games. Power remained with the the Chairman.

7.37

This was the experience experience of Shri Shri Jiji Thomson Thomson as well, in-charge of Catering, contracts contracts

pertaining to which were on the critical path. By December, 2009 it was clear that there was only one corporate entity capable of executing the the catering contract, that its credentials credentials were strong. In fact there was little choice. However, the catering contract contract file remained with the Chairman for nearly a month between December, 2009 and January, 2010 where after it was returned to Shri Thomson on the specious pretext that the only bidder qualified to do the job had failed to deposit earnest money. The relevant committee had, after due consideration, recommended relaxation but to no avail. These matters are examined in greater detail in the Fifth Report.

7.38

Shri G.C. Chaturvedi joined joined the Organizing Committee in May, 2010 as Additional Additional Director Director

General with the function of Finance. Whatever may have been the power and functions functions assigned to him and how so ever diligently he may have applied himself, the fact remains that between May, 2010 and till Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi left, Chairman, OC exercised complete power over the finances of OC. OC. In other words, Shri Chaturvedi was unable to rein in Shri Kalmadi. His functions were more to do with accounting than finance.

7.39

The experience of Shri Sanjeev Mittal was more problematic. Relations between him and

Chairman, OC deteriorated to a point where he was peremptorily reverted to his Parent Ministry

Page 68

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 under the orders of the Chairman. Government asserted its authority and prevented implementation of these orders after a period period of dies non. On his return to OC nothing nothing changed, he remained remained as ineffective / effective as before. Clearly Chairman grudgingly accepted accepted the medicine but refused refused to drink it. Public interest interest in CWG – 2010 peaked during the first week of October, witness demand for tickets. Shri Mittal, attempting to put put more tickets in public hands, hands, was divested of this function function on 7th October, 2010. The real shots through through E-mails, secret and otherwise, otherwise, were being called called by Ms Monica Jolly, who was in direct touch with Shri Kalmadi 26.

7.40

What else could Government have done? This question, it was was apparent to HLC, required an

answer. In September, 2009 when it it was clear that Government Government confidence in Chairman, OC (from February, 2005) was misplaced, that he had not delivered, that things were unlikely to change any time soon and that come what may India was responsible for the successful delivery of the Games, Plan - B required to be taken up.

7.41

Plan – B turned out to be what Government did, described by HLC in the previous paragraphs.

It was largely unsuccessful unsuccessful in reforming Shri Kalmadi. Instead of medication, surgery surgery was called called for, i.e. removal of Shri Kalmadi as Chairman of the Organizing Organizing Committee. The question then is was it not obvious to Government, at the time, that nothing short of removal of Shri Kalmadi would resolve the issue. Confrontation (2006-2008) had failed, co-operation co-operation had led led to no improvement improvement (20082009) and therefore there was no choice but to sack Shri Kalmadi from the post of Chairman, OC. Our enquiries have not clarified matters. Dr. M.S. Gill’s letter to Prime Minister (26.09.2009) states “The structure cannot be changed, but this is the essential minimum now with no time to lose ”.

Nobody, including Fennel, had asked asked for a change in the structure. structure. Host City Contract had had assigned conduct of Games to Organizing Committee and and there was no need to change that. The problem was Chairman OC. The time was ripe for sacking sacking the Chairman. This issue, which which should should have been obvious to Government having had enough experience, was not even aired let alone addressed. Twelve months from the CWG 2010 w as not the time for “ essential minimum”. Situation obtaining th

post Fennel’s letter 13 September, 2009 is discussed and the decision taken implicitly is to rein in

26

Ticketing is examined in detail in the Fifth Report of HLC on the ‘Organizing Committee’ Page 69

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Shri Kalmadi, support OC by induction of experienced official and successfully deliver CWG – 2010. Given what transpired, described earlier in this Chapter, HLC concludes that measures taken proved inadequate.

7.42

By March, 2010 not not only OC but all other entities except Major Major Dhyan Dhyan Chand Chand National National Stadium Stadium

have missed their deadlines. Games Venues are repeatedly repeatedly seeking extensions for completion, City City Development Projects are way beyond schedule and it is doubtful whether such projects i.e. Barapulla Nallah, would be complete complete before the Games. Need one add that not much much work has taken place, under the supervision of the Organizing Committee, on the Opening and Closing Ceremonies even though all the decisions required required of the Government have long since since been taken. Besides more frequent GOMs and COS took place. In 26 th meeting of GOM (held on 15.08.2010) CEO-OC requested GOM as follows: “Special Officers be designated for the Venues who would make intensive visits to the Venues

and ensure close coordination between stakeholder and the OC Teams for Games Readiness. This assignment will be in addition to their present duties.”

Accordingly, Cabinet Secretary selects and assigns 16 Officers (at Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary level) from the Government of India. I ndia.

7.43

HLC met met 10 of the 16 Officers deputed by Cabinet Secretary. Some of them besides discussing

issues with HLC, also provided written written briefs of their experience. It was generally recognized that that most of the functions in relation to coordination related to the OC and further that body was indifferent to what was was taking place or expected. expected. Hence inter-agency coordination coordination at the Venues, as also at the Games Games Village was totally missing. These officials, it was hoped, would be able able to discharge these functions functions and accelerate accelerate progress. Arrangements were operationalized operationalized by August, 2010 and continued till the conclusion of the Games. Games. Their contribution to the success of the Games Games cannot be underestimated because without them it is doubtful whether issues which arose such as that between suppliers and and Delhi Police could have been resolved resolved in time. Despite them, many issues remained and on many occasions intervention from the level of Cabinet Secretary himself was Page 70

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 required. However, without without them them that would not not have taken place. place. In short, emergency mechanism mechanism of positioning officers, of addressing problems based on their feedback was effective and successful in ensuring the success of the Games.

7.44

The important point which which emerges from the above discussion discussion is that Government Government

intervention was the main main panacea for crisis management. management. Government officials were part part of OC from its inception, during 2006 – 2009 more were added by OC and in October 2009 five officials were inducted in consultation consultation with Shri Kalmadi. On the request of OC for management management of games venues Cabinet Secretary Secretary deputed 16 officials in August August 2010.

All this was necessary because because

Government had underwritten the Games and thus thus owned the Games. The idea of a ‘revenue neutral’games, was a myth propounded in 2003 by Members of Indian Olympic Association including Shri Kalmadi, Shri Randhir Singh etc. to secure control of CWG – 2010. The dichotomy between ownership and control control portended ill for all that that was to follow. It would be worth recalling that CWG Melbourne was conducted by a Corporation incorporated by Government and eventually the finances f inances were subsidized by Government. With clear and efficient management, management, the subsidy was nearly half of the cost of the Games.

Page 71


Chapter 8: Terms of Reference 8.1

In this Chapter we we answer the the terms of reference. reference. The first term of reference is: The role and responsibilities of the signatories to the Host City Contract and the overall “ The ” implications of the obligations entered into through the Host City Contract ”

The signatories on behalf of India to the Host City Contract were Shri Suresh Kalmadi, President, IOA, Shri Rajeeva Srivastava, then Secretary, Sports and Youth Affairs and Shri Vijay Kapoor, then Lt. Governor, New Delhi. On behalf of Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Federation Federation the contract was signed by Mr. Mike Fennel and Michael Hooper.

8.2

The IOA and Organizing Committee (not incorporated on the date of signing) were jointly and

severally responsible for organizing organizing the Games. The relevance of IOA was that that India did not have have a separate Commonwealth Games Association; IOA also functioned as the Commonwealth Games Association. In pursuit of this objective they were to draw up plans and programmes programmes and in pursuit of plans and programmes to accomplish accomplish certain milestones described described in Section 6 of the Contract. This Section also required required IOA / OC OC to provide CGF CGF periodic progress progress reports.

A number of of other

responsibilities connected with conduct of the Games such as ticketing, hospitality, accreditation, accommodation, travel, travel, Games Village and transport were also the responsibility responsibility of OC. IOA / OC were also assigned Ceremonies including m edals and arrangements for the Queens Baton’s Relay. For its part CGF assigned to OC all commercial rights including marketing, sponsorship, broadcasting and other rights, Games Web Site.

8.3

The then Secretary (Sports) signing on behalf of Government of India committed Government

to: i)

be

responsible

for all

commitments

including

without

limitation

financial

commitments relating to organization and staging of the Games; ii)

support, facilitate and finance the organization of the Games;

iii)

ensure free access to the host country, minimize the imposition of taxes; and

iv)

ensure appropriate and necessary security. Page 72


Shri Vijay Kapoor, then Lt. Governor Governor signing on behalf of Host City was committed to all the the

very same things described as as the function of the GOI. Given are constitutional arrangements arrangements the City of Delhi was dependent dependent on the GOI to help it successfully successfully deliver the games. games. In addition, during Bid evaluation certain observations were made by the Evaluation Commission with regard to traffic congestion etc., which were interpreted by GNCTD to mean an obligation to undertake infrastructure projects within GNCTD territory. The Host City Contract does does not have any Clause requiring GNCTD to improve street lights (the lux was enhanced to over 50 vis a vis requirement of 30 – 35 lux) or street scaping.

8.5

The crucial crucial obligations under the Host City Contract Contract have been captured in what has been

stated above. What is significant on a full reading of the contract contract is that all the authority and benefits belonged to OC, while while all the responsibility was was of GOI and and GNCTD. In practice the responsibility became of GOI. This dichotomy between authority authority and responsibility engendered many many a situation to the detriment of GOI. For example the Host City Contract provided “the IOA and OC will ensure that a village reserved for competitors and team officials is provided in accordance with the Games Documents including Protocol 10 & Regulation 3”. This responsibility was discharged by DDA and it

was assumed by Government at all stages (from May 2003 onwards) that it would be its responsibility. Likewise according to the the Host City Contract all rights were assigned by CGF to OC. OC. The provision for Broadcast rights was “the OC will have exclusive rights to negotiate the potential host broadcaster broadcaster and other potential holders of television broadcasting broadcasting rights” (Clause (Clause 28). The

expenditure on Host Broadcasting Broadcasting Service Provider was was entirely of GOI. Thus while OC was the holder holder of rights Government of India was saddled with the responsibility of planning and execution for this service. Grudgingly OC agreed to share a part of the revenue with Prasar Prasar Bharati. It would not be profitable to go on multiplying examples of this dichotomy between authority and responsibility. Suffice it to say that it placed OC, or should one say Shri Kalmadi, in the driv er’s seat.

8.6

The Second Term of Reference states: states: “The planning and execution of development projects related to the Games, and, contracts for service delivery, with reference to time, cost and quality”

Page 73


GOI and GNCTD were responsible for games venues, accommodation and city infrastructure

projects. The planning and execution execution of these projects have have been examined in detail detail by HLC under the following headings:

8.8

i)

Games Venues;

ii)

City Infrastructure – including accommodation;

iii)

Games Village – accommodation accommodation for participants / players; and

iv)

Host Broadcast Arrangements.

On each of the above captioned headings there is a separate Report capturing the the work

undertaken by HLC, mainly its teams deployed deployed for examination examination at site. These Reports spell out out emergence of plans, execution, execution, costs and and time. The impact of cost and time overruns, ubiquitous ubiquitous in CWG 2010, is examined in in great detail. The main conclusions are: are: i)

After allotment of CWG to India in November 2003 and up to October 2010 a period of seven years was available.

ii)

Authority disproportionate to their role in relation to games venues and to some extent in case of Games Village devolved on OC and its recommendations were without regard to financial ceilings.

iii)

OC took over four years to finalize venue briefs for games venues thereby directly contributing to delays.

iv)

The first three years were frittered by all agencies without any meaningful activity. This delay later became the bane of most projects, the cause of cost overruns, quality issues and frequently of time over runs.

v)

Planning was the first casuality and many projects faced problems because of inadequate planning. Alternatives such as lump-sum contracts contracts were not explored.

vi)

Far too many City Civic infrastructure projects were taken up beyond the capacity of implementing agencies, including expansion of metro network.

vii)

The work undertaken was, in a large number of cases, either over-designed or superfluous.

Page 74

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 viii) Not much attention attention was paid to costs. This was a consequence of of there being no budgetary ceiling. ceiling.

Even though though Prime Minister’s meeting meeting (August (August 2006) clearly

envisaged a budget for the Games no such budget ever emerged. ix)

OC’s own procurement process for the conduct of games was delayed beyond all

estimates and severely compromised in the process. process. This was a consequence consequence of its management style.

8.9

The next Term of Reference is: “The issues relating to the effectiveness of the organizational structure and governance for organization, preparation and conduct of the Games at all levels, including the Organizing Committee and its Key Functional Areas”.

8.10

The governance structure devised in 2004 – 2005 remained, by and large unchanged to the

end. What the structure lacked was a sense of ownership. According to to the Host City Contract Contract the Games were assigned to OC and in that narrow sense owned by OC. But it was common ground that this ownership was legal, no more, and that the real responsibility for ensuring the delivery of the Games was was with Government. In that sense, ownership ownership was was of Government. In the vast ocean ocean of Government where did did ownership lie? Did it lie with the Prime Minister’s Office or did it belong to

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports whose whose subject it was? And what about the Ministry Ministry of Urban Development, owner of Games Venues as well as responsible responsible for DDA. Where in all this did GNCTD GNCTD fit in? While the governance structure structure had described a role for each of these entities what it was not able to do was to decide ownership, because because clearly ownership could not belong to OC. This lack of ownership affected the planning and conduct of games.

8.11

GOM was was a key element of the governance structure, it was strengthened during 2009 and

functioned till the conclusion conclusion of the Games. HLC has discussed discussed in some detail detail its deliberations / decisions between between 2004 and 2010. The problems problems faced by it have been highlighted. What was was required for the successful delivery of CWG – 2010 was an effective management instrument, an authority as it were who could ensure that the relevant entities had prepared a plan, possessed the means to execute it and implementation was was proceeding in accordance with with the plan. It was perhaps

Page 75

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 too much to expect GOM to perform this this function even though that that is what was expected. For such a function to be performed by a group of individuals, the requirements are leadership, cohesion and continuity.

As has been mentioned mentioned in Chapter Chapter 4 the functioning functioning of GOM GOM (2004 – 2009) was

compromised by the declining health of the late Shri Arjun Singh. There were frequent changes in the Ministry of Youth and Sports Sports portfolio and there were long gaps gaps between meetings. meetings. Consequently, none of the elements conducive to effective leadership and direction obtained during these crucial years. Whether the kind of leadership leadership required to drive a mega event can at all be engendered by GOM is moot. HLC concludes that GOM is perhaps not not suited to perform a managerial managerial function because such a function depends on a sense of ownership and it was too much to hope that such a sense of ownership would would at some point emerge. emerge. If it did not, it is no surprise.

8.12

Committee of Secretaries (COS) was was mandated to ensure that decisions decisions of GOM were were

implemented. In fact it became a decision decision making body with with the approach approach of the games, given the time constraints which had emerged. The functioning of COS was cohesive, there was a sense of continuity (2007 onwards because of Shri K.M. Chandrasekhar continuing as Cabinet Secretary) and leadership was certainly not lacking. The events from September 2009 to the conclusion of the Games were effectively addressed addressed by COS. COS. In the process it made itself vulnerable vulnerable to becoming a party to many decisions which it was not empowered to take and in certain specific instances the process of this forum was abused to secure decisions validating wrong doing.

These “decisions” are

discussed in our Reports on ‘Games Village’, ‘Host Broadcasting’, etc. HLC concludes that prolonged use of COS on a single subject (Games in in this case) has the potential to shift decision decision making from line Ministries to the Cabinet Secretariat; from a forum to which decision making belongs to one which ought not take decisions and thus to underwrite unwittingly potential wrong doing.

Organizing Committee: Committee: 8.13

OC was mandated to organize and conduct the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Games 2010 and and the

Commonwealth Youth Games Games 2008. Its mandate has been been described in some detail while responding responding to Item I of the Terms of Reference. Its organization structure structure has been discussed discussed in our Report on the ‘Conduct of the Games’ and its functioning has been discussed both in this Report and the former

Page 76

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Report. Unfortunately a discussion discussion of OC cannot be separated from the personality of Shri Kalmadi. It would be recalled that in 2005 he created a monocracy, which remained unchanged and therefore the effectiveness of OC or lack of it depends on how the actions of Shri Kalmadi are viewed.

8.14

Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi met HLC, at at his request on March March 18, 2011 at 16.15 16.15 hrs. His stance stance was was that that

decisions, now in contention, were taken by the appropriate committee, were reviewed by CEO Shri Jarnail Singh and endorsed endorsed by the relevant Secretaries, Government Government of India. Some document seems to have been forged by Shri Mahindroo vis a vis Queen’s Baton Rela y – London episode. HLC Report

on Organising Committee Committee examines most issues issues in public contention. contention. From the point of of view of Governance, the question is who appointed Mahindroo, who sent him to London, who empowered him to incur expenditure. It is now common ground that OC was ruled by Shri Shri Kalmadi and his cabal. cabal. He called the shots or authorized certain certain henchmen to do so. The numerous drawbacks in the organization of the Games the excessive cost et al are attributable to his flawed decisions.

8.15

Hence while it is all very well to evaluate the the Governance Governance structure, structure, the the crucial crucial issue will

always remain the individual(s) making the decisions, decisions, implementing it and so on. Outcome cannot cannot be hung on the peg of governance. governance. Structures help those who wish to be helped. If Shri Kalmadi acts acts in self interest, as he did, it would be futile to blame blame the structure of OC. If the option of removing him remained dormant dormant in September 2009 it was not due to any structural structural constraint. If engineers insisted on creating wasteful assets, there there is hardly any point point in blaming GOM. HLC reports are replete with instances instances of incorrect and and / or motivated motivated decisions. In aggregate these seriously compromised the Games, engendered the vast chasm between expectations and outcome and in the result dented “Showcase India”.

8.16

The Fourth Term of Reference is: “Examination of weaknesses in manage ment, alleged misappropriation, irregularities, wasteful expenditure and wrongdoing in the conduct of the Games, and recommending action on the same”.

Page 77


HLC has has examined examined (i) weakness in Management Management (ii) alleged misappropriation misappropriation irregularities and

wrongdoing (iii) wasteful expenditure and has recommended action in respect of all the entities examined by it in particular OC CPWD, DDA, GNCTD, NDMC, MCD and Prasar Prasar Bharti. These are detailed in the relevant Reports of HLC. This report has described the constitution constitution and functioning functioning of Governance structure structure set up for Games in 2004-05. It has also provided its opinion on the efficacy of each limb of Governance. At the same time it was not possible possible to address Governance Governance in one place and one report report alone. Thus OC is addressed addressed in this report and exhaustively exhaustively in our Report on ‘Organising Committee’. Likewise, Ministry of Urban Development is commented upon in this report as well as our Report on the ‘Games Village. Thus weaknesses in management management are covered in more

than one report. 8.18

Specific reports cover (ii) and (iii) i.e. reports on Conduct Conduct of Games, Games Venues, City

Infrastructure, Games Village and Host Broadcasting. Broadcasting. Wrongdoing in its broadest sense and wasteful wasteful expenditure are specifically specifically covered and wherever possible possible the latter estimated. Officials responsible have been identified in many cases. 8.19

The Fifth Term of Reference is: “The issues relating to financing the Games, including estimates of revenue and expenditure”

8.20

Commencing from April April 2003 relevant files are full of estimates estimates of revenue and and expenditure. expenditure.

Between April 2003 and September 2003 the position taken by Shri Kalmadi was that composite expenditure on the Games Games would be less than revenue. revenue. The April 2003 estimates were forwarded forwarded by Shri Randhir Singh, Secretary General, Indian Olympic Association and those of August 2003 by Shri Kalmadi. This letter clearly shows that what Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi is stating at the time is that the expenditure on the the games, games, estimated estimated at at 400.00 crore, crore, would be well well within the revenue revenue estimate estimate of 450.00 crore or more. This argument is successfully successfully placed before the Cabinet Cabinet at its meeting 10 th September, 2003 and provides a kind of reassurance because even though the process for bidding for the CWG 2010 has been ongoing since May 2003 this is the first time that Cabinet is considering the matter. For the next two years nothing nothing much happens with with regard to the the budget.

When discussions discussions

reopened in 2005 a clear distinction is being made between the requirements of OC and of other Page 78

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 entities.

What Shri Kalmadi Kalmadi is now stating stating is that the the revenue of OC will be higher than the

expenditure of OC. All the costs relating to venue venue upgradation etc. etc. are no longer part of the the Games budget according according to him.

In other words by 2005 a revenue neutral neutral budget budget is a myth. It is

propagated by Shri Kalmadi periodically to assert the independence of OC in relation to Department of Sports and no more. Since expenditure is going up because because nobody in OC understands budgeting budgeting an exercise is mounted to increase estimates of revenue. revenue. Ernst &Young are are contracted by OC to validate its budget and the budget goes up to 1800.00 crore by 2009. Cabinet approves 1620.00 crore in November, November, 2009. 2009. Revenue estimates estimates have also increased to over 1800.00 crore. crore. But there is no basis whatsoever for for the increase. While what has been stated stated above is a broad discussion discussion of what took place between 2003 and 2010 the issue is considered in great detail in HLC Report on the that most of the Budgetary exercise undertaken by Shri Shri ‘Organising Committee’. Our conclusion is that Kalmadi and OC was hypothetical, designed to secure Budgetary support from Government and no more and was packaged as revenue neutral. 8.21

The Sixth Term of Reference is: “ The The issues concerning coordination between various agencies involved in the development of infrastructure and conduct of the Games”. Games ”.

8.22

The agencies agencies involved development of infrastructure infrastructure for the the Games were Government of

National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). 8.23

GNCTD was required by GOM decision of 2004 to set up an Empowered Committee for

coordination of all Games related projects including infrastructure infrastructure projects. projects. This Committee was set up in 2006 because till that that time GNCTD had not not taken up any infrastructure infrastructure projects. It was also found that the Empowered Committee undertook to review a number of projects which did not belong to its mandate. Further some projects were pursued pursued for some time and thereafter abandoned by the Empowered Empowered Committee. By and large, large, this Committee was was unable to speed up up project implementation because that subject was with line agencies, they followed their own systems and could not be hurried up.

Page 79


A specific issue faced in some infrastructure projects related to clearances by DUAC. These

clearances were extremely protracted, Government did not seem to have any leverage with DUAC and while there was the option of appealing to Lt. Governor to overrule DUAC this was exercised so belatedly that it was was unable to obviate obviate delays. While it is not clear how this issue ought to be be addressed it may be possible to consider the matter being posed to the Lt. Governor ipso facto after a certain period of time. In other words words after all information information has been been provided by by the executing agency to DUAC and should no decision be forthcoming within three months the matter should automatically reach Lt. Governor for his decision. 8.25

DDA was was responsible for its stadia, stadia, for the the Games Games Village and and for DDA DDA flats flats in Vasant Vasant Kunj. Kunj. The

issue of coordination with other agencies was relevant in case of the Games Village and it seems that the Games Village did not face delays due to lack of coordination coordination with other agencies. It is another matter that DDA ought to have also approached Yamuna Standing Committee which it did not do. With regard to the construction of flats at Vasant Kunj, the issue was more of delayed commencement of the project, non-adherence to height restrictions set by Airport Authority and so on, rather rather than than one one of delays. Ther e is a fuller discussion of these issues in HLC Report on ‘City Infrastructure’. 8.26

NDMC and MCD do not seem to have faced issues issues of inter inter agency conflict in the three

infrastructure projects implemented by these agencies i.e. Street Lighting, Street-scaping and Street Signage. 8.27

The Seventh Term of Reference is: “The role of international / national advisors / consultants / officials of Organizing Committee in the conduct of the Games” Games ”

8.28

The terms Advisor and Consultant are being used synonymously. synonymously. No particular distinction is

made between Indian Indian consultant and foreign consultant. consultant.

The role of consultants consultants in individual individual

projects is examined in detail in the relevant reports. reports. There is separate Chapter on consultants consultants in the Fifth Report of HLC.

Page 80


It is common common ground ground that for a project of this complexity complexity and size, consultants are a

prerequisite. Whether they are foreign or Indian would would depend on the expertise expertise required. Over the years national expertise has increased significantly. Design of Barapullah Nala, a complex engineering engineering project, is a case in point. It was designed by Indian Consultants Consultants who were given insufficient time time to do so. On the other hand we had had no expertise to install membrane roofing roofing over JLN Stadium and foreign consultants were engaged. engaged. The delineation was not always that obvious or clear. clear.

8.30

A discussion of foreign consultants and their role role would be incomplete incomplete without without commenting commenting

on the four contracts given by OC to EKS and the marketing contract for sponsorship entered with SMAM. These organizations with poor credentials, credentials, interconnected ownership, complete backing backing of CGF in particular of Mike Fennell and Hooper, derived undue gain from OC and rendered little service. Their contracts / performance have been examined in detail in the Fifth Report on ‘Organizing Committee’. It was most inappropriate for Mr. Hooper, a member of the Executive Board of OC to

actively canvass for a particular entity knowing full well that EKS did not possess the qualification to provide services required by OC. It is a different matter matter that EKS registered a new company company with head quarter in Mauritius and has still to find Income Tax Returns.

8.31

Foreign consultants consultants at at exorbitant exorbitant costs were Shri Kalmadi’s preference. preference.

While GOM

continued to emphasize ‘Indianness’ of Opening and Closing Ceremonies, Shri Kalmadi insisted that he was obligated by the Host-City Contract to hire hire a foreign consultant. He promised to provide legal opinion to support support his opinion; needless to say never did. In the event consultants consultants were hired hired at enormous cost, they suggested expensive solutions requiring imports and additional foreign expertise and all that to no great purpose; witness Aerostat suggested by Mark Fisher because he had nothing left to do.

8.32

In many cases, consultants were hired to provide provide the the advice advice the client client wanted. This was was

obvious in case of valuation for the purchase purchase of additional additional flats from Emaar Emaar / MGF by DDA. Even though COS had stressed the need for proper valuation, the consultant being the tax advisor of DDA was able to justify the price it had been decided to pay. Street scaping Consultants are another

Page 81

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 example of this phenomena. phenomena. When it did not suit the entity, the consultant was ignored. ignored. Prasar Bharti / Doordarshan Doordarshan ignored the sensible advice advice of Mark Furlough. As with Governance, Governance, so with consultants; need and and outcome depend on the user. He / she can take rational rational decisions conducive conducive to economy and efficiency efficiency or use the device to achieve achieve his objective. Perhaps the latter was more the case. OC followed a simple principle principle in engaging engaging officials viz. “Apnacha Manus”. The inefficiency,

mismanagement and and wrong doing doing of OC are are largely attributable attributable to this simple simple principle. CoCom reports repeatedly emphasized this aspect and when Mr. Fennel could not prevail, he foisted Mr. Hooper at enormous cost on OC, an unnecessary irritant as Shri Kalmadi’s missive27 graphically pointed out. Passage of time made it worse because the triumvirate triumvirate were struggling for power – Shri Kalmadi’s men, Hooper etc. and Government appointees. appointees. To the last, this confusion confusion enabled Shri Kalmadi to call the shots assisted by man Friday – Shri Shekhar Deorukhkar, Railway Guard - Western Railway, personal assistant to Shri Kalmadi, at present under arrest. 8.33

The Eight Term of Reference is: “ The The overall impact of the Games including legacy for city infrastructure, sports infrastructure and sports development ”. ”.

8.34

A publication on the Melbourne Games 2006 entitled “United by the Moment” refers to the

legacy value of those Games in the following words:

“Sporting facilities would be developed or upgraded, training and educational opportunities

through Games programmes would be promoted, relationships and understanding between the many cultures of Victoria and the Commonwealth Nations would be strengthened. An appreciation of arts and culture would be ignited specially among our youth and the importance of protecting the environment for future generations would be reinforced. Tourists would be drawn to Victoria in record numbers, and trade and commerce opportunities across many industries and interest would be cre ated.”

27



In preparation preparation for the Commonwealth Commonwealth Games Games 2010 thousands of crore crore of rupees were were spent spent

in Delhi for developing new stadia and a Games Village, beautifying the City, improving the road infrastructure, constructing the flyovers and elevated roads, inducting a large fleet of new buses, extending metro connectivity connectivity and augmenting the the tourist infrastructure. infrastructure. This massive investment needs to be preserved, protected, protected, nurtured and and built upon. upon. The legacy value must be maximized. In this background, the HLC makes the following observations and recommendations for the legacy of City Infrastructure: a) GNCTD welcomed the opportunity posed by the Commonwealth Games to take up a number of new infrastructure infrastructure projects and to expedite those in the pipeline. pipeline. In almost all cases the works were taken up and and completed in a compressed compressed time frame. frame. There is a need for follow up action to take all projects to their logical conclusion; b) The Barapullah elevated road should be ‘completed’ by constructing the two links viz. from JLN Stadium to Aurobindo Marg and from Star City Mall on the eastern side of the Yamuna, across the river, to Sarai Kale Khan. Khan. This is necessary to make optimum use use of the elevated road already constructed; constructed; c) The RWAs should be involved in the task of supervising the maintenance of street lighting, street scaping and and related horticulture horticulture works in their neighbourhood. neighbourhood. Legacy value of this investment will only be achieved when the works taken up are sustained by the concerted action of all stake holders; d) The Sunehari Nala and Kushak Nala parking areas should be utilized to the maximum. Hundreds of private buses are parked for the night in the lanes and bye- lanes in New Delhi. They must be made to park at at the above parking areas. areas. This would also generate revenue revenue which could be ploughed back for the maintenance of these facilities.

8.36

As far as the legacy for sports infrastructure and sports development is concerned, the

views and suggestions of the HLC are as follows: i)

The ‘state- of- the- art’ sports infra-structure which has come up in Delhi, should be put to

optimum use and the Venue Owners should be made responsible for its upkeep so that the infrastructure created does not go to seed.

Page 83

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 ii)

All Venue Owners should be asked to prepare an annual budget for maintaining the infrastructure under the superintendence of SAI and the Venue Owners (DDA /NDMC/ GNCTD/ DU /JMI / AITA etc.) must be made responsible for providing the same without any delay.

iii)

Buildings, structures and spaces which can be used for generating revenue without adversely affecting the sports facility should be carefully identified and aggressively marketed. The revenue should be credited into a dedicated fund for maintaining the sports infrastructure created.

iv)

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports through SAI should set up a system for regular inspection and monitoring of the Games and Training venues constructed for CWG 2010 and timely implementation i mplementation of their recommendations should be binding on the concerned agencies.

v)

All sports facilities should be opened for use by athletes and sports persons. All such athletes who have represented District, State, College, University and the country at recognized District, State, National or International level meets / tournaments should be allowed free access to these facilities.

vi)

Schools and colleges should be encouraged to utilize the sports facilities created. A fixed schedule should be drawn up and communicated to these institutions to enable them to plan their logistics. SAI coaches could impart training and use these sessions to spot talent.

vii)

Sports Federations should be encouraged to hold at least one national and international meet / tournament in these venues every year.

viii)

It must be ensured that the Sports Authority of India should develop the requisite expertise so that in future it is able to conduct baseline survey of available Games facilities and assess the work that needs to be undertaken to bring them on par with latest international standards necessary for hosting an international meet. SAI must also be charged with the duty of keeping a track of the latest and best equipment for various games and its price and should be able to give expert advice on this subject.

Page 84

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 ix)

It should be ensured that a qualified Venue Manager and requisite staff is appointed by the Venue Owners for each Games and Training Venue.

x)

Equipment purchased for CWG 2010 should be properly accounted for and deployed in a manner which would ensure its full utilization.

xi)

India is a vast country with a huge population and it would be very difficult for the Central Government or the State Governments Governments alone to nurture and and promote sports.

It is

necessary and desirable to involve involve the private and the public sector in in this task. Leading PSUs and private sector companies should be invited to select a game of their choice and they should be given the responsibility of promoting the game, spotting talent and training the promising sports persons. This could be a part of their corporate social social responsibility. xii)

An important legacy of CWG 2010 should have been availability of a large number of professionals with specialization specialization in sports administration. administration. Unfortunately, the manner manner in which recruitment was done by the Organizing Committee was so shoddy that the number of such professionals would would be limited. However small the number, these these persons should be identified, kept in the sports sector, trained further and given exposure by visits abroad to see other international Games, so that by the time India is ready to organize another major international sports event, there is a nucleus of professional sports administrators available.

xiii)

While the HLC did not deal with Sports Federations directly during the time ti me it was studying issues related to the CWG 2010, it came across ample evidence to show the degeneration in these Federations and and to demonstrate demonstrate how they are controlled controlled by a few persons. The intricate networking through which these persons support each other also came to light. In the larger interest of sportsmen and the sports sector, the Government must intervene and rescue the Federations from the clutches of these persons. In this context, attention is drawn to an appeal from sportsmen regarding the need to clean-up the sports administration. A copy of the appeal is at Annexure - 24. 24 . The HLC acknowledges and supports the action taken by the Government to introduce a bill to restrict the tenures and specify age limit of office holders in sports bodies.

Page 85


The Ninth Term of Reference is: “The lessons learnt for the future, on each of the above, including establishment of a mechanism for laying down timeframes and effective monitoring, creation of a legally sustainable framework for hosting similar international sporting events, appropriate financial management and internal audit, media interaction and communication”. communication”.

8.38

At the time of consideration and evaluation of India’s bid for the Commonwealth Games 2010,

the draft Bid document was sprung on Government at the last minute. Up to the end of August 2003, the files of Department of Sports do not show the need to consider any such document because no such document is on file. The document is appended with the Cabinet Note dated 10 th September, 2003. It is described as a ‘standard’ document from which Government has nothing much to fear, except the commitment to underwrite the Games which Government ought to do because it does not entail any financial commitment for Government, the Games being revenue neutral. While, the present report has pointed out in some detail the myth of revenue neutral Games, it has not commented on the multifarious obligation foisted on Government by the Host City Contract. It would be pertinent to mention that Canadian Government showed greater perceptiveness in questioning several aspects of the Contract, declining to accept others in particular the obligation to underwrite the Games, irrespective of their desire to host the Games 28. Shri Randhir Singh, in his letter dated 9 th September, 2003 (2 days before the Cabinet meeting) maintained that the Canadian Government had furnished to the CGF a guarantee to underwrite the shortfall if any in the capital and revenue expenditure of the Games 29. This was patently false, at best, Shri Randhir Singh did not know; at worst, he informed otherwise. This would reinforce the belief of the HLC that the relevant officials, in particular, Shri Rajeeva Srivastava were remiss in not verifying the facts, in not informing Cabinet of alternatives and thereby committing Government to obligations which were frequently quoted by CGF and frequently misquoted by Shri Kalmadi to our detriment. The responsibility also lies with the then Minister Shri Vikram Verma because the Cabinet Note dated 10 th September, 2003 was of his Ministry and had been approved by him.

28 29

See Annexure 5 for details. See Annexure 25 Page 86


One obvious lesson to be learnt from this is that due diligence study of of documents documents like the

Host City Contract for all future Games should be carried out well in advance. Cases where other countries have successfully managed amendments in the so called ‘boiler plate agreement’ should be

taken note of so that we can act in our national interest and not succumb to the pressures of the office bearers of these international sports federations.

8.40

A discussion on lessons for the future would would be incomplete without without describing describing the role of

Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF), in particular its President, Mr. Mike Fennell and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Michael Michael Hooper. Both these office bearers acted acted in unison, not always always to facilitate the organization organization and conduct of the the Games. Some examples of what took place are given in the following paras.

8.41

Soon after the the award of the Games Games to India, there was an insistence on hiring Event Event

Knowledge Services (EKS) by CGF. CGF. There was also an impression that the ‘Base Line Survey’ of Games

Venues would be conducted by EKS, as would be clear from the following: “However, Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports observed that as per the Host City

Contract, payment of license fees includes the cost of Base Line Survey to be undertaken by CGF and any work beyond the preparation for Commonwealth Games 2010 was not mandated b y the Cabinet for OC”. In this background on the request of Chairman, OC Shri Suresh Kalmadi “it was decided that the work of venue reappraisal beyond the Host City Contracts

mandatory Base Line Survey as proposed by OC shall be undertaken and DDA agreed to bear the entire exercise. 30 8.42

Mr. Hooper now states, after being being a party to the decision of venue appraisal, as follows: follows: “first of all let me clarify that there is no such thing as a “Base Line Survey” performed by EKS

in relation to the 2010 Commonwealth Games31”.

30

Both these quotes are from the Minutes of the 4 th GOM meeting held on 17 th March, 2005, item No.7(3). 31 See Annexure 26 Page 87

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 While acknowledging the close relationship between CGF and EKS including a contract between the two (2003), he refused to disclose either the contents of the contract or the amount paid for any services performed and went on to state “There was no overlap between the services EKS was commissioned to perform by the CGF under the CGKMP and any other services EKS was contracted to perform for the OC”.

8.43

Our detailed review (Fifth Report of HLC – Organising Committee) of the several contracts

between EKS and OC shows a significant duplication and overlapping plus insistent pressure exerted by Michael Hooper, with the backing backing of Mike Fennell, to continue to provide contracts contracts to EKS. It was unseemly for Mr. Hooper to intervene in procurement matters being a Member of the Executive Board of OC and not being part part of the relevant functional functional area. His statement that the the relationship between CGF and EKS had been ‘fully disclosed’ ought to have restrained him from playing any role rather than enabling him to back EKS now that he had ha d made a full confession.

8.44

It is quite quite clear that there there are certain companies, companies, no doubt doubt with relevant experience, experience, which

are being assiduously supported by the office bearers of international sports bodies. EKS was vociferously backed by the CGF nominees on the Executive Board. It was claimed that EKS was an arm of the CGF. Now it transpires that SMAM and EKS are interlinked. McLatchey, CEO of EKS, owns 26% of SMAM Australia through two other companies namely Ithaca and ERIS 32. That there is considerable understanding and accommodation while making recommendations about companies to be awarded contracts would be established by the fact that when the subject of allocating the contract for International Broadcasting Rights came up before the EB, one of the CGF representatives advised that SMAM, the lowest bidder, should not be selected because ‘all eggs should not be kept in the same basket” and the other bidder M/S Fast Track should be given the contract. Whether M/s Fast Track is

also linked in some way or the other to SMAM or EKS has not been investigated.

8.45

At the instance of Mike Fennell, contrary contrary to the Host City Contract, Michael Hooper was

stationed in Delhi at at a cost of over 3.45 crore, an issue issue examined in detail in our Report on the 32


Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 ‘Organizing Committee’. Committee’. Mr. Suresh Kalmadi constitutionally constitutionally relying on the ‘scripture’ (Host City

Contract) to further his own agenda, yielded to this pressure and Michael Hooper took full advantage of his vulnerable position.

8.46

While the instances cited above created problems, if we were were asked to choose choose a single factor factor

which dramatically increased the risk and virtually jeopardized CWG – 2010, we would without hesitation point to lack of ownership, bordering on absence. (a)

IOA / OC had successfully secured the Games, signed the Host City Contract, were responsible for conduct of Games and had been empowered by Government to do so. Were they the owners? Not really; OC would be dissolved after the the Games and IOA IOA was merely discharging the functions of OC while while it subsisted. The top management of OC was on secondment secondment from IOA, no more. The assets created created for the Games Games would not be IOA’s legacy and it had little to do with infrastructure.

(b)

CWG – 2010 had been entrusted by the Host City Contract Contract to GNCTD. Lt. Governor attended the conference conference at Montego Bay (2003) and had signed the agreement. agreement. Did they own the Games at at least in some classical classical sense? They were not responsible for for organization of the Games. Most of the venues did not belong to them and they did not possess possess the resources to do so.

Their role was limited to certain city

infrastructure projects, two stadia and Security. (c)

Ministry of Youth Affairs and and Sports was the nodal Ministry for the Games. It had participated in the bidding process, its Secretary had signed the Host City Contract obligating Government to underwrite the Games and the Organizing Committee was expected to deal with Government through through MYAS. GOM (25.10.2004) (25.10.2004) had also approved the creation of International Sports Division (ISD) to enable the Ministry to discharge its function. But as our Report shows, over the period 2004-2010 MYAS continued to lose what what it possessed rather rather than the other other way round. Hence it is clear that ownership of the Games did not lie with MYAS.

(d)

Other than these three there was no other focal point or entity which could in any way be construed construed to be the the owner of the Games. Certain Ministries, in particular

Page 89

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Ministry of Urban Development were expected to play a crucial role, though they could not be understood to performing the the role of the owner. No doubt Prime Minister’s Office selectively intervened; in 2004 to set up the governance mechanism,

in 2006 to review progress and so on.

But it never assumed ownership.

Our

observation is a statement of fact.

8.48

It would clear from the above discussion that there there was lack of ownership vis a vis CWG –

2010. The first consequence consequence of this was a kind of anarchy anarchy with reference to the development of of venues for the Games. This exercise commenced after a gap gap of 16 months from allocation allocation of Games to India in March 2005 and and in some sense continued continued right to the end. GOM discussions during during 2010 show that nearly all the venues are incomplete, specifications are being added upto March – April 2010 for the Opening / Closing Ceremonies Ceremonies and as a consequence consequence everything is delayed. Test Events which ought to have commenced no later than January 2010 actually take place in a superficial manner from June 2010. And this kind of delay takes place across the board, the catering contract contract for the Games Village being a case in point.

8.49

The second second consequence consequence of lack lack of ownership was unchecked expenditure described in great great

detail in our Reports and discussed discussed in Chapter 3 (Cost of the Games). Entities identified for creation of infrastructure for the Games (including venues) expended funds without any regard to economy, budgetary ceiling or felt needs.

Details of excess excess expenditure, wrongful expenditure, expenditure, etc. are are

furnished in our Reports. Reports. Suffice it to say, to a great extent, lack of ownership facilitated facilitated wrong doing. It is worth noting that that a budgetary ceiling ceiling for the Games would have acted as an appropriate appropriate check to ever burgeoning costs. Hence it is essential that for an event of this type Government Government must decide a budget and the expenditures be limited to the budgetary ceiling. There must not be an open ended commitment, the desire to show case India notwithstanding. notwithstanding.

8.50

We can conclude that in future for conduct conduct of a mega-event such as CWG CWG – 2010 it would be

essential to identify ownership. ownership. When CWG were held in Kuala Lumpur during during 1998, a High Level Committee chaired by the Prime Minister of Malaysia (at that time Dr. Mahatir Mohammad) directed Page 90

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 planning, execution and and conduct of of the Games. The 2002 Games were held in Manchester Manchester and the the British precedent may not be very helpful because the majority of the Commonwealth Games are held in that country. country.

CWG 2006 was hosted hosted by Melbourne (Australia).

The State State of Victoria

incorporated a Crown Corporation Corporation which was responsible responsible for organizing the Games. While there was much criticism, especially with regard to expenditure, the fact remains that the total Audited expenses on CWG – 2006 (Melbourne) was A$523 million only, roughly 2000 crore. Our situation is in a sense somewhere in between Malaysia and and Australia. We are not in a position to go back to the 1982 Asian Games precedent and and that is essentially what Malaysia Malaysia did. On the other hand what what Australia decided to do through a Corporation we think of accomplishing through a Society.

8.51

Perhaps in our situation situation a non-profit non-profit Government Government Society for conduct conduct of Games looks

appropriate. Learning from what took place the Chairperson Chairperson of the Society Society should be the Prime Prime Minister. This alone would instill ownership ownership of the kind needed for efficient conduct conduct of the Games. Recognizing the extreme pressure on the Prime Minister’s time the Society need meet only once

every quarter. The functioning of the Society should be entrusted to a Vice Chairperson and for for a sports event it should be the Minister, Department of Sports.

8.52

There would be a Chief Executive Officer appointed appointed by Government and accountable accountable to

Government.

In other other words, he would would be on deputation deputation from the Government.

Adequate

representation would be provided to Sports Sports Bodies at all the three levels. Inevitably a number of Ministries (Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Tourism, etc.) may be concerned with the organization of the Games and they should be represented on the management of the Society through the Minister, in charge of the Ministry.

8.53

As far as practicable, practicable, applicable applicable frameworks frameworks drawing drawing reference reference to standards and rules rules for

conduct of Government controlled bodies and compliance with Government rules for procurement should be considered, with premium on dynamism and innovation.

Page 91


Besides the key positions positions which which may may well be from Government , the remaining staff should should be be

recruited by the Society taking into account the skill sets required, the expertise needed, in particular for sport (s) which it is proposed to host. A balance between full time staff and consultants should be planned before commencement of recruitment

8.55

The Society Society should operate on an overall budget disaggregated to annual outlays. The total

being an aggregate of all that is required to be done done properly estimated with no scope for change. In other words, with increasing costs there should be a set of priorities which should enable certain parts to be excluded to preserve the overall budgetary ceiling.

8.56

In case case of Government stadia being used the the upgradation upgradation costs should be identified properly,

approved by the Society and Ministry of Urban Development should be accountable for outcome including observance observance of budgetary budgetary ceilings.

The EFC mechanism does not seem to have been

effective in containing containing costs or restricting outlays.

It may be necessary necessary to set up a separate

mechanism for cost estimation.

8.57

It is important that independent and professionally equipped Audit and Vigilance mechanisms

are mandated. Results of oversight should be available in a time bound manner to facilitate remedial action.

8.58

Revenue generation generation from sponsorship, from ticketing ticketing etc. is generally significant even in

events which prove to be non-self financing. Government organizations organizations tend to be less efficient than the private sector in maximizing maximizing revenue. Even if one were to ignore the the sad experience of OC in raising revenue, one could conclude that much more could have accomplished had this function been performed in a bonafide manner manner by the private sector. For example if after ear marking seats for accredited persons and VIPs the rest of the ticketing had been assigned to the private sector the stadia would not have have remained empty. There is thus a strong case case for assigning this function to the the private sector.

Page 92


Capacity building building and skill enhancement enhancement are important from the point of view of legacy and and

should be given due attention.

8.60

To sum up, the role of Government would be crucial crucial for organizing a similar event and and should should

be recognized upfront. Later interventions are both expensive and inefficient.

Page 93

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Appendix 1: List List of of officials officials / persons engaged by High Level Committee 1

Aakash Bassi

2

Abhijit Ghosh

3

Abhishek Paliwal

4

Adarsh Kumar Aggarwal

5

Ajay Singh

6

Amit Pathania

7

Anil Roy

8

Ankit Dewan

9

Ankita Sikka

10

Ankush Sachdeva

11

Anshul Ujlayan

12

Arindam Ghosh

13

Asawari Kapur

14

Ashutosh kapoor

15

Ashwani Kumar

16

Bhan SK

17

C.S. Murty

18

Charanpreet Singh

19

Deepak Malhotra

20

Deepankar Sanwalka

21

Deepti Singal

22

Dhritimaan Shukla

23

Dogra TK

24

Doodhnath

25

Gahlot SS

26

Ganganpreet Singh Puri

27

Gopal Krishna Shukla

28

Gupta PK

29

Gupta. S.C.

30

Harsh Mehta

31

Hiran Mehta

32

Induvant S Tomar

33

Jai Paul Rattan

34

Kannan K.

35

Kaushik HC

36

Kavita Nathaniel

37

Khandelwal, KN

38

Koteswaran TK

Page 94


Koul. P.N.

40

Kujur, SKF

41

Kunal Gulati

42

Mahesh Chandra

43

Manav Walia

44

Mishri Lal Gupta

45

Monika Malhotra

46

Mukesh Arya

47

Mukhopadhyay, PK

48

Murali Talasila

49

Nasreen Chanana

50

Neogy. SK

51

Nidhi Vashisht

52

Nishith Seth

53

Parasher H.

54

Prasun Singh

55

Rahul Puniya

56

Ranjan Rajourya

57

Rao VS

58

Saguna Sodhi

59

Sanjeev Kwatra

60

Sanyukt Kharbanda

61

Sharma RD

62

Sasikumar S

63

Shiban Ji Sultan

64

Shuchi Gupta

65

Shuchi Rewal

66

Shyam Kishore

67

Singh, IP

68

Sinha, AV

69

Sunil Kumar

70

Thakur, AK

71

Varun Mowar

72

Vasudevan.S

73

Venugopal V

74

Vijay Batra

Page 95


Shri C.S. Prasad, DG

3.

Sh.Shyam Kishore, Chief Engineer

4.

Shri V.K. Gupta, Addl. DG (CWG)

5.

Shri A.K. Jain, Addl. DG (CWG)

6.

Shri Nikhilesh Jha, CVO

7.

All SE’s and EE’s dealing with CWG works

8.

Shri Nagarajan, CE (Electrical), (Retd.)

Prasar Bharati & Doordarshan 1

Shri B.S. Lalli, CEO, Prasar Bharti

2

Shri A.K.Jain, Member (Finance), Prasar Bharti

3

Ms.Leena Nandan, Director, DD

Delhi Development Authority #

Name & Designation

1.

Shri Ashok Kumar, Vice Chairman

2.

Sh.Dinesh Rai, Ex-Vice Chairman, DDA

3.

Shri Nand Lal, Member (Finance)

4.

Ms.Veena Ish, Principal Commissioner

Sports Authority of India 1.

Shri Sayan Chatterjee, DG

2.

Shri Gopal Krishna, Secretary

3.

Smt.Jhanja Tripathi, former Director

4.

Shri H.S. Kinga, JS/OSD Page 98


Shri Pravin Krishan, JS/OSD

6.

Mrs. Rachna Govil, Director

Government of National Capital Terriotory of Delhi 1.

Shri R.Narayanaswami, Retired Chief Secretary

2.

Shri Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary

3.

Shri K.K. Sharma, Pr. Secretary, PWD

4.

Shri S. Prasad, Secretary, IT

5.

Shri Deepak Virmani, Addl. Secretary, IT

6.

Shri Vashisht, Controller of Accounts

7.

Shri S. Bhattacharya, Director of Health Services

8.

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Nodal Officer

9.

Shri S.K. Das, Dy, Labour Commissioner

10.

Shri Sunil Sharma, Executive Engineer, Ring Road Bye-pass

11. Shri Raj Pal Singh, EE, Ring Road Bye-pass 12. Shri S.C. Chauhan, EE, Gazipur Flyover 13. Shri PC Channa, EE, Raja Ram Kohlimarg Intersection 14. Shri S.C. Gupta, EE, Naraina T Point Flyover 15. Shri Pandit, Programme Manager 16. Shri Amit Kumar, EE, Tyagraj Stadium 17. Shri Sajal Mitra, EE, Millennium Park Bus Parking 18. Shri Priyanka Mittal, EE, Barapulla Road

Page 99

Main Report of the HLC –Organization & Conduct of CWG 2010 Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1.

Shri K.S. Mehra, Commissioner

2.

Shri Anshul Prakash, Additional Commissioner

3.

Shri V.K. Malhotra, Nodal Officer

4.

Shri Ravi Das, Addl. Nodal Officer

5.

Shri Ajay Agarwal, EE, Barapulla Bus Parking

New Delhi Municipal Council 1.

Shri Parimal Rai, Chairman

2.

Shri P.K. Puri, AE, Shivaji Stadium

3.

Shri R.K. Sharma, Manager, Talkatora Stadium

4.

Shri V.K. Katiyal, AE, Talkatora Stadium

5.

Shri Feroz Ahmed, CE, Talkatora Stadium

Delhi Transport Corporation 1. Shri Uday Kumar, Chairman, DTC (Upgradation of Bus-shelter) 2. Shri A.K. Chawla, Dy, CGM, DTC

Delhi University 1. Shri 1 G.S. Gupta, EE, Delhi University

Jamia Millia Islamia 1.

Prof. Zubair Meenai

Dean, Students welfare

2.

Prof. Noor Mohammad Director, Physical Education

RITES 1.

Mr. Alok Garg, Group General Manager [ CP ]

2.

Mr. J.S. Yadav, Addl. General Manager [ Finance ] Page 100


Mr. Shariq Zulfikar, Addl. General Manager [ CP ]

4.

Mr. R.K. Jindal, Dy. General Manager [ C ]

Siri Fort Sports Complex – DDA officials 1

Mr. Alok Swarup, Director Sports (D.D.A.)

2

Mr. Rajiv Pandey, Chief Accounts Officers (D.D.A.)

3

Mr. N.L. Singh, Chief Engineer ( CWG)

4

Mr. Vinod Sawhney, S.E.(CGD 3)

5

Mr. M.S. Gill, E.E. ( CGD 9)

6

Mr. N.K. Mittal, E.E. (CWG) C3

7

Mr. A.K. Jain, A.E. (CGD 5)

8

Mr. S.K.Satija, E.E.(CWG)T3E.E. E.E.(CWG)T3E.E.(CWG)T3 (CWG)T3

9

Mr. R.K. Gupta, E.E.( CDG 5)

All India Tennis Association 1

Col Amarbir Singh, Executive Director, AITA

2

Col Ranbir Chauhan, Executive Director, AITA

3

V.K. Batra, Executive Director, AITA

4

S.G. Lakhanpal, Consultant

5

Rajiv Khanna,Consulta Khanna,Consultant nt

Yamuna Sports Complex – DDA officials #

Name & Designation 1

Mr.P.K. Bhandari, SE (Electrical)

2

Mr. S. K. Sethi, SE (Civil CGD-IV)

3

Mr. Anil Kumar, SE (Civil CGD-VI) Page 101


Mr. S.C. Gupta, EE (Electrical)

5

Mr. D.K. Jha, EE (Electrical)

6

Mr. Nahar Singh, EE (Civil – CGD-IV)

7

Mr. S.K. Doomra, EE (Civil – CGD-VI)

8

Mr. V.K. Arora, AE (Electrical)

9

Mr. R.K. Nagpal, AE (Electrical)

10

Mr. Lal Singh, AE (Civil CGD-IV)

11

Mr. Arvind Chadha, AE (Civil CGD-IV)

12

Mr. I. H. Naqvi , AE (Civil CGD-VI)

13

Mr. D.S. Malik, AE (Civil CGD-VI)

14

Mr. Hari Singh, AE (Civil CGD-VI)

15

Mr. Mr. K.D. Sharma, AE (Civil CGD-VI)

16

Mr. R.P.S Chauhan, JE (Electrical)

17

Mr. Gain Prakash, JE (Electrical)

18

Mr. B.L. Verma, JE (Electrical)

19

Mr.Viond Sharma, JE (Electrical)

20

Mr. S.C. Mittal, JE (Civil CGD-IV)

21

Mr. Rafiqu Ahmed, JE (Civil CGD-IV)

22

Mr. D.K. Sharma, JE (Civil CGD-IV)

23

Mr.S.R. Ansari, JE (Civil CGD-IV)

24

Mr.S.C. Sharma, JE (Civil CGD-IV)

25

Mr.Sandeep Kushwaha, JE (Civil CGD-VI) Page 102


Mr. A.K. Khanna, JE (Civil CGD-VI)

27

Mr. T.R. Sharma, JE (Civil CGD-VI)

28

Mr. Mohd. Akhtar, JE (Civil CGD-VI)

29

Mr.Dharmender Singh, JE (Civil CGD-VI)

30

Mr. V.K. Sharma, JE (Civil CGD-VI)

VIPs 1

Shri M.S. Gill Gill,, former Minister of Youth Affairs & Sports

2

Shri Jaipal Reddy, Minister of Urban Development Development..

3

Shri Vijay Kapoor, former Lt. Governor of Delhi Delhi..

4

Delegation led by Shri Virender Gupta, President, Delhi Unit BJP and Sh Madan Lal Khurana, former Chief Minister of Delhi

Page 103

MAIN REPORT OF THE SHUNGLU COMMITTEE

Recommend Documents