Thiruchirappalli/Thiruvananthapuram: The police have found several loads of Supplyco rice damaged in Kerala floods at a state-of-the-art rice factory in Tamil Nadu equipped to polish and process the grain.
A secret police team from Kerala found at least 100 truck loads of the rice at Sree Palani Murugan Modern Rice mill at Thuriyur, near Thiruchirappalli, alone. More mills are suspected to have stocked the same. The stale rice, which the Kerala High Court termed unfit for even livestock, is polished and processed in these mills and possibly brought back to Kerala under different brand names. The loads that were supposed to go to industrial processing units have actually ended up at rice mills and livestock feed factories in Tamil Nadu.
The rice found at Sree Muruga mill was kept in Supplyco sacks. Some sacks have the names of mills in Perumbavur. The labels clearly say it was procured as paddy by Supplyco in 2017. The Kerala Police swung into action after Manorama reported smuggling of rice to Tamil Nadu. The team was assisted by Tamil Nadu Police too.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday sent a letter to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palanisami requesting him to make sure stale rice does not come back to Kerala. The letter said the rice and paddy were auctioned to Cyrus Traders in Kaladi which however went to a firm in Thiruchirappally and subsequently to Coimbatore.
But the deal smacks of corruption as new information about the auction shows Supplyco favoured a firm that quoted lower rates, resulting in a loss of Rs 3.12 crore to the state exchequer.
The tender for the rice was called in October 2018 from which Supplyco contractors, agents and mill owners were barred. The conditions included rice was not to be used for human or livestock consumption. It was not to be handed over to other dealers. All these terms have been violated.
A total of 14 people responded to the e-tender and offered a good rate. They were invited for a meeting on November 15. Supplyco agreed to an initial rate of Rs 5.05 per kilogram but revised it to 5.23 per kilo the next day. The High Court was informed of it on the 19th. But one of the dealers who offered Rs 5.50 per kilo on November 15 itself was ignored. Supplyco approached the dealer who agreed the rate and asked it to hike it to 5.30 per kilo on December 7, and the final rate fetched Rs 27.62 crore. Had Supplyco gone with the highest bidder, it could have earned Rs 3.12 crore more.
Supplyco CMD MS Jaya said the higher bidder could not be chosen because the tender procedures were completed by then. Special meetings to fix rates after a price fix are in violation of the central vigilance commission’s directions. If it was done to get better rates, the question remains why the highest bidder was not considered even at that stage.
Passing the buck
Everyone involved in the deal seem to be passing the buck citing affidavits. The dealer who bid to move Supplyco’s rice and paddy from the storages have to give an affidavit that says: “This rice shall not be used for human consumption or to make food products of any kind and be used for industrial purposes only. We or the company directors have no direct or indirect links with the mill owners.” Once Supplyco gets this written from the dealer, their responsibility is over.
At the Perumbavur mill, we asked the mill owner who had stocked Supplyco rice: “Will the dealer give this rice to someone who might sell it for human consumption or as livestock feed?” He replied: “No. They are made to give it in writing that it won’t happen.” The ‘way bill’ they give the truck drivers that carry the sacks off too have this warning on it. The dealer’s responsibility ends there.
The fact is most of these trucks ended up in rice mills and cattle feed factories in Tamil Nadu. Barely any went to the destinations mentioned in the bill.
Court order
The High Court direction while sanctioning the deal was clear. The responsibility of making sure the rice is not used for human or animal consumption lies with the Supplyco MD. This was an order from an HC bench that included the chief justice on a PIL it heard on October 24 and November 29. Supplyco cannot shrug off the responsibility.
Supplyco CMD in a presser said action will be taken against the dealer if the agreement is violated. The Commissioner of Food Safety was given the details of the dealer on 2018 December 29 to stop any kind of violation. The DGP and GST Commissioners were intimated. She said Supplyco had followed all regulations in this matter. An offer for Rs 550 per quintal was denied because the procedures were complete by then. One of the tender respondents has approached the court and a plea is pending, she added.
Our questions
1. Why was the Commissioner of Food Safety given information on dealer only on December 29 when the rice had started shipping on December 27?
2. Why was one dealer’s ‘special request’ considered even after High Court’s final list, when two dealers who quoted a higher rate were ignored?
3. How can one dealer’s offer selectively reviewed when many others participated in the e-tender process?
4. Why was the condition that the rice should not be used even for livestock not mentioned in the agreement when an October 24 order clearly states so?
