GANGTOK, September 4: A public-interest disclosure issued by Palden Bhutia has raised serious concerns over the construction of the terrace/roof and shop spaces at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, Lal Bazar, Gangtok, alleging irregularities in the handling of shop transactions, public payments and financial records connected with the project.
Bhutia stated that he became associated with the work around June 2024. In a limited operational capacity, he assisted with construction-related coordination and with the promotion, booking and collection-related work concerning shop spaces. He said he performed these activities under the instructions, assurances and representations of Tenzing Norsang Yapshi Yuthok.
According to Bhutia, at the time he was made aware that Yuthok was acting with authority from Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited. Documents now in Bhutia’s possession, he said, support this understanding.
Bhutia referred to a General Body resolution of Rising dated 13 May 2024, which, according to the documents available to him, authorised Yuthok to raise funds, construct the roof, shops and other facilities on the terrace of Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, rent out shops to third parties, operate the Society’s proposed bank account as an authorised signatory, and settle construction and maintenance expenses from capital and rents collected from third parties.
Bhutia further stated that a registered Power of Attorney dated 19 June 2024, executed in favour of Yuthok in connection with Rising and its President, was also made known to him.
He said he therefore acted under the belief that Yuthok was authorised to initiate and carry out the work for Rising, and that persons assisting Yuthok in the construction and shop-related activities were doing so for the Society and not for a private individual enterprise.
Bhutia said the materials relied upon in his disclosure are not based on rumour or speculation. According to him, they include documents and records obtained from the Department of Co-operation under the Right to Information Act, including Rising’s bye-laws, General Body records and financial materials, together with agreements, banking material, receipts and electronic communications that came into his possession while he was associated with Yuthok and the work at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex.
He alleged that over time he noticed serious irregularities in the functioning of Rising and in the manner in which Yuthok’s authority was being exercised. Bhutia said he raised concerns and sought clarity from persons associated with Rising and Yuthok, following which his relationship with them broke down and he was told not to involve himself further.
According to Bhutia, the available records indicate that shop interests and commitments were created for more persons than Rising is now prepared to recognise.
He stated that Rising has communicated a position that it would recognise only 40 shop spaces, whereas records and communications available with him indicate that the number of persons who have paid money or claim shop rights exceeds that number.
Bhutia said many such persons are now facing uncertainty regarding allotment, possession, refund or recognition of their rights. He added that he is personally affected as well, but that the disclosure was not made merely for his individual claim and was instead made because, according to him, the interests of many members of the public require protection.
₹15 LAKH SHOP PAYMENTS, BUT AGREEMENTS ALLEGEDLY SHOW ₹2.5 LAKH
A particularly serious concern raised by Bhutia relates to the manner in which agreements are allegedly being executed by Rising.
According to documents available with him, the approximate consideration discussed and collected in certain shop transactions was around ₹15 lakh per shop, apart from applicable GST. Bhutia said many persons paid substantial amounts, including through cash and banking channels.
However, he alleged that Rising subsequently executed agreements on stamp papers recording a substantially lower consideration.
In one documented agreement referred to by Bhutia, Rising records that the tenant “shall pay” only ₹2,50,000 plus GST for a shop. According to Bhutia, the agreement does not acknowledge the allegedly higher amount paid or collected in relation to the concerned shop right.
Bhutia said that if a person pays or is made to pay approximately ₹15 lakh for a shop space, while the subsequent agreement records only ₹2,50,000 plus GST, the agreement does not disclose the real transaction.
According to him, such a discrepancy creates an incomplete record of the amount received, places the payer’s rights at risk and raises questions regarding accounting, receipts, GST compliance, audit procedures and the treatment of the remaining money.
₹27 LAKH CREDITED THROUGH THREE PAYMENTS
Bhutia has also called for scrutiny of the Bank of Baroda account operated in the name of Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited.
According to bank records cited in his disclosure, substantial direct credits were made into the account by persons connected with shop transactions.
In one instance, a total of ₹27 lakh was credited into Rising’s Bank of Baroda account through three separate payments:
• ₹10 lakh on February 1, 2025
• ₹10 lakh on February 20, 2025
• ₹7 lakh on April 9, 2025
Bhutia stated that contemporaneous communications available with him connect these payments with two shop spaces, balance consideration and GST.
QUESTIONS RAISED OVER ₹14.26 LAKH FINANCIAL DIFFERENCE
Another major issue highlighted by Bhutia concerns an apparent difference between the bank balance reflected in available records and Rising’s financial statement.
According to Bhutia, the Bank of Baroda statement reflected a balance of ₹14,84,048.38 as on March 31, 2025.
However, Rising’s financial statement bearing a chartered-accountant audit report, which Bhutia said was obtained through RTI, reportedly records “cash at bank” of only ₹57,153.50 as on the same date.
The apparent difference is ₹14,26,894.88.
Bhutia said the discrepancy requires a complete bank reconciliation and statutory verification.
He clarified that he is not making any final finding against any individual. However, he said the Society, its office-bearers and persons who operated or dealt with its funds should explain the discrepancy through complete books of account, bank statements, vouchers, ledgers and audit records.
The disclosure states that the pattern of lower-value agreements, substantial public payments, cash collections, bank transfers and the apparent mismatch between the Bank of Baroda record and the financial material obtained through RTI raises a serious apprehension requiring investigation.
Bhutia has stated that whether the facts disclose falsification of accounts, cheating, breach of trust, tax violations, diversion of funds, money laundering or any other offence must be determined through a lawful and independent inquiry.
BHUTIA ALLEGES HARASSMENT AND PRESSURE
Bhutia has also alleged that he is facing serious harassment and unfair pressure.
According to him, despite Rising’s records and the authority granted to Yuthok in relation to the terrace and shop construction at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, certain persons are now being directed towards him for repayment, while construction-related payment demands are allegedly being shifted upon him.
Bhutia said such demands are unjustified without a complete reconciliation of who collected the money, who received it, where it was deposited, who authorised its use and who is legally accountable.
He said he is ready and willing to cooperate with every lawful inquiry and will produce the RTI-obtained documents, agreements, receipts, electronic communications and banking-related material available with him before the competent authorities.
PUBLIC- INTEREST APPEAL
Bhutia has appealed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Urban Development Department, District Administration, Police authorities and other competent authorities to take cognisance of the issues raised in his disclosure.
Among the measures sought by him are:
1. Preservation of all records of Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited, including agreements, stamp-paper instruments, resolutions, receipt books, cash books, ledgers, vouchers, bank statements, GST records, audit records and electronic communications.
2. An immediate statutory audit and inspection of Rising’s affairs, including all bank accounts and, in particular, the Bank of Baroda account.
3. A shop-wise reconciliation of the amount actually paid by every person, the amount stated in the agreement, the receipt issued, the GST invoice generated and the entry reflected in Rising’s accounts.
4. Identification of every person who has paid money but has not received a shop space, possession, allotment, refund or a lawful resolution of his or her claim.
5. Examination of the role and accountability of Tenzing Norsang Yapshi Yuthok, Rising’s office-bearers and every other person who collected, received, transferred, authorised or benefited from funds connected with the terrace and shop construction at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex.
6. Appropriate accountability and relief so that responsible persons are held accountable, public money is not concealed or misused, and affected persons either receive the shop rights for which they paid or are granted appropriate relief and recovery in accordance with law.
Bhutia has stated that he is prepared to cooperate with any lawful inquiry and produce the documents and materials available with him.
The allegations and concerns raised in the disclosure require verification by the competent authorities. Any determination of wrongdoing, financial liability or criminal offence can only be made following a lawful and independent investigation.
Sd/- Palden Bhutia
Gangtok, Sikkim
PUBLIC-INTEREST DISCLOSURE RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS OVER KANCHENJUNGA SHOPPING COMPLEX TERRACE PROJECT
GANGTOK, September 4: A public-interest disclosure issued by Palden Bhutia has raised serious concerns over the construction of the terrace/roof and shop spaces at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, Lal Bazar, Gangtok, alleging irregularities in the handling of shop transactions, public payments and financial records connected with the project.
Bhutia stated that he became associated with the work around June 2024. In a limited operational capacity, he assisted with construction-related coordination and with the promotion, booking and collection-related work concerning shop spaces. He said he performed these activities under the instructions, assurances and representations of Tenzing Norsang Yapshi Yuthok.
According to Bhutia, at the time he was made aware that Yuthok was acting with authority from Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited. Documents now in Bhutia’s possession, he said, support this understanding.
Bhutia referred to a General Body resolution of Rising dated 13 May 2024, which, according to the documents available to him, authorised Yuthok to raise funds, construct the roof, shops and other facilities on the terrace of Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, rent out shops to third parties, operate the Society’s proposed bank account as an authorised signatory, and settle construction and maintenance expenses from capital and rents collected from third parties.
Bhutia further stated that a registered Power of Attorney dated 19 June 2024, executed in favour of Yuthok in connection with Rising and its President, was also made known to him.
He said he therefore acted under the belief that Yuthok was authorised to initiate and carry out the work for Rising, and that persons assisting Yuthok in the construction and shop-related activities were doing so for the Society and not for a private individual enterprise.
Bhutia said the materials relied upon in his disclosure are not based on rumour or speculation. According to him, they include documents and records obtained from the Department of Co-operation under the Right to Information Act, including Rising’s bye-laws, General Body records and financial materials, together with agreements, banking material, receipts and electronic communications that came into his possession while he was associated with Yuthok and the work at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex.
He alleged that over time he noticed serious irregularities in the functioning of Rising and in the manner in which Yuthok’s authority was being exercised. Bhutia said he raised concerns and sought clarity from persons associated with Rising and Yuthok, following which his relationship with them broke down and he was told not to involve himself further.
According to Bhutia, the available records indicate that shop interests and commitments were created for more persons than Rising is now prepared to recognise.
He stated that Rising has communicated a position that it would recognise only 40 shop spaces, whereas records and communications available with him indicate that the number of persons who have paid money or claim shop rights exceeds that number.
Bhutia said many such persons are now facing uncertainty regarding allotment, possession, refund or recognition of their rights. He added that he is personally affected as well, but that the disclosure was not made merely for his individual claim and was instead made because, according to him, the interests of many members of the public require protection.
₹15 LAKH SHOP PAYMENTS, BUT AGREEMENTS ALLEGEDLY SHOW ₹2.5 LAKH
A particularly serious concern raised by Bhutia relates to the manner in which agreements are allegedly being executed by Rising.
According to documents available with him, the approximate consideration discussed and collected in certain shop transactions was around ₹15 lakh per shop, apart from applicable GST. Bhutia said many persons paid substantial amounts, including through cash and banking channels.
However, he alleged that Rising subsequently executed agreements on stamp papers recording a substantially lower consideration.
In one documented agreement referred to by Bhutia, Rising records that the tenant “shall pay” only ₹2,50,000 plus GST for a shop. According to Bhutia, the agreement does not acknowledge the allegedly higher amount paid or collected in relation to the concerned shop right.
Bhutia said that if a person pays or is made to pay approximately ₹15 lakh for a shop space, while the subsequent agreement records only ₹2,50,000 plus GST, the agreement does not disclose the real transaction.
According to him, such a discrepancy creates an incomplete record of the amount received, places the payer’s rights at risk and raises questions regarding accounting, receipts, GST compliance, audit procedures and the treatment of the remaining money.
₹27 LAKH CREDITED THROUGH THREE PAYMENTS
Bhutia has also called for scrutiny of the Bank of Baroda account operated in the name of Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited.
According to bank records cited in his disclosure, substantial direct credits were made into the account by persons connected with shop transactions.
In one instance, a total of ₹27 lakh was credited into Rising’s Bank of Baroda account through three separate payments:
• ₹10 lakh on February 1, 2025
• ₹10 lakh on February 20, 2025
• ₹7 lakh on April 9, 2025
Bhutia stated that contemporaneous communications available with him connect these payments with two shop spaces, balance consideration and GST.
QUESTIONS RAISED OVER ₹14.26 LAKH FINANCIAL DIFFERENCE
Another major issue highlighted by Bhutia concerns an apparent difference between the bank balance reflected in available records and Rising’s financial statement.
According to Bhutia, the Bank of Baroda statement reflected a balance of ₹14,84,048.38 as on March 31, 2025.
However, Rising’s financial statement bearing a chartered-accountant audit report, which Bhutia said was obtained through RTI, reportedly records “cash at bank” of only ₹57,153.50 as on the same date.
The apparent difference is ₹14,26,894.88.
Bhutia said the discrepancy requires a complete bank reconciliation and statutory verification.
He clarified that he is not making any final finding against any individual. However, he said the Society, its office-bearers and persons who operated or dealt with its funds should explain the discrepancy through complete books of account, bank statements, vouchers, ledgers and audit records.
The disclosure states that the pattern of lower-value agreements, substantial public payments, cash collections, bank transfers and the apparent mismatch between the Bank of Baroda record and the financial material obtained through RTI raises a serious apprehension requiring investigation.
Bhutia has stated that whether the facts disclose falsification of accounts, cheating, breach of trust, tax violations, diversion of funds, money laundering or any other offence must be determined through a lawful and independent inquiry.
BHUTIA ALLEGES HARASSMENT AND PRESSURE
Bhutia has also alleged that he is facing serious harassment and unfair pressure.
According to him, despite Rising’s records and the authority granted to Yuthok in relation to the terrace and shop construction at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex, certain persons are now being directed towards him for repayment, while construction-related payment demands are allegedly being shifted upon him.
Bhutia said such demands are unjustified without a complete reconciliation of who collected the money, who received it, where it was deposited, who authorised its use and who is legally accountable.
He said he is ready and willing to cooperate with every lawful inquiry and will produce the RTI-obtained documents, agreements, receipts, electronic communications and banking-related material available with him before the competent authorities.
PUBLIC- INTEREST APPEAL
Bhutia has appealed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Urban Development Department, District Administration, Police authorities and other competent authorities to take cognisance of the issues raised in his disclosure.
Among the measures sought by him are:
1. Preservation of all records of Rising Service Co-operative Society Limited, including agreements, stamp-paper instruments, resolutions, receipt books, cash books, ledgers, vouchers, bank statements, GST records, audit records and electronic communications.
2. An immediate statutory audit and inspection of Rising’s affairs, including all bank accounts and, in particular, the Bank of Baroda account.
3. A shop-wise reconciliation of the amount actually paid by every person, the amount stated in the agreement, the receipt issued, the GST invoice generated and the entry reflected in Rising’s accounts.
4. Identification of every person who has paid money but has not received a shop space, possession, allotment, refund or a lawful resolution of his or her claim.
5. Examination of the role and accountability of Tenzing Norsang Yapshi Yuthok, Rising’s office-bearers and every other person who collected, received, transferred, authorised or benefited from funds connected with the terrace and shop construction at Kanchenjunga Shopping Complex.
6. Appropriate accountability and relief so that responsible persons are held accountable, public money is not concealed or misused, and affected persons either receive the shop rights for which they paid or are granted appropriate relief and recovery in accordance with law.
Bhutia has stated that he is prepared to cooperate with any lawful inquiry and produce the documents and materials available with him.
The allegations and concerns raised in the disclosure require verification by the competent authorities. Any determination of wrongdoing, financial liability or criminal offence can only be made following a lawful and independent investigation, According to
Palden Bhutia Gangtok, Sikkim
About the Author
