The Musi beautification project has landed in a web of allegations and confusion, exposing inconsistencies in the Revanth government’s approach. From demolitions to discrepancies in the Detailed Project Report (DPR), estimated costs, and dealings with consultants, the government’s actions have raised eyebrows at every stage. Recent revelations in the Telangana Legislative Council by MLC Kavitha have further highlighted alleged discrepancies.
The controversy began with conflicting announcements about the project’s estimated costs. During the Lok Sabha election campaign in Bhongir, CM Revanth Reddy pegged the project at Rs. 50,000 crore. Shortly after, State Tourism Minister Jupally Krishna Rao claimed it would cost s. 71,000 crore. By July, the figure had escalated to Rs. 1.5 lakh crore during the inauguration of the Gopanapalli Flyover. Such wildly varying estimates have fueled doubts about the government’s transparency and intent.
The confusion spilled into the Assembly during the budget session in July, where Deputy Chief Minister Bhatti Vikramarka announced the DPR for the Musi project was ready. However, IT and Legislative Affairs Minister Sridhar Babu contradicted this, stating the DPR was still in its preliminary stages and that funds would be disbursed in phases.
The handling of tenders for the Musi project’s DPR has also come under scrutiny. In June, MRDCL (Musi Riverfront Development Corporation Limited) invited bids, eventually selecting Sai Consultancy as L-1 on July 5. However, no official announcement followed.
Instead, the government canceled the tenders, citing technical reasons, and reissued them. This time, the Meinhardt, a Singapore Private Limited consortium was awarded the project for Rs. 161 crore. The abrupt cancellation and reissuance of tenders have raised suspicions of irregularities.
It is reported that the government submitted a Preliminary Project Report (PPR) to the World Bank on September 19, seeking a loan of Rs. 4,100 crore. The PPR included claims that the DPR was ready, contradicting earlier government statements. On October 17, CM Revanth Reddy denied the existence of a DPR, further muddling the narrative.
The government’s actions on the ground also paint a troubling picture. As part of the beautification project, 175 houses belonging to underprivileged families were demolished. Despite these measures, the government continued to provide contradictory information in official statements. While admitting the DPR was included in the PPR to the World Bank, the government simultaneously announced a new consultant for DPR preparation at Rs. 161 crore.
These inconsistencies, coupled with shifting narratives and hasty decisions, have fueled suspicions that the Musi beautification project may serve interests beyond public welfare.