Opposition councillors in Aluva municipality have alleged irregularities in the proposed allocation of Rs 7.14 crore received under the 16th Finance Commission grant for 2026-27, claiming that tied funds meant for sanitation, waste management and drinking water could be diverted to projects of limited public importance.
Leader of the opposition Shyam Padmanabhan said the council agenda proposed allocations that violated prescribed funding norms. Left councillors submitted a dissent note against the agenda and staged a protest over the proposed utilisation of the grant.
According to the opposition, Rs 2 crore was proposed for a sewage treatment plant at the Priyadarshini and Mahatma Gandhi town hall premises. The councillors questioned the allocation, saying the facilities were non-functional and should instead be renovated. The report did not include a response from the municipality on the allegation or provide details of the proposed treatment plant.
The opposition also alleged that Rs 20 lakh and Rs 25 lakh from tied funds had been proposed for LED walls in front of the municipal office and at the municipal park. It further questioned the proposed use of funds for tiling work outside 40 shops being constructed at the private bus stand.
Tied grants under the Finance Commission are intended for specified civic purposes. In this case, the opposition said the proposed allocations should have prioritised sanitation, waste management and drinking water projects. The councillors also claimed that Aluva was facing severe waterlogging and pothole problems, but that no funds had been earmarked to address those issues.
The dispute also covers the proposed use of Rs 3.57 crore from the untied fund. Padmanabhan alleged that the amount was being assigned to projects of little public importance while urgent maintenance needs remained unaddressed. Untied funds provide municipalities more flexibility than tied grants, but the opposition’s objection centres on the priorities reflected in the agenda.
The councillors further alleged that several projects had been placed before the council without working group approval or proper estimates. They cited waste-management allocations as an example, saying Rs 75 lakh had already been earmarked for the purpose while additional provisions of Rs 9 lakh and Rs 8.43 lakh were also included for similar projects.
The allegations highlight the administrative importance of how municipal grants are classified, approved and monitored. Tied funding carries restrictions on its use, while project estimates and working group approvals are intended to provide a formal basis for council decisions. The report, however, did not establish whether the disputed agenda had been approved or whether any expenditure had already taken place.
The opposition said it would file formal complaints with the district planning committee and the audit department. It also said it would oppose what it described as the misuse of funds intended to address flooding and waste-management problems. The next step will depend on the municipality’s consideration of the agenda and any review initiated by the planning or audit authorities.
