In a setback to BMC, the contractor who procured the Humboldt penguins from South Korea denied any such contract clause or condition and rejected the claim
The penguins have spent three months in the quarantine area
In a setback to the civic body, even as it has been appeasing the blowback in the unfortunate death of the 1.5-year-old Humboldt penguin by repeatedly assuring that it was within the three-month warranty period and would be replaced; the supplier has denied any such contract clause or condition and rejected the claim.
ADVERTISEMENT
Categorically rejecting both the BMC’s claim that it was entitled to a replacement penguin and that the supplier was responsible for taking care of the birds for the first three months, in an exclusive email chat with mid-day, the Bangkok-based Goatrade Farming Company said, “We have received a letter from the MCGM to which we have replied. As per our contract, there was no warranty period mentioned nor was there any mention of replacements. Our contract was to supply six Humboldt penguins — 3 males and 3 females. However, we have provided eight birds to the MCGM at no extra cost — 3 males and 5 females.”
Supplier speaks out
Clarifying its role in the Humboldt penguin project, Goatrade further said, “Our company was contracted only to supply and not to take care of them. However, since it was the first time that the zoo was importing Humboldt penguins, we had offered to provide a trained keeper staff to help maintain them for three months. But we did not receive any reply from the zoo to our offer.”
Asked about allegations that the aquatic birds were ill when supplied, the company insisted, “Before being exported, the birds were screened and tested for infectious diseases in Seoul and again in India after being imported. They were in good condition at the time of delivery; that they successfully completed the quarantine period both in Seoul and India testifies to that.”
BMC in hot water
The company’s refusal has put the BMC squarely in the dock as even before the penguins were brought to the zoo, activists and political parties had objected on the grounds that the existing birds were not taken care of well enough to add new birds to the mix.
Pawan Sharma of RAWW, an NGO, said, “Since there was no such contract as confirmed by the penguin supplier, it shamefully exposes the authorities who were attempting to mislead the people,” adding, “This matter should be seriously looked into by the concerned agencies and all officials involved in the cover-up must face action.”
Meanwhile, opposition leader in BMC, Pravin Chheda, said, “The supplier’s reply has exposed the BMC’s lie. They were again fooling people by promising a new animal. If there is no condition in the contract, then on what basis were civic officials claiming that they would get a replacement?”
He added, “The BMC should now focus on keeping the existing birds well. The contractor constructing the penguins’ quarantine and enclosure was apparently supplying Chinese medical equipment to BMC hospital; they should take action against the contractor first and then think of replacement of penguins.”
Additionally, a visit by officials from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has concluded that bringing a new penguin will not be easy since there are several permissions needed from different agencies.
Officials duck for cover
A senior civic official confirmed the development and said, “The company has rejected the civic body’s claim of replacement of penguin. Now we are exploring some other options.”
When asked about company’s reply, zoo director Dr Sanjay Tripathi, evaded response by saying, “Yes, we have received a reply, but I have not gone through the letter so cannot comment on the subject.”
Deputy municipal commissioner (in-charge of zoo), Sudhir Naik, could not be reached for comment.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
