Kailashahar Municipality Property Attachment Case Exposes Larger Concerns Over Crores Spent on DPRs, RFPs in Tripura

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, May 31, 2026

A recent court order directing the attachment of assets belonging to the Kailashahar Municipal Council over unpaid consultancy dues has brought into sharp focus a much larger and long-standing issue—the extensive use of external consultancy firms for preparing Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and project consultancy assignments, resulting in the continuous outflow of public funds from Tripura.

The case, which originated from a consultancy assignment awarded in 2013 under the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana, has exposed how government agencies routinely depend on outside firms for project preparation and consultancy services. While the dispute itself concerns unpaid dues amounting to over Rs.23 lakh, observers say the episode highlights a far bigger question: how many crores of rupees from the state treasury have been spent over the years on external consultants, and what tangible benefits have accrued to the state in return.

The consultancy firm involved in the case, MEC Engineering Consultancy, was engaged to prepare a Detailed Project Report for a housing project. Despite completing the assignment, the firm reportedly received only a fraction of its dues, eventually forcing it to seek legal recourse. After a prolonged legal battle, the court ruled in favour of the consultancy firm and subsequently ordered the attachment of municipal assets when the dues remained unpaid.

While the court proceedings revolve around the non-payment of consultancy charges, the case has triggered a broader debate within administrative and professional circles regarding the growing dependence of government departments, urban local bodies, and public agencies on outside consultants for activities that many believe could be carried out locally.

Over the past decade, crores of rupees have reportedly been spent across various departments on DPR preparation, feasibility studies, project consultancy, transaction advisory services, and tender documentation. However, there is little publicly available data on the total amount spent annually on such consultancy assignments or the proportion of those funds that ultimately leave the state.

Industry observers point out that Tripura possesses a number of local engineering, consultancy and technical firms with relevant experience in project preparation and execution. However, many local stakeholders allege that stringent eligibility criteria, high turnover requirements, prior experience conditions and other tender specifications often make it difficult for local firms to participate in competitive bidding processes.

As a result, a significant share of consultancy assignments is reportedly awarded to firms based outside the state, leading to a continuous transfer of public funds from Tripura's economy to external entities. Critics argue that this not only limits opportunities for local professionals and businesses but also prevents the development of a strong indigenous consultancy ecosystem.

Questions are also being raised about whether sufficient efforts have been made by policymakers and administrators to build local technical capacity and ensure that a larger share of government consultancy work remains within the state. Experts believe that encouraging capable local firms could create employment opportunities, strengthen professional expertise and reduce the outflow of public money.

The Kailashahar Municipal Council case has therefore become more than a dispute over unpaid bills. It has evolved into a symbol of a wider policy debate on public expenditure, procurement practices and the role of external consultants in government projects.

As the court's attachment order moves toward implementation, attention is now shifting beyond the immediate legal dispute to broader questions of accountability, transparency and the long-term economic impact of consultancy-driven project planning in Tripura.

more news...