The Rs. 699 crores contract awarded by CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation) to a marketing agency for the sale of 67 thousand houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana across Navi Mumbai has become a subject of controversy. Recent revelations in the Nagpur session have raised concerns about potential misinformation provided by CIDCO to the government.

Despite the agency's appointment over the past 18 months, CIDCO has not initiated any advertisements for house sales, raising questions about the activities related to the 41,000 houses supposedly under their purview. Additionally, CIDCO's payment of Rs. 128 crores to the agency without any house sales has sparked ambiguity and scrutiny regarding the objectives of the deal.

CIDCO's responses to questioning during the Nagpur session have been criticized as evasive and misleading. Information from RTI applications indicates concerns about the agency's eligibility for the contract, fuelling suspicions of malpractice involving officials and political figures and hindering a thorough investigation into the Rs. 128 crore controversy.

Criticism has been directed at CIDCO's General Manager (Housing) Faiyaz Khan for his reluctance to appoint an inquiry committee, especially given his prior involvement in selecting the agency. Activists argue that this decision aims to divert attention from a potential inquiry into the matter.

In response to queries raised by BJP MLA Amit Satam, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde disclosed that the agency had submitted details for the sale of 41,025 houses instead of the stipulated 67,000. He mentioned disbursing Rs. 128 crores, only 28% of the contract value, based on evaluation committee recommendations. However, concerns persist about the agency's lack of experience in house sales and its compliance with Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, given its establishment in 2018 with a nominal share capital of Rs. 1 crore.

The controversy surrounding CIDCO's house sale contract has prompted demands from social organizations for a comprehensive investigation into the entire deal. Allegations of misinformation and potential discrepancies in the contract's execution have raised pertinent questions, urging a thorough probe into the matter.