DJB Corruption Case: Inside the Alleged Tender Manipulation and ₹1.52 Crore Money Trail

The Delhi Jal Board (DJB) tender corruption case centres on alleged irregularities in contracts for the augmentation and upgradation of 10 sewage treatment plants (STPs) across Delhi. The case was registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in May 2024 following a Directorate of Vigilance complaint alleging tender manipulation and criminal conspiracy.

The tenders, estimated at about ₹1,943 crore, are alleged to have been structured to favour Euroteck Environment Pvt Ltd, a technology provider. Investigators allege that restrictive technical specifications were introduced, including conditions linked to specific technology and media, thereby limiting competition. The ACB has also alleged that a proposed pilot study was not conducted, important treated-effluent parameters were excluded and specifications were subsequently altered.

A major focus is the alleged advance coordination between private parties, intermediaries and DJB officials. Investigators have examined WhatsApp communications in which information about proposed tender changes and corrigendums was allegedly shared before their official issuance. The agency is probing whether such exchanges helped selected bidders influence tender conditions.

The alleged conspiracy also extends to the financial trail. Investigators say intermediary firms, including AN Enterprises and Srijanhar, were used in transactions linked to the tender. The ACB alleges that about ₹1.52 crore reached former DJB CEO Udit Prakash Rai and his relatives, with the money allegedly used to purchase immovable property. The recent custody of Rai and Nagendra Yadav aims to establish the source, purpose and movement of these funds.

The case also overlaps with an Enforcement Directorate (ED) money-laundering investigation. The ED has previously alleged illegal commissions and undue profits arising from the tender process, while the ACB is investigating the underlying corruption or predicate offence independently.

At the centre of the case is an alleged chain of restricted tender conditions, coordinated manipulation, favourable contracting, intermediary payments and movement of funds. The allegations remain under investigation, and the accused have not been convicted. Recent court orders underscore the need to determine who participated in the alleged conspiracy and how the tender process affected finances.