Arvind Kejriwal’s bungalow facelift cost Rs 33.6cr, 342% above estimate, says CAG report; Rs 18.8cr spent on ‘ornamental’ items | Delhi News

Read more: 4x cost hike, Rs 18.9cr on extra items, flawed bidding: What CAG revealed in Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘Sheesh Mahal’ facelift costThe 6, Flagstaff Road bungalow was where Kejriwal lived as CM from 2015 to 2024. After allegations of corruption, BJP termed the house “Sheesh Mahal” to hit out at alleged corruption of AAP and its national convener.

‘PWD used 1-yr-old rates, raised them by 50%’‘Sheesh Mahal’ became one of the main issues of BJP ahead of the election in Feb 2025 that led to upstaging AAP and removing it from power in Delhi after a decade.According to the findings, Public Works Department (PWD) adopted restricted tendering in multiple stages of the project without adequate justification. In the case of consultancy services, no basis was made available for the selection of three firms invited for bidding. Additionally, while calculating the justified cost, PWD used one-year-old rates and increased them by 50%, resulting in higher estimated costs.During execution, five contractors were shortlisted on the grounds of financial capacity and experience in similar works in VIP areas. However, scrutiny revealed that only one contractor met the stated criteria, raising concerns over the arbitrariness of the selection process.The scope of work also saw significant changes during execution. The built-up area increased from 1,397 sq m to 1,905 sq m a rise of 36%. Alongside this, several items of superior specifications, artistic and antique elements, and ornamental works were introduced, it read. The report notes that Rs 18.8 crore was incurred on such extra items, executed beyond prescribed limits, without recorded justification.To accommodate these additions, preliminary estimates were revised four times. Work amounting to Rs 25.8 crore under subsequent estimates was executed through the existing contractor without exploring fresh tendering options, thereby limiting competitive rates, it said. In another instance, approval for the fifth revised estimate amounting to Rs 9.3 crore was issued more than two months after the completion of the work, resulting in the creation of liability without prior approval.The second project concerning the Staff Block and Camp Office was awarded at Rs 16.5 crore against an estimated cost of Rs 18.4 crore and was also executed through restricted tendering. However, records explaining the reasons for adopting this method were not made available.Out of Rs 19.8 crore sanctioned for the Staff Block and Camp Office, funds were diverted to other works. The Staff Block itself was not constructed, while seven servant quarters were built at a different location unrelated to the original project.

Further, the Camp Office was altered from a permanent structure to a semi-permanent one, rendering the original approvals and estimates inconsistent with the work executed. The report states that only the raw structure of the Camp Office was completed, as funds were exhausted, and the work was eventually foreclosed in June 2023.