Raising a point of order under subject number 59 relating to the Chalo bus operational agreements and associated mobile application, committee member Sunil Ganacharya, representing the Bharatiya Janata Party Mumbai Workers’ Front, questioned the structure, execution, and financial transparency of the dual contracts under which the private company operates buses bearing the BEST logo and manages the ticketing platform.
Ganacharya alleged that the company is engaged in two separate contractual arrangements, one concerning bus operations under the BEST branding and the other involving the digital ticketing application, and sought comprehensive data from the undertaking regarding compliance with contractual provisions.
He specifically questioned the revenue-sharing mechanism, stating that the agreement mandates the private company to share 1.5 percent of its revenue along with a 2.5 percent share of BEST’s investment. He asked how much money had been transferred to BEST from the commencement of the contract up to March 2026.
He further sought clarification on the total number of buses included under the contract, the duration of their deployment, route details, operational timelines, parking locations, and their current status within the fleet since induction.
Ganacharya also raised concerns regarding the financial burden borne by BEST for obtaining stage carriage permits for the buses. He demanded details of the total expenditure incurred up to March 2026, the entity in whose name the permits were issued, the number of active permits, and the validity dates of each fitness certificate.
He questioned whether all buses under the agreement are electric vehicles, and sought details regarding investment in charging infrastructure, including the depots where charging stations have been installed, the number of buses currently operational, and their technical and operational condition.
Referring to contractual obligations, he noted that under clause 4.1 of the agreement, BEST was required to invest ₹50 lakh in the first 100 electric buses. He asked whether this investment had been made, how the funds were raised, whether any loans were taken, and how such transactions were reflected in BEST’s budget documents. He also sought details of any bank guarantees issued by BEST in favour of the private company.
Additional concerns were raised regarding subsidies provided under electric bus guidelines, fare structures for passengers using Chalo buses, and the accounting mechanisms governing revenue collection and distribution.
Ganacharya further alleged that for the first six months of operations, the private company failed to deposit any revenue with BEST despite using its branding, bus stops, and passenger base.
He also sought clarification on the status of advertising revenue generated through the operations, and indicated that further details regarding National Common Mobility Card integration and agreements related to ticketing machines would be addressed in the subsequent committee meeting.
Following the discussion, BEST Committee Chairperson Trushna Vishwasrao directed the administration to compile and present the requested details and formally concluded the proceedings.
About The Author
.jpg)
1.jpg)
Comment List