Dhule Telecom Scam: ₹30 Crore Irregularity Alleged in Municipal Cable Permissions

Part I: Money Was Shown. Money Was Not There.

In Dhule, this story begins the way most scams begin — quietly, inside files, under signatures, buried in routine permissions that no one questions.

Telecom companies come, dig roads, lay optical fibre, put up cables, and move on. The system is simple. Permissions are granted. Charges are calculated. Payments are made. Accounts are updated.

That is how it is supposed to work.

But in Dhule, according to a detailed complaint filed by consulting engineer HitendraSingh Indrasingh Khairnar, the system did not just slip — it appears to have been bent over time.

The complaint, submitted to authorities seeking a criminal investigation, flags what are described as serious financial irregularities in permissions granted to telecom companies like Airtel, Vodafone and Jio between 2012 and 2024.

Work was carried out. Roads were cut. Cables were laid. And on paper, the money came in.

According to the complaint, the accounts do not reflect that. That is the core of this story.

The numbers are not small.

The complaint places the figure at nearly ₹30 crore linked to Dhule Municipal Corporation, and ₹1.28 crore relating to the Department of Information Technology of the state government.

These figures emerge from internal records cited in the complaint. Which raises a basic question.

If the system shows that money was received, why does the complaint allege that it is not traceable in accounts?

The first issue flagged in the complaint relates to demand drafts.

Telecom companies issued drafts running into lakhs, with full documentation — draft numbers, dates, bank details.

However, according to Khairnar’s complaint, these drafts were not deposited in the Accounts Division and are not reflected in the corresponding financial records.

At the same time, entries appear to have been made showing completion of payments.

If established, this points to a gap between recorded transactions and actual receipts.

The second layer of concern relates to online payments.

The complaint refers to two transactions — over ₹48 lakh and ₹79 lakh — that were recorded as credited through online systems.

However, it alleges that these amounts were not actually credited, and that payment advices were generated without corresponding deposits.

The complaint further states that these amounts were later recovered from the company after intervention.

If accurate, this raises serious questions about how such entries were recorded in the first place.

On paper, the system appeared to function. Permissions were issued. Demand notes were generated. Payments were marked as received. Reports were prepared.

But the complaint suggests that when records are matched with actual financial flows, discrepancies begin to surface.

At that point, the issue moves beyond procedure and into accountability.

The complaint also records that written representations were made in October and November 2023, flagging these discrepancies.

According to the complaint, no immediate corrective action followed. Only on 27 March 2024, a recovery notice of approximately ₹29.95 crore was issued.

This sequence raises a critical question.

If the dues were identifiable in 2024, how were they not reflected earlier?

At this stage, these remain allegations raised in a formal complaint.

However, the nature of the issues flagged — payments recorded but not reflected, drafts allegedly not deposited, discrepancies in online entries, and delayed recovery — point to the need for a detailed and independent investigation.

Because amounts of this scale do not disappear quietly. And systems do not correct themselves unless something forces them to.

TheNews21 has not independently verified all the documents cited in the complaint. Efforts to seek responses from the concerned officials will be made.

Part I lays out what the complaint claims.

Part II will examine the decisions taken within the system — who approved, who signed, and how accountability was handled.

Because permissions do not move on their own. Files do not clear themselves. And money does not vanish without a trail.

The complaint also refers to specific financial entries, including demand drafts and payment records, which will be examined in subsequent parts

(Part II Coming Soon)

Also Read: From Europe’s Toxic Crisis to Ratnagiri: Parliament Reveals PFAS Technology Import