Jajpur: Massive irregularities have allegedly been committed in the purchase of furniture by the Health Department in Jajpur district. Substandard products have been purchased from a Raipurbased firm that allegedly used forged documents while bidding. Various quarters alleged that former chief district medical officer (CDMO) Biranchinarayan Barik has been transferred to Kalahandi district due to his alleged involvement in procuring substandard furniture.
Additional CDMO, Shibasish Maharana has been entrusted with the responsibilities of Barik. However, there were three senior medical officers who ruled out Barik’s involvement in the purchase of furniture. Sources said that the guidelines of GeM have been violated in the purchase of furniture for 133 health subcentres in the district as it has been done through single bidding. This shouldn’t have happened, they added. Furniture like consultation tables, chairs, racks, cabinets, and almirahs have been purchased from Raipur-based Riyan Consultancy’.
Strangely the firm has no manufacturing unit in Chhattisgarh. This has left many bewildered. Moreover, no government or authorised agency has examined the quality of the furniture supplied by the Raipur-based firm. It has been alleged that the former CDMO and some other officials initiated attempts to pass the bill for substandard furniture at high rates. It should be stated here that ‘Riyan Consultancy’ had also bid for the supply of refrigerators to hospitals in Keonjhar. However, the documents presented by the company were found to be fake, for which it was de-listed. Questions have now come up as to how a firm banned in Keonjhar district could secure orders for medical centres in Jajpur district.
Lawyer Udaynath Sahu has raised this question and alleged massive irregularities in the purchase of the items. He has urged the collector to direct a Vigilance probe into the supply of substandard products to health centres. “If someone looks for information about ‘Riyan Consultancy’ on the net, it is not available. The administration should have thoroughly examined the ‘Make in India’ manufacturing certificate, its income tax returns, GST documents, and certificates given by chattered accountants,” Sahu said. Efforts were made to contact Barik but calls to his phone went unanswered.
