TO ALL BENEFICIARIES OF CHENNAI (PHASE II) HOUSING SCHEMES
Update dated 22-08-2012
Due to some exigencies of works, Jt. Secretary (Housing) will not be able to attend the meeting with beneficiaries of Chennai (Phase II) Project. The meeting will be held by CEO/CGEWHO, along with all concerned officials on 23/8/2012 at 1400 Hrs
22/8/2012
Source: http://www.cgewho.nic.in/js.pdf
On 23/8/2012 at 1300 Hrs. Joint Secretary (Housing) intends to meet the beneficiaries of Chennai (Phase II) Project at the Project Site. In the meeting all the concerned officials shall remain present. All beneficiaries, specially the ones, who have been raising grievances and writing frequently to the ministry/ CGEWHO, are hereby informed about the above visit.
Source: http://www.cgewho.nic.in [Click here]
Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.
Subscribe to Central Government Employee News & Tools by Email [Click Here]
Follow us: Twitter [click here] | Facebook [click here] | Google+ [click here]
Admin
COMMENTS
Please do visit
CGEWHO Jaipur Phase II Beneficiaries/Allottees full support the CGEWHO Chennai Phase II Beneficiaries/Allottees in their just fight with the M/o UD, M/o HUPA, GoI & CGEWHO; authorities. Pl. contact me at .
CGEWHO Jaipur
The implementation / Construction of jaipur phase II has also got delayed by more than a year & a half or so, due to various reasons / Factors, both controllable as well as uncontrollable. All these factors & reasons have contributed to the stagnant real estate property prices in the area which have not appreciated during last couple of years or four years since the jaipur phase II was conceptualised & launched.
In this backdrop, it is very humbly requested to the central govt. Authorities at the highest level in the M/O hupa through the office of the ceo, cgewho to take up the matter at the highest level (by writing to them) with the state government (government of rajasthan) authorities namely the ministry of urban development & housing (udh) of the state government of rajasthan (gor); so that they can issue directives / Directions / Orders to initiate immediate necessary corrective measures, take action & start implementing the plan of central spine at jagatpura & other urban CIVIC infrastructure development, amenities, facilities, services, proper public transport facility/Service; etc. By the urban CIVIC agencies concerned, viz. The jda, jmc, et al, etcetra. They can get funding for this project under the central govt.'s jnnurm (jawaharlal nehru national urban renewal mission) also undergoing implementation in jaipur city.
Waiting for your urgent intervention in the matter at the earliest.
Delay & escalation is the responsibility of cgewho & contractor (contracting firm: rbpl) and not beneficiaries. Then why the beneficiaries/Allottees are being penalised?
The implementation / Construction of Jaipur phase II has also got delayed by more than a year & a half or so, due to various reasons / Factors, both controllable as well as uncontrollable. All these factors & reasons have contributed to the stagnant real estate property prices in the area which have not appreciated during last couple of years or four years since the jaipur phase II was conceptualised & launched.
In this backdrop, it is very humbly requested to the central govt. Authorities at the highest level in the M/O hupa through the office of the ceo, cgewho to take up the matter at the highest level (by writing to them) with the state government (government of rajasthan) authorities namely the ministry of urban development & housing (udh) of the state government of rajasthan (gor); so that they can issue directives / Directions / Orders to initiate immediate necessary corrective measures, take action & start implementing the plan of central spine at jagatpura & other urban CIVIC infrastructure development, amenities, facilities, services, proper public transport facility/Service; etc. By the urban CIVIC agencies concerned, viz. The jda, jmc, et al, etcetra. They can get funding for this project under the central govt.'s jnnurm (jawaharlal nehru national urban renewal mission) also undergoing implementation in jaipur city.
Waiting for your urgent intervention in the matter at the earliest.
Delay & escalation is the responsibility of cgewho & contractor (contracting firm: rbpl) and not beneficiaries. Then why the beneficiaries/Allottees are being penalised?
The delay in implementation of 47 kms long ring road around the jaipur city is a major stumbling block in accelerated development of the jagatpura area/Region (off mahal road) of the city wherein this project of cgewho, I.E. Kendriya vihar II falls/Lies. The ring road around jaipur would connect this location of cgewho's kendriya vihar II jaipur through the mahal road to the other major locations of jaipur city bringing/Connection it to the mainstream of jaipur city including the airport terminal I, terminal II, jaipur jn. Main railway station, gandhinagar, durgapura & jagatpura satellite railway stations, main bus station cbs sindhi camp, satellite bus stations at narayan singh circle (lal niwas) & durgapura; et al, etcetra. The ring road would also make the area / Location (sector 37, jagatpura; jaipur 302 025) accessible / Connected through the facility / Services of public transport (buses/Autorickshaws/Tempos/Vikram) with the rest / Heart of the jaipur city / Town.
Issues of allottees/Beneficiaries of cgewho's jaipur phase II before M/O hupa, goi (president, gb / Gc) / Cgewho
01. Change of location of plot from corner plot to inside plot.
02. Ht line on 160’ road facing entrance.
03. Anomaly in the date of the project commencement.
04. Willful delay in the constitution of project monitoring committee (pmc).
05. Delay in completion by around 1.5 years.
06. Escalation in cost by around 20-25%.
07. Charges in the name of covered car parking @ inr 180000/- Not in original scheme (reportedly being withdrawn/Waived in cgewho's chennai (phase-II) housing scheme).
08. Delay & escalation is responsibility of cgewho & contactor and not beneficiaries. Then why beneficiaries are being penalised?
09. Burden/Liability of cost of unsold/Vacant/Unsubscribed du’s / Flats: total 572 dus (a 22, b 220, C 242, D 88) are being constructed but 108 dus are vacant/Unsubscribed/Unsold (b: 43, C: 53, D: 12). That is the cost of unsubscribed/Vacant/Unallotted 108 du’s/Flats is also being funded/Shouldered by the existing 464 beneficiaries.
10. Lack of development: urban CIVIC infrastructure, amenities, facilities & services by CIVIC authorities (M/O udh, gor, jda, jmc) around cgewho jaipur phase II (I.E. Kendriya vihar II) at sector 37, off mahal road, shri kishanpura, jagatpura; jaipur 302 025
11. Diversion of funds to other projects/Schemes at other places of cgewho from the cgewho's jaipur II project scheme.
An earlier representation addressed to ceo, cgewho issued in june 2011 by the president, cgewho jaipur phase II beneficiaries/Allottees association; which was ignored & went unreplied; is attached/Enclosed herewith as annexure 16.
In the light of the above mentioned facts we believe that honourable minister will give us an opportunity to get justice. We humbly request that the honourable minister may direct the concerned officers to:
1. Escalation in cost by 20 to 25% be withdrawn or waived or it can be reduced to say maximum 10% for marginal increase in area and for reasons of increase in input or material or labour costs. Cost of the flats has been increased by 20-25% on very flimsy grounds such as fire in Sitapura (5 kms away), strike, rise in wages/input/quality products. To best of my knowledge, in every contract, there is a provision of cost-escalation to the extent of 10-15% for these items. I would like to know whether the same practice was followed while awarding the contract to the builder. If done, then why the cost escalation and if not done, the explanation should be sought from erring officials and responsibility fixed.
2. Covered car parking (ccp) charges at the rate of inr 180000 be waived or cancelled or withdrawn as is reportedly being done in chennai II project of cgewho. I believe, as per recent Court judgements, owner of the society cannot sell the covered parking to the flat owners then how CGEWHO is doing.. this point needs clarification.
3. Corner area, where cgewho project site office is located presently, was originally part of jaipur II as per the "original scheme brochure", shown as "others plot" in "technical brochure" be restored or returned back to cgewho jaipurii. It can be used for common facility say development of a good public park or garden for all the beneficiaries or allottees. Location of plot as shown in the prospectus and the location where the project is being constructed is different. In fact, the corner plot now belongs to the builder of the project: RBPL which shows that there has been some mis-communication either to the beneficiaries or otherwise.
4. The cost of the dwelling unit appears to be more than what is available in the nearby societies. Generally when a project is built on no-profit and no-loss basis, as claimed by CGEWHO, then the cost of the project should be rational.
5. As per CPWD norms, in the event of delay of handing over the project, a penalty of 0.5% per week of the total project cost is imposed on the contractor. We would like to know, whether the same has been followed in this project as well.
6. Confirmation from CGEWHO to the effect that the design and engineering of the structure (CGEWHO Jaipur Phase II Kendriya Vihar II) has taken into consideration the National Building Code 2005, the appropriate BIS Codes and the NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India) guidelines.
Attachments: a/A.
Sd./-
(Manish agarwal)
regn. No.: Jjc0017
general secretary (gs)
for “cgewho jaipur phase II Beneficiaries/Allottees association”
email: [email protected]
9. Lack of development: urban CIVIC infrastructure, amenities, facilities & services by CIVIC authorities (M/O udh, gor, jda, jmc) around cgewho jaipur phase II (I.E. Kendriya vihar II) at sector 37, off mahal road, shri kishanpura, jagatpura; jaipur 302 025: this scheme was announced by cgewho exactly four & a half years back in an upcoming developing new area of jaipur. As per the scheme brochure, the site/Plot at sector 37, off mahal road, jagatpura; jaipur 302 025; is approachable from main city by three roads: 160' road on which the main enterance/Exit of kendriya vihar II lies, 80' road connecting 160' road outside site/Plot to 200' mahal road & 200' mahal road; at a distance of 1/2 km to 1 km from jda central spine; on both sides of which the commercial development was proposed by jda.
The cgewho letter dt. 23/02/2011 also gives withdrawal option to the beneficiaries wherein the amount deposited by the beneficiary/Allottee would be refunded back alongwith interest @ 6.5% p.A. But the cgewho charges interest for delay in payment of instalment as well from new beneficiaries joining late as equalisation charges @ 15% p.A. So the question arises that why this difference in rate of interest being charged from beneficiaries (for delay in payment or from late joiners as equalisation charges) & being given to beneficiaries (who opt to withdraw/Cancel & get refund). It is against principles of natural justice.
6. Covered car parking (ccp) charges: the cgewho letter no. A-509/3 dt. 31/01/2012 is attached herewith as annexure 11. This letter informs that an option of covered car parking space(s) under stilts/Basement are available for allottees at an additional cost of rs. 1,80,000/- Per covered car parking. This was never expected by the beneficiaries that the cgewho would charge anything for providing covered car parking as the beneficiaries/Allottees are already reeling under the unbearable burden of 25% escalation in costs. In the cgewho chennai (phase-II) housing scheme project, the covered car parking charges are reportedly being withdrawn/Waived. Therefore it is requested to the cgewho to withdraw covered car parking charges in the jaipur phase II project as well. The cgewho letter no. A-507/2(II) dt. 29/07/2011 in respect of allotment of car parking & other related relevant issues in respect of cgewho’s chennai (phase-II) housing scheme project is attached/Enclosed herewith as annexure 12. The two wheeler covered parking option was given in case of cgewho pune housing scheme by the cgewho vide letter no. A-502/5/1 dt. 14th june 2011 attached/Enclosed herewith as annexure 13.
4. Unreasonable and unilateral escalation in the cost of unit by 25%: the 25% cost escalation of dwelling unit is based on fallacious argument. We would like to bring the following facts to the kind attention of the hon’ble minister in view of the above:
a) the reasons given by cgewho in its letter dated 23rd february, 2011 (annexure-IV) at “para 3” for cost escalation are exogenous like common wealth games, gujjar reservations etc. The fact of the matter is that the same constructor who has constructed this project of cgewho has also executed another project at the same location. Had the reason quotes by cgewho for 25% escalation in the cost of dwelling unit were genuine, the cost of the private project of the same constructor should have also increase by 25%, which is not the case. These reasons given by cgewho are not correct.
B) cgewho in two different communications (annexure-V) by using the same formula and logic communicated two different set of parameters involved in calculating escalation, which shows that exercise by cgewho for was not done with due diligence
and seriousness and needs a relook.
Meantime, cgewho issued letter no. T-111/13 dt. 23rd feb. 2011, (attached as annexure 8) when the beneficiaries were already busy in depositing the payment of fifth instalment to the cgewho about the delay in completion of project & the increase in costs of du’s/Flats by around 25%. This was a shocking piece of news to the beneficiaries
the meeting for the formation of pmc was scheduled for 28th april 2011 at 3 pm at the project site in jaipur vide cgewho letter vide 24 march 2011, attached herewith as annexure 9. During the general meeting at project site called by cgewho on 24/04/2012, the beneficiaries/Allottees showed their displeasure to cgewho authorities including senior official from M/O hupa, goi; about the delay in formation of pmc more than two years after the decision in the gb/Gc of cgewho meeting to the effect on 24/03/2009. Secondly. As per the original schedule for completion of project, the project is shortly going to be completed by 30th june 2011. Therefore, the beneficiaries/Allotted present at project site in the general meeting called for constitution of pmc decided to boycott the election to pmc. The beneficiaries/Allottees rather raised queries to cgewho / M/O hupa officials present to explain the reasons for change of location of plot, escalation in cost of project, delay in completion of project, what action the cgewho is taking against the contractor, viz. Financial penalty imposed by cgwho on the contractor in terms of the agreement executed/Signed by cgewho with the contracting firm (rbpl) for delay in construction & completion of the project.
The minutes of general meeting held at project site on 28/04/2011 as prepared by the cgewho are attached as annexure 10.
5. Inappropriate and unreasonable exit option given by cgewho to the beneficiaries:
a) exit option was given to beneficiaries at the interest rate of 6.5% per annum. Whereas the cgewho has charged from the same beneficiaries the default rate of 15%. This duality of behaviour is against the laws of natural justice.
B) exit window was opened to the beneficiaries for less then two months (annexure-VI). The fact is that the most beneficiaries are central government employees and are on a transferable job. This time window for exit was too small and represents the lack of opportunity given to the beneficiaries.
Therefore, it is requested that an enhanced and justified exit option to be provided to all the beneficiaries.
Secondly, vide item no. (III) (e), the president, governing council & general body directed to set-up a `committee' to look into the `model/ System' of progressing turnkey projects in cgewho.
But cgewho decided to implement decision of its gb & gc on formation of pmc in respect of jaipur phase II project very late in november 2010 vide their letter dt. 1st nov. 2010 to all beneficiaries, attached as annexure 7. As per this letter, the meeting of the pmc will be held once every six months but the gb & gc meeting of 24th march 2009 had decided for holding meeting of pmc once in a quarter.
3. Willful delay in the constitution of project monitoring committee (pmc): as per the rules, a project monitoring committee (pmc) was to be constituted at the starting of the project (I.E., October, 2008) consisting of the representative of beneficiaries to track the progress, the quality of construction and also to give suggestion, if any. Cgewho has initiated the process of constitution of committee on 01st november, 2010 and called gbm for this purpose on 28th april, 2011 (annexure-III), I.E., After a delay of more than 2 years. This indicates that cgewho was not willing to involve the beneficiaries in the project at the right time.
In the combined general body (gb) & governing council (gc) of cgewho meeting held on 24th march 2009, a decision vide point no. (VII) of the minutes was taken on formation of project monitoring committee (pmc) with two members of the beneficiaries/Allottees & two members from the gc of the cgewho to review progress of project by holding meeting once every quarter.
“Minutes of the combined XVIII general body & XXXXII governing council meeting of cgewho held on 24 mar. 2009 at 1200 noon chaired by ms. Kiran dhingra, president, general body (gb) & governing council (gc), cgewho and secretary M/O housing & urban poverty alleviation”; are attached as annexure 6. The relevant item no. (VII) from the attached/Enclosed minutes is quoted as under:
"VII) a `committee' for each on-going project shall be constituted with 02 (two) members from the allottees and any 02 (two) representative members from the governing council
I.E. From M/O law or M/O finance or M/O personnel or M/O housing & urban poverty alleviation of officers not below dy. Secy level. Member-secretary of the governing council
I.E. Ceo, cgewho will chair such committee meetings. These committees shall meet once in a quarter and shall review the project being implemented. The problem areas, if any, shall be brought before the executive committee & governing council."
2. Anomaly in the date of the project started: cgewho in its communication dated 22nd october, 2008 (call-up notice for 2nd installment), had communicated to beneficiaries that the construction had started on the site and 2nd installment was demanded. In another communication dated 14th june, 2011 (annexure-II), cgewho has communicated to the beneficiaries that the construction at the site started in december, 2008. The reason for this misinformation should be explored.
The cgewho letter dt. 22 oct. 2008 sent to all beneficiaries/Allottees calling for payment of second instalment also informs that the construction has already commenced at the project. Therefore the project completion date as per the 30 months construction period works out to 21st april 2011.
The cgewho letter dt. 02 feb. 2011 sent to all benefiaries/Allottees calling for payment of fifth instalment is attached as annexure 5. This letter mentions that 80% financial progress has been completed including the land cost. With the payment of fifth instalment, 100% payment of original cost amount (I.E. Inr 11.20 lacs for type a (1 bhk), inr 18.00 lacs for type b (2 bhk), 23.50 lacs for type C (3 bhk) & 28.50 lacs for type D (3 bhk with extra servant room) was completed by the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries/Allottees were happy to note the 80% financial progress meaning thereby that the project is on track. They were not aware that just exactly three weeks later (vide cgewho letter dt. 23rd feb. 2011), the beneficiaries/Allottees would come to know about the delay in project completion & escalation in cost of project by around 25%.
In the scheme brochure “part a point # 3: salient features”: the first subpoint is: timely completion of the project, which is later on elaborated as 30 months (2.5 years) from the date of approval of plans by the jaipur development authority (jda).
It is also mentioned in the scheme brochure that a ‘technical brochure” shall be issued on approval of plans by the competent authority, I.E. Jda in this case.
Later on when the “technical brochure” was issued in early 2009, it showed the location plan on the last page. But it showed a changed location, wherein the plot is now an inside L-shaped plot. It is connected to 160 ft. Road by a passage/Way but is not bounded by road from any of the 4 sides. This showed that the plot has shifted from corner plot to inside plot & the empty space in between the road & the plot is shown as “others plot” at “point # 13: site plan & layout plan” in the technical brochure. The technical brochure is attached as annexure 2. This plot is now under the possession of the contracting firm: rbpl, which the contractor is going to use for commercial purposes. As this “others plot” also belongs to cgewho as per the original scheme brochure site location/Layout plan/Map, therefore this area should be restored back to cgewho & can be used for common facilities, viz. Say development of a good public park for kendriya vihar II beneficiaries/Allottees.
The plan approval letter issued by jda on 27/08/2008 to mr. Shabbir khan, renaissance buildhome private limited (rbpl), the contracting firm appointed by cgewho is attached as annexure 3. This letter approves the plan/Map for housing project of cgewho in the name of ashadeep green orchid. It is to be mentioned here that the cgewho couldn’t get the land directly from the jda & so had to award the project to rbpl (contracting firm) on turnkey basis since they held the land title from the jda. It is pertinent to mention here that the cgewho scheme name is kendriya vihar II jaipur and not ashadeep green orchid as mentioned in jda plan approval letter issued to rbpl. It is to be noted that the cgewho didn’t get the plans approved from jda but the rbpl (contracting firm appointed by jda) got the plan approved from jda in the name of ashadeep green orchid in whose name they were going to construct this housing project had the cgewho not approached them through the tendering process. The rbpl’s similar multistoried group housing scheme “ashadeep green avenue” is just 500 M away from the cgewho’s project, which is already complete & fully operational. The jda plan approval letter says that approval is valid till july 2011. Therefore the question arises that since the project/Construction couldn’t be completed till july 2011 (even after lapse of over 30 months from the start of construction in october 2008 as per cgewho letter dt. 22nd oct. 2008 calling for payment of second instalment [annexure 4]), DID the rbpl/Cgewho took any approval for extension of this plan approval letter from the jda.
21st Of August, 2012
cgewho jaipur phase II beneficiaries/Allottees association
Consumer case/Complaint/Public grievance from 469 beneficiaries of Cgewho Jaipur Phase II Housing Scheme Project:
Submitted by: Manish Agarwal General Secretary (GS) For "Cgewho Jaipur Phase II Beneficiaries/Allottees Association"
Category: Government
Complaint against: CGEWHO (Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation) New Delhi
Complaint Number: 77938
Amount loss/claim: Rs. 965,000 (605000 escalation + 360000 parking CCP charges)
Support Manish Agarwal General Secretary (GS) For "Cgewho Jaipur Phase II Beneficiaries/Allottees Association" Click:
Consumer Case/Complaint/Public Grievance from 469 beneficiaries/Allottees of jaipur phase II housing scheme of cgewho (autonomous body under M/O ud, goi & M/O hupa, goi), new delhi
Sub.: Application for redressal of public grievance in respect of jaipur phase II housing scheme project of cgewho from the “cgewho jaipur phase II beneficiaries/Allottees association” and also as a consumer affairs (CA) issue/Matter