Aamir Lashari
RAWALPINDI: A concrete road constructed under the Chief Minister’s District SDGs Programme at a cost of around Rs50 million has raised serious questions after a fresh rehabilitation and improvement scheme worth Rs151.646 million was approved for the same road less than a year after its inauguration.
The Bhatta Chowk–Grave Yard Chowk road was inaugurated in May 2025 by NA-55 MNA Malik Abrar Ahmed and PP-14 MPA Malik Iftikhar Ahmed as a concrete road under the CM District SDGs Programme.
However, the Highway Division Rawalpindi subsequently undertook a scheme titled “Improvement/Rehabilitation of Road Bhatta Chowk to Grave Yard Chowk”, with an estimated cost of Rs151.646 million. The scheme was approved on January 8, 2026, raising questions over why a road inaugurated as a newly constructed concrete road in May 2025 required rehabilitation and improvement worth more than Rs150 million within such a short period.
The development raises a fundamental question: Had the road deteriorated so badly within months of its inauguration that rehabilitation became necessary, or did the new scheme include works already executed under the earlier project?
The maintenance and defects liability period of the original contract also warrants scrutiny. If the contractor was bound by a maintenance/defects liability period, why was a fresh public-funded rehabilitation scheme required during or shortly after that period? If no such provision was included in the contract, why was a newly constructed road awarded without adequate contractual safeguards for defects and maintenance?
The financial disparity is particularly striking: the original concrete road reportedly cost around Rs50 million, while the subsequent rehabilitation and improvement scheme is estimated at Rs151.646 million—roughly three times the original cost. What additional works could justify such a steep increase? A comparison of the two projects’ BOQs, quantities and scope of work is therefore crucial to determine whether any works have been duplicated.
Questions also arise over the required RCB NOC. Since the road falls within the Rawalpindi Cantonment Board area, did the Highway Division obtain the requisite NOC/approval before undertaking the work? If not, why was the project executed without it?
The absence of the project’s bid evaluation report from the public domain adds to the concerns, raising questions about the bidding process, participating firms, evaluation and award of the contract.
The matter assumes added significance amid Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif’s anti-corruption campaign and stated zero-tolerance policy against corruption and misuse of public funds. The apparent overlap and extraordinary difference in expenditure warrant an independent inquiry to establish whether the 2026 scheme was technically justified, whether any work was duplicated, whether the original contractor’s maintenance obligations were bypassed, and whether public funds were unnecessarily committed to the same road twice.
The inquiry should also examine the role of officials involved in the planning, approval, tendering, execution and certification of both projects, particularly if documentary evidence establishes duplication or avoidable expenditure.
The responsible officials of Highway Division Rawalpindi were repeatedly contacted for their official version on the issues raised in this report. However, no response was received till the filing of this report.
Leave a Reply