Kalmadi's Organising Committee influenced big purchase decisions

Suresh Kalmadi's claim of innocence is largely based on the fact that the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee (OC) has had a budget of only Rs 1,600 crore, while the bulk of the expenditure on the Games was made by agencies of the Central and Delhi government agencies such as MCD, DDA, PWD, CPWD, NDMC and RITES.

However, documents with TOI show that even if the OC did not spend the money itself, it did its best to influence the purchase decisions of the other agencies on most big-ticket expenditures. The OC made recommendations of brands and companies, and not necessarily of the very best in the business.

It is significant that in its recommendations, the OC omitted the names of several top international brands that have been used in the Olympics or for other international sporting events. Experts who have seen the recommendations describe it as ``highly discretionary''. Some of the companies left out tried to present their case but were blocked off.

The whole things was done in a manner to indicate that the Kalmadi-led OC sought to benefit certain companies on purchases where it was not directly involved. The selective recommendations of brands and companies was known to the brass of the sports ministry, the urban development ministry and Sports Authority of India, and they tried to resist but were bamboozled by Kalmadi's team of ``powerful'' officials.

The OC's recommendations include companies and brands for surfaces, turfs and floors for the various venues under construction. ``Recommendation'' is perhaps a misnomer because the OC's list became binding on all the executing agencies.

The competition, training and warm-up venues are being built by the DDA, CPWD, the Delhi government and others. It's learnt that despite opposition from most of the executing agencies, they had to follow the OC's order in the construction of the 18 competition venues, costing around Rs 3,500 crore.

According to norms, the OC is expected to lay down the specifications for overlays, surfaces and turfs, but not make leading suggestions of brands and companies. Instead of specifications, the agencies were provided with lists of specific brands, one government source said.

While agencies like CPWD and DDA are being blamed for delays in finishing Games venues, officials say the OC kept delaying giving the specifications and finally gave a list of companies and brands in July 2008 which was again modified by the OC in August 2008.

Interestingly, the Games committee suggested only three brands ^ Conica, Polytan and Rekortan for synthetic surfaces for track and field, but omitted the brand that was used in the Olympics. For badminton only Yonex's name was given, and for table tennis two names, while many well known international brands were kept out.

In fact, the government was dragged to the High Court by one supplier of hockey synthetic surface who was kept out of the OCs list.

"Before coming to us the list went through top officials of Sports Ministry, SAI and Urban Development Ministry, but we don't know why they succumbed to the OC's pressure,'' an official of an agency constructing stadia told TOI. ``We are blamed for the delay, but we were ready with the construction work and waited for OC's specification for surfaces and flooring which come very late,'' he added.

In the 267 athletic facilities around the world certified by the International Association of Athletics Federations, at least 20 different surfaces are used. At least 8-10 of these surfaces are well known in India among those engaged in the business, points out a leading supplier of artificial sports surfaces. Still, the OC chose to recommend just three of them.

An official with Mondo, the Italian firm that has regularly supplied to Olympics and international meets, said they never received any reply from the OC to their expression of interest. Mondo supplied to the Beijing Olympics, and is supplying to the London Olympics. ``We visited Delhi several times, but we were never told the reason for keeping us out of the competition. Mr Kalmadi was never available, so we met Dr Bhanot and explained, but with no result,'' he said.