Ramesh Chennithala alleges massive irregularities in Anert solar projects, demands audit and probe by Assembly panel
Mr. Chennithala has demanded a forensic audit of Anert's finances over the past five years and a simultaneous probe by a committee of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which he said were essential to unearth the corruption.
Irregularities were rampant in the solar projects implemented by Anert for the fully centrally-funded Thiruvananthapuram Smart City project, he said. He cited instances where price differences of as much as 50% have occurred in the implementation of solar power projects of comparable capacity through different private firms.
While it cost ₹38.39 lakh for implementing a 60 kW solar project at the Directorate of Technical Education, a 60 kW project implemented eight months later at the Institute of Land and Disaster Management cost only ₹25.2 lakh, a difference of ₹13.19 lakh, he alleged. Similarly, a 50 kW project was implemented at the Public Works Department at Vikas Bhavan at a cost of ₹33.31 lakh. But a 50 kW system deployed at the Directorate of Backward Classes cost only ₹19.06 lakh, the difference ₹14.25 lakh. Anert has implemented 514 projects over the past two years for the Smart City project, Mr. Chennithala said.
These financial discrepancies are also clearly visible in the implementation of the installation of solar pumps under the PM KUSUM scheme, Mr. Chennithala said. While a 10 kW solar plant was installed at the Family Health Centre, Vizhinjam with a guarantee period of ten years, at a cost of ₹4.99 lakh, a 10 kW solar rooftop model under PM KUSUM costs ₹7.13 lakh. In the second instance, the warranty is for seven years.
Irregularities in appointments
Mr. Chennithala also alleged irregularities in certain appointments linked to Anert. A former executive assistant of Anert CEO Narendra Nath Veluri was employed by a major consultant of Anert at a very high salary, but was reassigned to Anert on deputation the very next day. Presenting documents, Mr. Chennithala said that the officer had left Anert on April 4, 2025, but was deployed as part of the consultant's team in Anert on April 5, which he claimed was highly unethical and suspicious.
Mr. Chennithala has accused Electricity Minister K. Krishnankutty and the Anert CEO of having a hand in the irregularities. Mr. Chennithala has demanded a clarification from the Minister on his allegations.
Mr. Krishnankutty was not available for comment on Mr. Chennithala's charges.
Earlier this month, Mr. Chennithala had demanded an investigation into the alleged irregularities in the ₹240 crore tender for the installation of solar pumps under the PM Kusum scheme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BRS flays Cong for comprising State's interest
Former Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao has accused the Congress government led by Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy of compromising the interests of Telangana and misleading its people with regard to river water issues. At a press conference here on Wednesday, Mr. Rao said the words and actions of Mr. Revanth Reddy are contradictory. He noted that the CM had hinted that he would boycott the meeting in New Delhi if Andhra Pradesh's Banakacherla project was discussed. 'Why did he rush to Delhi at midnight. What prompted this sudden trip? What secret understanding was reached in the dead of night?, he questioned. He pointed out that the CM had falsely claimed that Banakacherla was not on the agenda. In reality, it was the first item on the agenda. While Andhra Pradesh Minister Nimmala Ramanaidu confirmed discussions on Banakacherla and the formation of a committee, Mr. Revanth Reddy denied any such discussion. 'Is this the level of honesty expected from a Chief Minister?,' he wondered. Mr. Rao pointed out that Central Water Commission, GRMB, and the Polavaram Project Authority had all rejected the pre-feasibility report for Banakacherla. 'These statutory bodies, created through Parliament, denied approvals. How then did the Centre convene this meeting? Why did Revanth agree to a committee? His actions are nothing short of signing a death warrant for Telangana,' Mr. Rao said. On telemetry, he clarified that installations up to Pothireddypadu were already set up during the BRS tenure and BRS had proposed similar arrangements at all projects. He criticised the move to shift the KRMB office from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, calling it a betrayal.
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BJP dares Congress to show commitment to oppressed sections by declaring Mallikarjun Kharge as PM candidate
Even as the AICC OBC Advisory Council meeting was held in Bengaluru, the Opposition BJP has questioned the commitment of the Congress and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to the welfare of the oppressed sections and challenged the party to declare its president and Dalit leader Mallikarjun Kharge as its prime ministerial candidate. 'If the Congress really cares about the oppressed communities, it should declare Mallikarjun Kharge as its prime ministerial candidate. But it will not. Because its top leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi will never accept it,' Mr. Vijayendra said at a press conference in Bengaluru. Ridiculing Mr. Siddaramaiah, Mr. Vijayendra said, 'He calls himself the champion of minorities, backward classes, and Dalits (AHINDA). He boasted about tabling the Kantharaj commission report in the State Cabinet. But after a phone call from Delhi and Rahul Gandhi's directions, the report, which cost ₹165 crore to prepare, was thrown into the dustbin.' Pointing out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi too hailed from a backward community, he said, 'Unlike Mr. Siddaramaiah, who keeps claiming to be a backward class leader, Mr. Modi never played identity politics but instead promoted the 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas' motto'. He alleged that the OBC outreach and emotional appeals by Mr. Siddaramaiah and the AICC were merely due to the approaching Bihar Assembly elections.
Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra special public security bill
The Congress central leadership has sought a reply from the Maharashtra Legislative Party as to how it allowed the passing of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill without opposition. The Congress party came under criticism after it neither protested, nor submitted a dissenting note in the Legislative Assembly against the bill, despite its leadership voicing opposition to it. 'The All-India Congress Committee had time and again discussed the need to oppose (the bill), and the issue was discussed at the highest level. A clear message was conveyed in this regard to the Maharashtra Pradesh Committee,' said a letter sent by Maharashtra Congress chief Harshavardhan Sapkal. Two days ago, Sapkal, on the instructions of Maharashtra Congress in-charge Ramesh Chennithala, wrote to Congress Legislative Party leader Vijay Wadettiwar, group leader in the Legislative Council Satej Patil, and party chief whip Amin Patel. 'A detailed explanation be submitted (to the AICC) on the events (when the bill was passed),' it said, adding that an explanation of the party's stand taken within the legislature and the reasons behind it should be submitted at the earliest. Sources within the Congress told The Indian Express that the high command has taken the incident of the peaceful passage of the bill seriously and hence a detailed report is being sought. According to sources, the party high command was unhappy after the bill had a smooth passage and nobody except one MLA from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) registered opposition to it. Faced with backlash, the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) walked out of the Legislative Council the next day, registering protest. The bill was sent to the Joint Scrutiny Committee comprising 25 members from the Legislative Assembly and Council. As per the rules, the members of the committee cannot participate in the discussion unless they submit a dissent note. Vijay Wadettiwar, Nana Patole and Satej Patil were members of the committee from the Congress.
