Discrepancies suspected in SMAM implementation
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, February 01 2021: Several quarters have raised strong suspicion of discrepancies in the process of implementing the Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanisation (SMAM).

Taking due note of the fact that India is largely an agricultural country, SMAM was launched to promote use of modern machinery and equipment in agricultural activities so as to enhance agricultural productivity and alleviate farmers' economic status.

Subsidies ranging from 40 per cent to 80 per cent are given to farmers or groups of farmers under SMAM when they purchase agricultural equipment.

When a farmer purchases a tractor costing Rs 10 lakh, he is given a subsidy of Rs three lakh.

Likewise, when a group of farmers take up a project of Rs 25 lakh, the group is given a subsidy of Rs 10 lakh under SMAM.

Agriculture Department published a list of beneficiaries for providing subsidies under SMAM for the period 2020-21 a few days back.

As there were many complaints of discrepancies in the process of implementing the mission including selection of beneficiaries, The Sangai Express carried out an independent investigation and many lapses were discovered.

Following publication of a list of beneficiaries for second instalment, Agriculture Director issued a notification on February 22 .

Both the list of beneficiaries and the notification were uploaded in the department's website.

The list of beneficiaries includes 383 individual farmers and 61 group of farmers.

Of the 383 individual farmers, 12 applied for tractors, 51 for power tillers, 19 for reapers, 17 for harvesters/thrashers, 43 for rotavators, 14 for levellers, 11 for diggers, 16 for weeders, 84 for water pumps, 112 for mini rice mills, one for seed drum and three for sprayers.

The 14-page list of beneficiaries uploaded in the department's website did not have signature of any official on any of the page when it was accessed on Tuesday.

Names of firms/dealers from which agricultural equipment would be purchased are not given against the applications submitted by individual farmers and groups of farmers.

However, when individual farmers and groups of farmers submitted their applications, rate quotations of firms/dealers from which they intended to purchase equipment were attached.

On the other hand, notification issued by the Agriculture Director on February 22 specified that beneficiaries should purchase agricultural equipment from seven firms/dealers namely; M/S Nganbi Motor, EDC (Agro Division), HR Agency, East India Machines Company, M/S Saikhom Tractor Sales and Services Centre, M/S Waiagrim and M/S Ravi Motor.

It also mentioned that no subsidy would be given on agricultural equipment purchased from MI Tractors & Machineries and Jamunalal Mangilal & Company for these firms/dealers are not on board the Central DBT portal.

The notification also directed all beneficiaries to submit money receipt, tax invoice etc for purchasing equipment by March 3.However, certain anomalies or contradictions were detected when the Central DBT portal was checked.

As per information given in the Central DBT portal, no one can purchase tractors from M/S Waiagrim.

According to the specifications given in the Central DBT portal, tractors (four wheel driven) should be purchased from only East India Machines Company, HR Agency, MI Tractors & Machineries and Nganbi Motors while (two wheel driven) should be purchased from East India Machines Company, HR Agency and M/S Saikhom Tractors Sales & Services Centre.

Power tillers should be purchased from East India Machines Company, Jamunalal Mangilal & Company and Nganbi Motors.

Crop reapers should be published from East India Machines Company, Nganbi Motors and Waiagrim.

Moreover, the Central DBT portal gives names of firms/dealers chosen for purchasing agricultural equipment by beneficiaries when they submitted their applications.

SMAM guidelines say that preference should be given to firms/dealers located within the State which possess certificates issued by manufacturing companies of agricultural equipment.

But many quarters have raised suspicion that there may be firms/dealers among the seven listed in the notification issued by the Agriculture Director on February 22 which do not possess dealer licences issued by manufacturing companies.

As such, the department needs to verify each of the seven dealers.

Nonetheless, the Agriculture Director informed that beneficiaries and purchase of equipment by beneficiaries would be verified twice.

The Director further said that no subsidy would be given if any applicant submitted rate quotations of firms/dealers which do not have agricultural equipment in their stores.

Comment