When the head of a public project is forced to go on leave and the project’s fate seems trapped in uncertainty, the taxpayer should, at least, be told what’s happening. But the shipping secretary disagrees with this basic need for transparency in government decisions as we can see in the case of the Adams Bridge project.
So, we can only wonder if the political build-up against the project is a coincidence. Or, go by the unofficial reasoning, as reported in Mint on 3 August, that the shipping minister was unhappy with the CEO’s unrealistic cost and returns projections. But then officials in several other public projects should, arguably, face similar “punishments”! Besides, would it not be the government’s, rather than one individual’s, failure in due diligence on a project costing thousands of crores? If returns are now found to have been overestimated, how did the ministry approve the numbers in the first place?