The Committee recommends the closure of the para. (CIENCIES IN ADMINISTRATION OF GOA REGISTRATIO! As per the Act, the Department is required to ensure registration of gad every person or firm engaged in business related to tourism. Any carrying out tourism related activity without registration was Pusishable with fine. Enquiries in audit revealed that the Department was those operators who are approaching it for the same. Bwever, a comprehensive system for enforcement of t The Department, during oral evidence stated that it ii ‘Sending the Tourist Trade Act and the same is in the fin: The Committee recommends urgent re changing Tourism scenario. : Shor by 20.92% as ag| s though the foreign tourist & Re The actual arrival ofigr: ‘ for he years 2001-05 fell to India wont uPmeubsidiati ‘Sess to Goa Cis Geng the period o! e pete with other Country/States, aggressive ¢ carried out by this Department. We may get The Committee recommends for the closure of the para. NE TE MEASURES FOR ENSURING SAFETY OF TOURISTS (PARA 3.1.8.2) Desths of 241 tourists occurred in the State during 2001-05 due to Sz in the sea. An analysis of the reasons for such high incidence of 10at the State’s beaches revealed that for a total length of 90.5 ‘of beaches used by tourists, the Department had assessed 169 as the actual requirement, against which there were only 77 as of July 2006, of which only nine life guards were regular and “were on contract basis without sufficient training. Further, frequent of lifeguards, lack of adequate system of supervision and life saving equipment such as life jackets, rescue tubes, ropes, “ee kits etc. were responsible for low performance of life guards. the Department was not ensuring that all the necessary life saving were always available with the lifeguards. The services of all the lifeguards on contract basis were terminaféd efect from 10" August 2006 as they resorted to mass strike of Work Se Department stated (December 2006) that the GTDC was entrusted My 2006 with the responsibility of beach safety management ‘The Department in its written reply stated that the Goyernmentiof Gog eegeged the services of M/s. Drishti Special Respoige Senviee* Prigghe eed to undertake the work of development, deployment manag@ient ‘eperation of the water safety patrol with the stai@eof Art f cities in joa in following beach cng Goa as waters of the State of Gi “secee | — Baga, Calangute, Capdglim Sigttétim ‘ind, cit — Velsao, ¢ Utorda, Majorda, BealDMtiny, Colva, Semmabating Benaulim. The Committe: it @vhile outsOurcing may show results in tem, the sam, become ineffeetive in long term unless there is independent ( siipenvise thiersame. ‘The Committee Yherefore recommends formation of such watch dog with adequate power to review the performance on quarterly The Conimittee to be formed should include trade rep resentativesThe State Government enacted the Goa Tourist Places (Protection and ance) Act, 2001 on 05.09.2001 and appointed the Director of m as Competent Authority under the Act to take action to remove the stranded vessel by forfeiting it to the Government as a public Tenders were called by the Director of Tourism in December,2004 for eating and towing away of the vessel. Of the two tenders r: =: of M/s. Crosschem International Ltd. offering 85.41 lal ent was accepted. The work order was issued on 2: ‘the work was to be completed within 110 days (21" i oS ‘Contractor was asked to stop the work from May 2005 and ci rag eas inated in September 2005 after completion of, 8 85 cantor the 2 of th osteahd non- ti lated lecigio was taken down the request of the contyact extension’ of 72 days g monsoon period and without having a definjg§*parallel plan on éto remove ship. x was again awarded to another crores. ‘ee recommends for the closure of the para. IGHER EDI .TION DEPARTMEN’ FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PARA 3.2. RA 3.2.4.1The University had an unspent grant of % 2.84 crores as of March out of which 2 25.94 lakhs were received prior to 2001-02. lidated records for watching utilization of grants have not been The accumulated deficit as of March 2005 amounted to % 7.73 crores, the University provided 2 7.79 crores as depreciation during the 2001-02 to 2004-05, no amount was transferred to the depreciation fund. The surplus of € 67.46 lakhs during 2004-05 was not adjusted st the accumulated deficit but was capitalized as grants from the State t of less intic4pated, her on account of receipt of ee gra versity aAthdrew the Depreciation Reserve Fund % 83. 2001-02 for i set a any amount 2 oa, resulting in nil he closure of the para. NTS GN ACCRUAL BASIS AND NON NTERNAL AUDITORS (PARA 3.2.4.2) jarch 2002) by the Ministry of Finance, Government of nied out by audit (August 2004), the University continued to < (August 2003) a proposal of the University for appointment of uditors and the statute in respect of such appointment was framed University in January 2005, the internal auditors were yet to be Department in its written reply stated that the Government agreed Audit Comments. It was also informed that a practicing CharteredAccountant M/s Vernekar & Company has been appointed as Internal Auditor for the year 2009-2010. In view of the appointment of the Internal Auditor, the Committee recommends the closure of the para. TINUED PAYM. OF SALARY FROM PLAN GRA! (PARA 3.2.4.3) The University utilized the Non Plan funds for meeting recurring expenditure such as pay and allowances, maintenance a other day to day were expenses. The Plan funds were utilized for capita diture and also for pay and allowances of some posts, which were ini eated under plan side of the budget. The Departments Zoology and Biotechnology were created under plan @" in these departments continued under plan side fe veers and salary nd have been. 2 an in which they continued to be paid from the plan funds. s transferred to non plan side at the were created. ‘The Deni its.wri ly anfh = while framing Budget me et id expenditure under Plan and Non-Plan stoppl "eS vis been divided into recurring and f all the Departments has been brought The University operates two separate funds, University/General Fund eed University Grant Commission/Government of India (UGC/GOI) fund. During 2002-03 and 2003-04, UGC/GOI funds along with interest amounting to & 89.98 lakhs and & 11.47 lakhs respectively were credited to University General fund instead of crediting to the UGC/GOI funds as a result of mixing up of funds,The Department in its written reply stated that the strict control is exercised to see that money is not mixed up. Very rarely, inadvertantly, some amounts are deposited in wrong bank accounts. Interest earned on University Grants Commission/Government of India Funds is now credited under a separate head opened for the purpose. Such interest earned is not treated as University income/receipt. In view of the strict control being exercised to avoid the mixing up of the funds, the Committee recommends for the closure the para, It was noticed that while making ments of arbitration award, amount of % 2.87 crores University authorities did not deduct Income Tax of la ie failure of the University, in deducting tax at source afi i account, resulted in violation of In & out {oFnon deduction of TDS on eS “Act which is still prevailing, The Act says that the _ under Section 194(C) not deductable on the payment epartment has proposed to take up the matter with Income Tax. 's and confirm deduction/recovery of relevant Income Tax. The Committee recommends the closure of the para. However, 1 status of recovery may be submitted to the Committee in Action Report. PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF ASSETS NOT CONDUCTED PARA 3.2.4.6)‘The Goa University had assets valued at & 59.83 crores (Buildings —% 34.81 crores, Equipment/ furniture —% 18.06 crores, Books and Periodicals — % 6.76 crores and vehicles ~% 0.20 crores) as on March 2005. Though the Executive Council had fixed (January 2002), the periodicity of 100% physical verification of assets under the possession of University once in three years, and sample verification once in a year, the University did not conduct any physical verification during the last five years. As a result, the value of obsolete, ir-repairable and condemned assets was not assessed and value of such assets continued to reflect in the accounts. The Department in its written reply stated U cs, physical verifications of assets are being done from time to ti ber 2608) that students are seeking thereby decreasing the number of lepartment. The number of students during 2001-02 to epartments of French, Philosophy, Portuguese and Centre ica Studied (CLAS) was less than five. The total expenditure these four depariments was Z 1.66 crores during the period 2001-06. The Department in its written reply stated that the Government agreed it Comments. The Committee desired to know the remedial steps planned by the ity to increase the low student/faculty ratio.During the oral evidence, the representative of the Department stated that at present there are 1200-1250 students and around 125 staff, including contractual staff. Presently the student to staff ratio is good. There are no standard norms as far as the University is concemed, UGC permits to setting up of a department with two lecturers and six faculty members minimum. At present there are seven students studying French. The number is low but we are approaching colleges. The University has also proposed to conduct short term courses, some of which have already started i.e. Portuguese and French. Many students from other States wish to join at the University apply but they cannot be admitted as we have no provision for distance learning education in our Act, this provision is being incorporated in the Act very soon. The Committee recommends for the closure of the, Education and Training Infrastructure (DEIDI) through interactive audio and video com is The University received (November 2 2001), ® grant of & 2.20 crores (Rupees Two crores fro i e Edygation Council, Indira Gandhi National Open Universi 20.00 lakh§-Trom the Department of Space, Government a ct spent & 2.15 crores as of March 2006, ae structure was completed (July 2001), the ducation programme through DEITI ily 2004 due to non availability of required During the oral evidence, the representative of the Department ined that the Committee has already been constituted and the work of the ordinance of Distance Education is in process, In view of steps taken the Committee recommends that para may be However, latest position may be submitted in action taken report.MANPOWER MANAGEMENT (PARA 3.2.5.3 A comprehensive work study of staffing in the University was carried out by a Committee headed by Prof. M.G. Korgaonkar and the Committee had submitted their recommendations to the University in July 2003. As per the report the total sanctioned strength of staff of the University was to be revised to 404 from the present sanctioned strength of 639, against which existing men in position was 471. Though the Executive Council of the University accepted their report in August, 2003, no action has been taken to implement the same. The Department in its written reply stated that the Sub ‘Committee of Executive Council has been constituted to look into findings and recommendations of Prof. Korgaonkar Committee recomr nS. The Committee would like to know the ings, the, Sub- Committee of Executive Council. oe During oral evidence, the representative Of the artyagat stated that the Executive Committee had alread! ~~ seh. @aide its earlier 2 decision and that decision, has already nunigated to the Director of Higher Education due to whi inv Gogaitiversity have not be filled. 2 eS af major works, The expenditure incurred on works and ices of the staff during 2001-06 was % 1.44 crores and & 2.07 ‘The continuance of full fledged Works Division even after completion ‘of major works was not justified. The University stated that the request to transfer the excess staff to ‘other Departments was not accepted by the State Government.The Department in its written reply stated that a full fledged Work jsion is required to maintain the existing infrastructure and to execute “mew works taken up. During the oral evidence before the Committee the representative of she Department stated that it is the Engineering Section that it is required as ‘ets of new structures under UGC grants are coming up and also “maintenance of the existing buildings needs to be carried out and therefore a fall fledged Engineering sanction is regard to monitor these works. The Committee recommends for the closure of the para. Though the University has taken possession of 163.02 he of land from PWD in May 1992, demarcation of the boundary @f the)land (ds yet (August 2006) to be carried out. Fencing/co constructed to protect the land from en t. Ass a result, vegSheler in the privatwparty, etc, were encroachment activities, unauthorized cor University area, leveling and filling of Ufiversity authorities. encroachment. noticed (between March 1999-< March 20 Thus, failure to construct a boundas oped o o The De Xs en y ight the demarcation of land is complete. rene isstéd by the competent authority. ‘o know the status of encroachments at re and Kachra Project. 150 to q- mts. and the said matter of encroachment is sub-judice. As regards Kachra Project the Committee was informed that the Executive Committee has resolved the Kachra Project. The land proposed for Kachra Project has been identified and the same will be transferred. The compound wall is also being constructed around the premises of the University. The Committee recommends the closure the para, however the present status of the project may be intimated to the Commitiee. 19iSFER OF LAND F INVENTION CENTRE AND IT PARK (PARA 3.2.6.3) The University did not get the 163.02 hectors of land allotted to it transferred from the State Government to the University’s name and to mutate the same in their’ favor. On directions of the Government, the Executive Council of the University decided (October 2005) to transfer 50 acres (20.02 hectares) of land in its possession, to the Government, for setting up of a Convention Centre and IT Park. However, considering the public opinion against the transfer, the Executive Council has revoked (November 2006) the earliér decision. In absence of mutation in favor of University and a comp: plan, the land assigned to University for education taf available due to Government decision to transfer Centre and IT Park. The Department in its written ai University has already been demarcat: uitated ingehe University. Work of construction of me y capnpound wall is in progress. A land use plan ae. beer met sPproved by Executive Couneil and a copy gf same-h to Goygotinent, The C eds sati 0 ti he laf Slotted to Goa University has alreadly been{ dem)rea Howeve} 2005) oc citing up of a Convention centre and IT Tark has not been ks DEFICIENCIES IN L! ING OF (PARA 3.2.6.4) ‘A mention was made in Paragraph 7.5 of audit Report 2000-01, that ‘est of 163.02 hectares of land handed over to the University by PWD, the versity had leased 20000 sq. meters. of land to four different ions for a period of 99 years, at a nominal lease rent of one rupee annum, without obtaining the required approval of the State 20