July 07, 2006	Friday	Jumadi-ul-Sani 10, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

LAHORE, July 6: The Wapda authorities have so far not taken any action against its senior officials allegedly involved in the scam of the Wapda Farm Housing Scheme, which was abandoned two months ago on the intervention of the authority’s chairman, Tariq Hamid.

Some of the authority’s top officials have been accused of being involved in illegal collection of billions of rupees from applicants (Wapda employees as well as other individuals sponsored by the former) even before the registration of the scheme under the law.

The scheme was abandoned in mid-May and the money of the applicants was returned (with a paltry interest paid on it) on the intervention of the Wapda chairman after the Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) rejected the application of the sponsors (Wapda’s top officials) for incorporation of a private limited company to undertake the project for failing to put in their equity and fulfil other necessary legal requirements. The chairman is said to have pointed out to the officials involved in the project the illegalities committed in the implementation of the scheme and the collection of money from applicants. But no further action was initiated against the sponsors of the scheme; they were let go scot-free.

According to details of the case, a number of Wapda’s top officials led by its member (power) and GM (admin) launched the Wapda Farm Housing Scheme under an unregistered company — the Wapda Housing Foundation. Plots measuring four, eight, 12 and 16 kanals were offered to Wapda employees and private individuals sponsored by them. The exact location of the scheme was kept a secret from the applicants, saying the disclosure could push up land prices in adjoining areas in case the company required more land in future.

The price of land was fixed at Rs1.4 million for four kanals, Rs2.8 million for eight kanals, Rs4.2 million for 12 kanals and Rs5.6 million for 16 kanals. The Wapda employees were asked to apply by March 11, 2006. They could also sponsor private parties, giving the scheme a commercial touch. A sum of Rs2,700 was charged as non-refundable membership fee.

An applicant told this reporter that “the (unregistered) company had collected over a billion rupees in application fees and 10 per cent as down payment, which was used to purchase the land. The issue is not the amount collected by the sponsors of the scheme, but the legality of the project. How could senior officials of a public institution like Wapda indulge in such an illegal activity, form a company without registering it anywhere, collect the money, use it, and make a profit from it?”

Ironically, the sponsors of the scheme, in order to accord it a legal touch and make the project sound credible, also launched a website in the name of Wapda: www.pakwapda.com. Besides, an email identity, whf@wapda.gov.pk, was also created. The address containing ‘gov.pk’ is exclusively reserved for government web sites. “It is nothing short of duping the applicants into believing that the project was owned by Wapda, despite the fact that it was a private initiative by a few officials,” the applicants said.

Another illegality pointed out by another applicant pertained to the attempt by the sponsors to get the project registered with the SECP as the Wapda Housing Foundation, a private limited company, with seven permanent directors, including the Wapda chairman as the proposed foundation’s Patron-in-Chief, member (power) Muhammad Anwar Khalid as chairman, GM (admin) Brig Muhammad Najam-us-Saqib as president, GM (C&M, power) Khalid Javed as director land, GM (project, North) Brig (retd) Mushtaq Ahmad as director development, DG (finance) Najeeb Tariq as director finance and Lt-Col (retd) Inam Ezad as secretary. The SECP, on its part, asked for personal equity of the sponsors before rejecting the request to register the company.

The sponsors, it is said, wanted to appeal against the SECP decision, but the Wapda chairman intervened, realising the illegality of the entire exercise. He was said to have told the officials to abandon the scheme and return the money to the applicants with the interest made on it.

“In the presence of the Wapda Employee Cooperatives Housing Society, there was no need for launching a new company,” says an official of Wapda.

“Any housing scheme of the authority could easily have become its subsidiary. But the sponsors of the farm housing scheme tried to make a private limited company, seeking permanent directorship for themselves by name. They avoided the established society because it holds elections according to its constitution and elects office-bearers. These sponsors wanted themselves to remain directors for life, thus turning a Wapda project into their personal property,” said an applicant.

“The authority had also sent a letter (secy/wh 6299-6499) to the chief executives of all distribution companies to arrange ‘wide publicity’ for the scheme,” the applicants contend.

“This was done to promote a private company to be owned by some officials of Wapda. The entire exercise was illegal right from the start and those who mattered kept mum, intervening only when illegality became too evident and risked catching the attention of NAB, the courts and the media.

“The land which was contracted for the scheme was later sold to another developer at a hefty profit of Rs250 million,” allege some applicants, who also claim that the profit made on the sale of the land was pocketed by the sponsors.

“The sponsors deny having purchased land for the scheme, but then how did they identify the general area in brochures and other documents?” asks one applicant.

Normally such decisions are take by the authority collectively, not by individual employees. But, in this case, there was no decision by the authority to launch such a farm house foundation. “But some officials tried to manoeuvre the authority by taking advantage of their positions,” the applicants allege.

A detailed questionnaire was sent to the Wapda spokesman, seeking the authority’s official view on the issue and to seek interviews with those accused of wrongdoings.

The authority neither responded to the questions in spite of repeated reminders and phone calls, nor did it allow a meeting with those accused of graft, even after a lapse of 17 days. During the period, time for an interview with the Wapda chairman was conveyed to Dawn three times, but postponed at the eleventh hour.

The applicants have called for an inquiry into the matter and for action against those who allegedly tried to misuse the name of Wapda and the government for personal benefit.