MINUTES OF MEETING OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON PEG SCHEME FOR THE STATE OF MP HELD ON

MINUTES OF MEETING OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE ON PEG SCHEME FOR THE STATE OF MP HELD ON 28.02.2017 The meeting of the State Level Committee for PEG Scheme in the State of Madhya Pradesh for construction of godowns was held on 28.02.2017 at 12:00 noon in the Conference Room of Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal under the Chairmanship of Shri K. C. Gupta, las, Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of MP. The list of participants who were present in the meeting, is enclosed as Annexure-I. Copies of the Agendas submitted by MPWLC, the Nodal Agency (along-with additional agendas) &CWC, are at Annexure-II and Annexure-III respectively and form an integral part of these proceedings. 2. Representative of Railways and of Finance Department of State Government, did not attend the meeting of SLC. 3. Initiating discussions, Executive Director (West), FCI, apprised Chairman SLC about the continuous absence of certain members of the Committee during last few meetings of SLC including the present one. He requested Chairman SLC to write a DO letter to all the concerned members showing his concern for their absence and to ensure that they remain present in the future SLC meetings. 4. Thereafter regular agenda was taken up for discussion..<.)1.' ~ '(w,1 "\~~1/'- '!Inc:pal Secretary Government of Madhya Prade, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Dept' 1

AGENDA No-l(read with additional agenda No.3) :STATUS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF PREVIOUS SLC MEETING: 4.1 Engineer-in-chief, MPWLC initiated the agenda-wise discussions and apprised the SLC that Agreements of some of capacities which have already been approved by HLC in its meeting held on 09.11.2016, have not been executed by FCI despite deposition of CSA (if any) by the private entrepreneurs. 4.2 G'M (R ), FCI informed SLC that the agreements are pending for want of certain documents from MPWLC in case of : (i) PEG Mandla (5000 MTs), (ii) PEG Shahdol (20000 MTs), (iii)peg Narsinghpur (11670 MTs), (iv) PEG Budhni (10000 MTs), (v) PEG Annupur (10,000 MTs), (vi) MPWLC Sheopur (12000 MTs), (vii) MPWLC Badwani (28370 MTs), (viii) MPWLC Pawarkheda (53300 MTs), (ix) MPWLC Meghnagar (7560 MTs), (x) MPWLC Katni (5000 MTs), (xi) PEG Neemuch (9000 MTs),(xii) PEG Timarni (15000 MTs),(xiii) PEG Chhindwara (27000 MTs), (xiv) MPWLC Bankhedi (1800 MTs), (xv) MPWLC Pathari Haweli (30000 MTs) & (xvi) MPWLC Balaghat (5000 MTs). GM(R) FCI, elaborated that the documents in respect of four stage inspections as envisaged in the MTF,were sought from MPWLC by FCI. In this context, attention of SLC was drawn by FCI officers that in order to ascertain the structural soundness and to ensure that the godowns have been constructed as per MTF specifications, it was required to carry out the Joint Inspections at four levels viz. (i) layout stage, (ii) lintel level, (iii) roofing level and (iv) completion stage. GM(Region), FCI further stated that in respect of private PEG god owns, FCI has sought certain,'~... '"._/'l,t f~,ncipat'secreta:,vernment of Madhya Prade Food, Civil Supplies & r:onsumer Protection Dept" 2

documents/clarifications from MPWLC related to land/ ownership details of PEG godowns, certificate that godown has been constructed on the same land as per tender document, and copies of NOC/CLU for construction of these godowns. In respect of MPWLC godowns constructed in new complex, copies of NOC/CLU for construction have been sought. 4.3 Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC stated thatcompletion Stage Joint Inspections have been carried out, however there is n6 specific information available about four level joint inspection. 4.4 While referring to the minutes of last HLC dated 09.11.2016, Executive Director (West), FCI, informed the SLC that in some of the godowns of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, mandatory four stage inspections during construction were skipped and HLC vide agenda item No. 6/48 (Point No 6.2) and 8/48 (Point No. 8.1 ii) of the above meeting, had decided to get those godowns inspected by an Independent Agency i.e. CPWD for the structural soundness of such godowns where one or more (out of four level joint inspections) had been skipped. He stressed that on the same analogy, given the fact these inspections have been skipped in MP, the exercise regarding structural soundness(as have been decided by HLC in its above referred meeting of 09.11.2016) may be carried out in all such godowns of MPWLC, CWC and Private Investors. 4.5 Officers of MPWLC&CWC stated that the case of MPWLC / CWC cannot be treated at par with Private Investors as far as skipping of four level Joint Inspections is concerned. They further stated that their organisations have their own specialized Engineering wings and the godowns of several lakh,:pai Secreta,,,,rnment of Madhya.Prace' Food Civil Supplies & onsum~r Protection Dept' 3

MTs have been constructed by them in the past 3-4 decades under their own supervision. 4.6 PS (Food), while agreeing to the above pleas of CWC and MPWLC, opined that these Agencies are competent in their own domain to certify the structural soundness of the constructed capacity. Regarding private capacities, PS (Food) was of the opinion that certificate of any Independent Govt Agency should serve the purpose of certifying the structural sq,undness of godowns, where the four level inspections during construction stage had been skipped in M.P. Resolution - I :- 4.7 After detailed discussions, the SLC resolved to recommend to HLC that in case of godowns constructed by Pvt. Investors, the Investor may be advised to submit a certificate of Structural Soundness from any Independent Govt. Agency. However, in case of PEG godowns constructed by MPWLC / CWC, the aforesaid certificate of Structural Soundness given by MPWLC / CWC, may be accepted. 4.8 Regarding documents pertaining to land/ownership details, NOC, Certificate certifying that godowns have been constructed on the same land as per tender document etc. as sought by FCr, Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC informed that the said documents have already been verified by MPWLC & FCr jointly during Technical Evaluation and at various other stages of construction of godowns by MPWLC and therefore, seeking these documents by Fcr at this stage, is not justified. 4.9 PS (Food) mentioned that MP is a DCP State and the onus of verification of these documents lies with MPWLC and not with 4,nc:pai Secreta I).,vernment of Madhya. Prade'o Food. Civil Supplies & j' ':onsumer Protection Oep

FCr. He advised Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC to issue a letter to FCI certifying that all these documents required under the MTF, as requested by FCI, have been verified by MPWLC to their full satisfaction and in case of any discrepancy / legal complication at a later stage, MPWLC will be solely responsible. Resolution - II :- 4.10 SLC resolved that on the basis of above-said certificate <' of MPWLC, no documents may be sought by FC!. 4.11 GM (R), FCr pointed out that in case of (i) PEG Mandla (5000 MTs) and (ii) PEG Budhni (10000 MTs),the land on which the godowns have been constructed, is slightly less than the minimum requirement of land as per MTF. 4.12 It was informed by Engineer-in-chief MPWLC that the land is slightly lesser (Mandla 1.976 acres instead of 2 acres & Budhni 3.66 acres instead of 3.70 acres). He confirmed that there are no operational problems because of this deficiency. Engineer-in-Chief further pointed out that the HLC, in its meeting held on 16.04.2013, had authorized the SLCs to decide minor deviations cropping up in future at their level. 4.13 PS (Food) was of opinion that since these variations are almost close to the land requirement, the same may be accepted. Resolution - III :- 4.14 SLC accordingly resolved to accept the above cited minor deficiencies in land.,',i'inclpal Secretar) ;overnment of Madhya. Prade~ Food Civil Supplies & Consum~r Protection Dept' 5

4.15 The matter relating to invoking of the agreement of PEG Chhindwara (27000 MTs) was discussed in length. It was informed by Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC that the agreement dated 28.10.2016 executed between MPWLC and Fcr w.e.f. 13.05.2016 had been cancelled by FCr on 05.12.2016. The FCr Officers informed SLC that in the SLC dated 14.07.2016, "it was decided that FCI can execute the agreement with MPWLC from the date of 80% utilisation after submission of CSA in case of godowns where double CSA has been deposited by the.' investor to MPWLC before 23.05.2016 i.e. before issue of instructions of 100% utilisation as per 47 th HLC meeting and from the date of 100% utilisation after deposition of double CSA in cases where CSA has been deposited by investor to MPWLC after 23.05.2016. fi rn the said godown CSA was deposited on 13.05.2016 and since utilisation was more than 80% on 13.05.2016, the agreement was executed w.e.f. 13.05.2016. The matter of PEG Chhindwara was discussed during HLC dated 09.11.2016. HLC conveyed its displeasure for execution of agreement at 80% utilisation and it was directed to take over the godown from the date of 100% utilisation after completion (i.e. after deposition of double CSA). Therefore, in view of the said decision of HLC, the agreement between FCr and MPWLC was cancelled by FCr on 05.12.2016. Subsequently, FCr, Headquarters, New Delhi vide letter dated 17/18.01.2017 has clarified that the godowns completed after two years with deviations, may be considered for taking over from the date of (a) 100% utilization of godowns after it was complete in all respects except the deviations for which CSA has to be deposited and (b) the date of deposition of double CSA, whichever is later. MPWLC 6,nc:pai Secretar~...vvernment of Madhya Prade' Food. Civil Supplies & ";onsumer Protection Dep'

officers pleaded that the agreement may be revoked from 13.05.2016 since the said godown had already reached 100% utilization before deposition of CSA i.e. before 13.05.2016. GM, FCr informed that the Layout and Lintel Level joint inspections have also not been carried out in this godown. Resolution - IV :- 4.17 Subject to the approval of SLC on resolution of SLC (para 4.9) tl:rat no documents may be sought by Fcr and certificate of structural soundness for private PEG is required from independent Government Agency (Para 4.7), SLC resolved that the agreement may be reinstated and guarantee may be continued from 13.05.2016, subject to submission of a certificate of structural soundness from Independent Government Agency. 4.18 Since HLC had shown its displeasure regarding this matter vide minutes of the meeting held on 9.11.2016, SLC resolved to bring this decision to the notice of HLC. 5. AGENDA No-2 A (read with additional agenda No.3) : EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE WORKS COMPLETED BEYOND TWO YEARS BY MPWLC GODOWNS COMPLETED WITH DEVIATIONS: 5.1 Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC informed the SLC that the godowns at (i) MPWLC Semriharchand (2650 MTs), (ii) MPWLC Shivpuri ( 4200 MTs), (iii) MPWLC Diwatiya (32500 MTs) and (iv) MPWLC Samnapur (35000 MTs) have been completed by MPWLC beyond the stipulated period of 02 years. He further informed the SLC that during the joint inspections, it was 7...,J L> Principal Secretary ~overnment of Madhya Prades - Food, Civil Supplies & Sonsumer Protection Dept

noted that there are some deviations in the construction of these godowns for which the CSA has been prepared. He informed about the nature of deviations and CSA calculations. It was also informed to SLC that these godowns have been put to use and have been utilised upto 100% during the previous procurement seasons. 5.2 In all these god owns, MPWLC, the Nodal Agency has proposed for using hand lamp with flexible wire instead of internal ejectrification due to safety precautions from fire/short circuits. Considering the fire related risks of installation of internal electrification and in view of decision taken in SLC dated 09.01.2014, SLC allowed takeover of godowns without internal electrification. It was emphasized that the operations in the godowns should not get hampered for want of lighting and some alternate arrangement should be in place, whenever need arises. 5.3 In case of MPWLC Samnapur, it was pointed out in the Agenda that Weigh Bridge has been installed at nearby premises 500 Metres away. However, Engineer in Chief, MPWLC informed the SLC that the weighbridge is installed in the existing complex of MPWL.C and is within same boundary where PEG godown has been constructed. SLC deliberated on the issue and decided that since the weighbridge in the same premises, the same may be allowed. is 5.4 General Manager (R) informed SLC that documents in respect of four stage inspections of these godowns were sought for by FC!. FCI has also sought from MPWLC certain documents/clarifications related to NOC/CLU for construction,i lnclpal Secretar~ uvernmen t O f Madhya. Pradeo; &,) Food. Civil supphe~ t' Consumer Protectton ep 8

of these godowns wherever these godowns have been constructed in new complex. 5.5 In case of MPWLC Shivpuri, it was pointed out by DGM (Civil), FCI that the average plinth height is 0.78 meters as against the minimum requirement of 0.80 meters, which has not been included in CSA calculation submitted to FC!. MPWLC was requested to include this in their CSA calculation. Resolution. - V :- 5.6 SLC noted that there is an average delay of 03 years in all these four locations. Regarding certification of structural soundness as well as the scrutiny of documents required under MTF for construction of godowns, the decisions as at point no. 4.7 & 4.9 above will be applicable subject to the approval of HLC. Accordingly SLC resolved to recommend MPWLC Semriharchand, MPWLC Diwatiya and MPWLC Samnapur godowns to HLC for takeover. 5.7 In respect of MPWLC Shivpuri ( 4200 MTs), SLC resolved to place the matter in the next SLC after recalculation of CSA for lesser plinth height. 6. AGENDA NO -2 B (read with additional agenda No.3) :EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE WORKS COMPLETED IN MORE THAN 02 YEARS AT PEG BHIND (9000 MTS): 6.1 Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC informed that the PEG Bhind was sanctioned on 14.03.2013 and was got completed by the Investor on 06.07.2016. The godown has been completed with, 9 i~f1nclpal Secretary.overnment of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & :onsumer Protection Del"

a delay of 28 months. He further stated that the joint inspection of the godown was carried out on 15.11.2016 and no discrepancy was observed. 6.2 GM (R), FCI informed that there are various discrepancies in respect of PEG Bhind (9000 MTs) viz. Change in ownership, land in the name of minor, difference in LOP submitted by MPWLC at two occasions, which has been intimated to MPWLC vide letter dated 13.02.2017 & 27.02.2017. GM(R) pointed out tn~t Joint inspections have been skipped in this case also. 6.3 Executive Director (West), FCI pointed out that cases which have such glaring discrepancies, should be examined by MPWLC in the initial stage and recommended to FCI for take over only after removal of all discrepancies. 6.4 SLC resolved that a joint committee of FCI & MPWLC officers will look into these deviations and submit its report, which will be taken up in next SLC. In addition, the said committee will physically inspect the site along-with the concerned Revenue Authority and Investor, for ascertaining the actual layout and sufficiency of requirement of land. 7. STATUS OF PEG CHHATARPUR (20000 MT) (Part of Additional Agenda No.3): 7.1 PEG Chhatarpur was sanctioned on 04.09.2014 and was reported to have been completed on 19.07.2016 (Date of Joint Inspection). Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC requested FCI to takeover the godown on guarantee basis as no deficiency has been pointed out in final joint inspection. He further stated that the work has been completed within two years time. MPWLC inclpal secretary f M dhya Prades ~overnment 0 a. Food Civil Supplies & r;onsum~r Protection Deptt 10

confirmed that only joint inspection at completion level has been done for this godown skipping other inspections. 7.2 GM, FCI pointed out that the tender for the said godown was awarded to the Proprietor of M/s Shiv Industries, Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal. However, as per documents submitted by MPWLC, the constitution of M/s Shiv Industries has now been changed to partnership firm and the land is in the name of partners. GM (Region), FCI stated that the land should be in the name of the proprietor and any affidavit/authority letter cannot create any right in favour of any individual. He also held a view that any property of value above Rs 100/- can be acquired only by registered instrument. Therefore, the affidavit submitted by the Investor cannot be considered as a valid document. 7.3 In view of the above discrepancy, SLC resolved that a joint committee of FCI & MPWLC officers will look into all the discrepancies and submit its report, which will be taken up in next SLC. 8. AGENDA NO.3: PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION TIME BEYOND PERMISSIBLE TIME FRAME: EXTENSION OF THE MAXIMUM 8.1 Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC read out the Agenda with the proposal for extension of construction time beyond the permissible time frame of two years to M/S A. M. Construction for construction of 16000 MTs capacity at Dhar under PEG Scheme. He stated that this capacity was sanctioned on 04.09.2014 and two year period had lapsed on 03.04.2016. He also informed the SLC that out of total capacity, a capacity of <~ yt "'N~ ", ~ \!lnc:pal Secretar) Gvernment of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & ':;onsumer Protection Deplt 11

12660 MTs is at Roofing stage and 3340 MTs at plinth level. He proposed an extension of one year period for construction beyond the stipulated timeframe of one plus one year as per MTF as has been done in other cases. 8.2 ED(Zone) FCI was of the opinion than the Investor has already delayed the project and it will not even be possible to put this godown to use in the ensuing RMS. Resolution - VI :- 8.3 SLC deliberated on the issue and decided to recommend to HLC to grant a onetime extension for construction up to 03.09.2017 with a deposition of Rs. 25/MT as Bank Guarantee which would be liable to be forfeited in case of any delays beyond 03.09.2017. It was also decided that in case HLC approves the extension of the time frame of one year i.e. upto 3.9.2017, this godown shall be considered for hiring only on achievement of 100% capacity utilization and deposition of double CSA (if applicable) whichever is later, as per the decision of HLC dated 09.11.2016. MPWLC was advised to guide the Investor on proper construction of the godown to avoid any subsequent issues on account of deviation & ensure that left over joint inspections at various levels are scrupulously carried out. 9. Agenda No.4: PROPOSAL OF CANCELLATION OF CAPACITY OF SATNA (20000 MTS) 9.1 The proposal regarding non-completion of construction by the Investor at Satna was read out to the SLC. SLC was informed /~.'.,,',;.. ~, \ A.. 12 rjnncipal Secretary Jovernmenl of Madhya Pradeo '"' Food, Civil Supplies &,onsumer Protection Dept

that Investor is not interested in continuing with construction and has sought for refund of EMD. Resolution - VII :- 9.2 SLC deliberated and accepted the proposal to cancel the award of 20000 MTs capacity to Smt. Seema Singh of Satna and decided to inform the same to HLC. MPWLC was advised to forfeit the EMD of the investor as per clause 32 of MTF..' 10. AGENDA No.5. APPEALS AGAINST THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE SLC DATED 14.07.2016 REGARDING CANCELLATION OF CAPACITIES DUE TO FAILURE OF THE INVESTORS TO CONSTRUCT THE GODOWNS WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. 10.1 Engineer-in-chief, MPWLC informed the SLC that the PEG godowns at (i) Biora (13000 MTs),(ii) Datia (20400 MTs), (iii) Banapura (15000 MTs) & (iv) Shujalpur (24000 MTs) were cancelled by SLC in its last meeting held on 14.07.2016. The godowns were cancelled by SLC in view of non-completion of the capacities even after lapse of approximate one year after the stipulated time period of two years (including one year extension provided by MPWLC) as per MTF. PEG Gadarwara was cancelled during SLCs dated 30.05.2014, 03.09.2014, 28.04.2015, 08.10.2015 and 14.07.2016. He further informed that Private investors so affected have requested for reinstatement of aforesaid cancelled capacities. 10.2 ED (West) FCI regretted the decision of MPWLC to place in SLC, the issue of reinstatement of cancelled capacities, especially the case of Gadarwara, which was rejected by SLC '- l-nncipal Secretary,)overnmen! of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & ~onsumer Protection Dept! 13

on four occasions earlier. He further stated that the SLC had taken a well thought of decision for cancellation as these Investors have wasted good four years of time, which is much beyond the stipulated time period. He apprised to SLC that even HLC has already noted these cancellations in its last meeting held on 9.11.2016. ED (West) held the view that the Appeals should be rejected forthwith. 10.3 Engineer-in-chief, MPWLC stated that at Bioara, Datia, Gadarwara and Shujalpur (19000 MT instead of 24000 MT) 'I,~ godowns are completed and at Banapura godown is complete but ancillary works are under progress. These godowns had been put to use since last 1-2 Rabi Procurement seasons and requested for reconsideration of the decision of cancellation by SLC dated 14.07.2016. loa PS (Food) opined that since godowns are already complete and are also being used for storage of stock, cancellations would affect the Investors adversely. He advised that the same may be placed before HLC for consideration of extension in time frames on similar lines as have been done in some cases in other states. He proposed that Bank Guarantee of Rs. SO/MT may be sought from these investors in case HLC decides to grant these extensions. Resolution - VIII :- 10.5 After deliberations SLC resolved to recommend the Appeals to HLC for consideration. 11. AGENDA No.6: PROPOSAL FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PENALTY CLAUSE FOR PENDING BITUMINOUS ROAD/ BLACK TOPPING. 14 Principal Secretary.'overnment of Madhya Prades; ~ Food Civil Supplies & 0 \' ~f)nsumerprotection ep

11.1 Engineer-in-Chief MPWLC read out the Agenda and informed the SLC about the status of black topping of Roads in about 37 godowns which have already been taken over for use under Guaranteed scheme. He stated that in about 19 god owns, Black Topping has been under taken in stipulated one year period and in 16 godowns Black Topping has been done after a lapse of one year. He also informed that in 02 godowns, Black Topping has not been done till date. He requested SLC for a way forward on the delayed works. 1/i' 11.2 GM(R), FC! read out the decision of HLC dated 09.11.2016 regarding black topping which is as under "HLC observed that black topping is one of the essential items and no permanent relaxation can be given for the same. Moreover, non-laying of black topping cannot be considered as a minor deviation and is easily rectifiable. The godowns without black topping were allowed to be taken over with condition that same will be laid within maximum period of one year. Not complying with the same nullifies the guarantee extended to the investor. In view of above, HLC decided that guarantee of such godowns should immediately be terminated and entire period of guarantee till date should be considered on AVa making the necessary recoveries. Further, as penalty measure the rent paid/payable may be arrived at by reducing the rentals by double the cost saving on the principle of time value of money. " ED(West) and GM(R), Fe! stated that decision of HLC is very clear and MPWLC should accordingly take action & effect recoveries and comply with HLC's decision. 11.3 PS(Food) opined that the decision of HLC to cancel the agreements in case of those who have failed to do the needful in an year's time from the date of takeover, is too harsh and 15 '~nncipal Secretary jqvernment of Madhya Prades Food. Civil Supplies & Sonsumer Protection Deptt

needs a relook. He suggested that once the agreement is executed & Investor has invested huge amount, termination of agreement with retrospective effect will create lots of disputes and litigations. He further suggested that where the Investors have failed to complete the Black Topping within due date, they need to be penalised for only delayed period (the difference between the period of due date and actual date of laying of Black Topping) with some monetary penalty. Resolution - IX :- 11.4 SLC deliberated the issue and decided to recommend as follows :- (i) Payment will be made on AUB Basis if the taring is not done till completion (excluding 1 year period already provided). (ii) No termination of agreement, in case of failure. 17 AGENDA NO.7: DECISION TO BE TAKEN REGARDING RENTAL CUTS FOR NON AVAILABILITY OF WOODEN CRATES IN PEG GODOWNS EVEN AFTER THE RELAXED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. 12.1 Engineer-in-chief MPWLC read out the agenda regarding non availability of wooden crates and decision of HLC to impose the rental cu~s in all such cases. He stated that in meeting dated 27.11.2015 (agenda item no. 9.S), HLC has decided to allow taking over of godowns on guarantee basis with a rental cut in the monthly payable rent for non-provisioning of wooden crates. Accordingly, FCI Head Quarter, New Delhi vide its letter No. E3(2S)/OS/HCL/stg. IV/Vol. IV dated 25.02.2016, has imposed rental cut of Rs. 0.37 per quintal per month. 16 i'tmcipal Secretary overnment of Madhya Pradeb Food, Civil Supplies & ~onsumer Protection Deptt

12.2 Engineer-in-chief MPWLC further informed that some Investors did not provide wooden crates up to cut-off date i.e. 26.11.2016 because it was not possible for them to use the wooden crates in the already occupied capacity where polythene sheets have been used as dunnage. These polythene sheets could be replaced only after the issue of the stored stocks and during new storage of wheat. He proposed that the relaxation to use wooden crates should be either for a period of one year or one turnover, whichever is later starting,. 27.11.2015, as in some cases wooden crates could not be used because stocks continued to be stored beyond 26.11.2016 which was cut-off date for relaxation to use wooden crates. He requested for a similar relaxation for prospective take overs also, so as to bring in the uniformity to the scheme. 12.3 GM(R) FCI stated that FCI Hqrs. letter No. E3(2B)/OB/HCL/stg. IV/Vol. IV, dated 25.02.2016 is silent on the treatment to be given to all such cases where there is delay on use of wooden crates beyond the relaxed period of one year. He informed SLC that matter stands referred to FCI Hqrs by his office seeking guidelines the on such cases where there is a delay in use of wooden crates beyond a period of one year. Resolution - X :- 12.4 SLC deliberated the issue and decided to recommend as follows :- (i) Cut-off date for providing wooden crates should be extended from date 26.11.2016 to March, 2017 with rental cut Rs. 0.37 per quintal per month. (ii) Twice rental cut (i.e. Rs. 0.74 per quintal per month) after 31 st March, 2017. 17 i "rmc:pal Secretar~. overnment of Madhya Prades Food Civil Supplies & ~onsum~rprotection Deptt

13 ADDITIONAL AGENDA. 1 TO RE-EXAMINE THE STORAGE CAPACITY OF KHARGONE (10980 MT) 13.1 Engineer-in-Chief, MPWLC informed SLC that, the god own at Khargone (10980 MTs) against the sanctioned capacity 21000 MT (Phase - II) M/s Eco green food Grain Storage has been completed within 2 years time i.e. 12.03.2015. The Joint Committee has reported that the thickness of the flooring (base concrete and LT. Flooring) is less in the 10020 MT ca"pacity godown as per specifications in MTF and 7 compartments capacity to the tune of 10980 MT completed as per MTF norms. 13.2 It was also informed that SLC in its meeting held on 08.10.2015 had resolved to recommend that the capacity of 10980 MT in respect of 7 compartment having flooring as per specification, be taken on guarantee basis and balance capacity of 10020 MT would be out of PEG scheme. HLC in its meeting held on 27.11.2015 had already approved the recommendation of SLC. In last HLC meeting held on 09.11.2016/ it was only for approval of C.S.A. However, HLC decided to re-examine the above case whether part capacities have been allowed to be hired elsewhere. 13.3 He further informed that, that similar type issue of construction of less capacity at the following locations had been approved by the HLC. S. HLC No. & Agenda Location Sanctioned Approved No. Held on No. Capacity in lesser M.T. capacity M.T. 1 40/14.08.14 3/40(ii) Badaun 30000 10000 - - 2 39/23.05.14 4/39(ii) Ellenabad 180000 164450 3 29/25.09.12 5-10 Chhindwara 10000 9600 18 IInc:pal Secretary ~(;vernment of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Deptt

It was further informed that FCI had sought documents related land/ ownership details, certificate that godown has been constructed on the same land as per tender document, 4 stage joint inspections for this Godown also. In this regard, decision of SLe at para 4.7 and 4.9 will be applicable. Resolution - XI :- 13.4 SLC, after deliberating the proposals of MPWLC, decided to recommend the approval of part capacity of 10980 " MTs of MIs Eco Green Foodgrain Storage at Khargone in view of the approvals already made by HLC in other cases. 14. AGENDA POINTS RELATING TO CWC APPROVING OF "COST SAVED" AS PROPOSED AT ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF GODOWNS AT NARSINGHPUR, BHIND, SHEOPURKALAN-II & MORENA-II SO AS TO ARRIVE AT RENTAL CUTS 14.1 RM ewc informed that 4 PEG capacities of cwe namely Sheopurkalan-II (20000 MTs), Morena-II (10000 MTs), Bhind (10000 MTs) & Narsinghpur (6400 MTs) have already been approved by HLC but have not been taken over due to pending approval of CSA by FC!. RM CWC was informed to immediately depute concerned Engineer to FCI Hqrs. as the layout plan & other details are not legible in the document submitted by ewe. 14.2 As regards taking over of the above capacities of CWC, GM(Region), FCI sought for self-certification of structural soundness. v Pnncipal Secretary ",overnment of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & ~onsumer Protection Depll 19

14.3 RM CWC informed that in view of decision of SLC in respect of agenda 1 for structural soundness, certificate from CWC would be furnished to FCI. 14.4 RM CWC requested for taking over of 20000 MT capacities at Chhindwara and Pithampur as approved by SLC in its meeting held on 28.4.15 (as utilization of Chhindwara godown was 84% on dated 06.05.2016). 14.5 GM(R),FCl informed that since no specific decision regarding <- taking over of these godowns was taken in HLC dated 9.11.16, necessary clarifications was sought by FCl,RO Bhopal from FCl, Hqrs, vide letter dated 17.01.2017. Resolution - XII :- 14.6 Since no decision has been received from FC! Hqrs, SLC resolved that the matter be placed before next HLC for decision. 14,,7 RM CWC also requested for expediting execution of agreement with CWC as proposed at six places in resolution Number 14.1 and 14.4. 14.8 RM CWC was informed that matter has already been deliberated upon in point NO.14.1 to 14.6 above. 14.9 RM CWC n~quested the SLC that a reference needs to be made to MPSCSC for considering storage of wheat during ensuing RMS in these godowns of CWC as these godowns shall be taken over on guarantee only upon 100% utilization. 14.10 GM FCl informed that MD MPSCSC has already been requested vide DO dated 02.02.2017 enclosing therewith a list of PEG 'JU Pnncipal Secretary \;lovernment of Madhya Prade~r Food. Civil Supplies & "":onsumer Protection Dept' 20

godowns (already taken on guarantee) to fully utilize the PEG capacity on top priority. 14.11 PS (Food) informed that State has already decided to fill in PEG capacities on first priority. Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair..v l.j.i: Principal Secretary Government of Madhya Prades Food, Civil Supplies & Sonsumer Protection De"- 21

List of Participants present in the SLC Meeting dated 28.02.2017 Annexure" 1" ~ S.No. Name SLC Department & Designation Designation 1. Shri K.C. Gupta Chairman Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection, Govt. of M.P. 2. Shri Surinder Singh Member Executive Director (West), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Mumbai 3. Shri K.C. Gupta Member Managing Director, M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation, Bhopal 4. Shri Rajesh Singh. Member General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal 5. Mansi Lunawat Member Representative of Commissioner (Food) & Managing Director, M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. 6. Shri Arvind Chaudhri Member Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal In Presence of S.No. Name Department & Designation 1. Shri J.K. Dubey Engineer-in-Chief, M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation, Bhopal 2. Shri S.K. Sharma Chief Engineer, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi 3. Shri H.S. Dhariwal Deputy General Manager (S&C), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Mumbai 4. Shri U.B. Singh Deputy General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal 5. Shri Vivek Kumar Deputy General Manager (0), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal 6. Shri Dinesh Kumar Deputy General Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal 7. Shri G.P. Meena Deputy General Manager (CE), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal 8. Shri D.S. Rathore Superintending Engineer, M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation, Bhopal 9. Shri Naeem Akhtar Executive Engineer (PEG), M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation, Bhopal 10. Shri Nitin Garg, AGM (Stg.), Food Corporation ofindia, Regional Office, Bhopal 11. Shri Alok Shrivastava AGM (CE), Food Corporation ofindia, Regional Office, Bhopal 12. Shri Abhishek Gupta SAM, Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal 13. Shri Anil Sharma Assistant Engineer, M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation, Bhopal