Indian Railways Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation India Limited (DFCCIL) has officially terminated its contract awarded to a Chinese company in 2016 for a project worth Rs 471 crores. Focusing on the call for ‘Make In India’ and being ‘Aatmanirbhar’, DFCCIL has said that it is looking for Indian companies that can fulfill the requirements.

The DFCCIL plans to put out the fresh tender for the project by the end of July or in August.

The project had been funded by the World Bank and the tender was given to a Chinese company according to the requirements and specifications listed.

However, now that the project is with India now, the specifications will be modeled in a way that Indian participation can be preferred.

ALSO READ | Army Inputs Suggest Amarnath Yatra A Target For Terrorists This Year

Details About The Project & Reasons For Terminating Ties With Chinese Firm

In June, the Indian Railways announced its decision to end a contract awarded to a Chinese company in 2016 for a project worth Rs 471 crores.

The project was for establishing signaling and telecommunication work on the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor’s 417-km section between Kanpur and Mughalsarai.

The contract worth Rs 471 crores was given to Beijing National Railway Research and Design Institute of Signal and Communication Group in 2016.

Looking at the circumstances, the most obvious assumption for the reason behind the cancellation was the growing anti-china sentiment in India. However, the railways clarified that the clash in Ladakh did not have anything to do with it. The termination is happening due to “poor progress”.

They were supposed to complete the work by 2019, but only 20 percent of the work has been completed so far, said the Railways.

Several issues pertaining to the contract include the reluctance of the company to report technical documents such as the logic design of electronic interlocking, non-availability of their Engineers/authorized personnel at the site, no progression in terms of physical work as they have no tie-up with the local agencies, lack in material procurement and finally limited progress despite meetings at every possible level.