Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Rural Development on 31 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:CIC/NABRD/A/2018/173823/MORLD
In the matter of:
Amit Kumar Singh
... Appellant
VS
1.CPIO / Under Secretary,
M/o Rural Development (MoRD),
Department of Rural Development,
7th Floor, NDCC - II Building, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
&
2. Central Public Information Officer
NABARD Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (NABCONS)
7th Floor, NABARD Tower, 24, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi - 110125
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/09/2018 First appeal filed on : 29/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 28/11/2018 Second Appeal dated : 10/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 29/12/2020 Date of Decision : 29/12/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Shailaja Pratap, Representative present over VC Respondent: Shri B.K Tripathy, Sr. Vice President and CPIO, Shri Bhim Prakash, Under Secretary, Siddarth Pandey, Consultant, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the DDU-GKY implementation:1
1. Whether the MoRD was the owner of the website i.e. www.ruralskills.in. If no, provide the details of the owner of the above stated website.
2. Provide the details of the procedure by which MoRD procured the services offered on the above mentioned website. Whether the procurement was done through open tendering or nomination basis.
Provide the copy of purchase order/MoU/Work order issued by MoRD to the owner of the abovestated website.
3. Provide the tender reference number, date of tender issued and closing date, and tender allotment date in case the procurement was done through open tendering process. Provide the details on turnover/networth requirement of bidder sought in the tender documents. Provide the list of bidders who participated in the pre bid meeting and in submitting the bids.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information within the stipulated time period.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that she had sought information relating to usage/procurement of services of a website www.ruralskills.in by Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) which was notified by the Ministry for inviting fresh DDUGKY proposals, appraisal, approval and sanctioning of the projects as well and monitoring and evaluation of all ongoing skill development DDUGKY projects by PIAs (Project Implementing Agencies) across all states and UTs. The website name www.ruralskills.in aka MRIGS finds a repeated mention in a series of minutes of meetings uploaded by MoRD for its EC Meetings, Review meetings or PAC meetings.
She further submitted that no satisfactory reply was received from the PIOs of MoRD, NIRD and NABCONS for any question of the RTI application. The RTI application was transferred by PIO of MoRD to NIRD and NABCONS. FAA of NIRD and NABCONS have clearly stated in their respective decisions that information pertaining to the said RTI queries is available with MoRD only. The FAA decision of NIRD was received very late, after the filing of the second appeal before CIC.
During the hearing, it was evident that representatives from MoRD and NABCONS were passing the burden of replying to RTI queries on each other and none were giving any clear, legitimate, satisfactory reply. They were all 2 accordingly given an opportunity to submit written submissions immediately after the hearing. Mr Siddharth Pandey, who also participated in the hearing in the capacity of a consultant working with MoRD said that the www.ruralskills.in is owned by HSTPL and that its services were hired by NABCONS and NIRD to support MoRD.
At this juncture, it is very important to share an important fact regarding HSTPL (the alleged owner of www.ruralskills.in) with CIC. HSTPL i.e. Hard Shell Technologies Pvt Limited (a company incorporated in the year 1992 as M/s Saubhagya Developers Pvt Limited but renamed as Hard Shell on 11th Feb 2015) is registered at 130 Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh.
Mr. Abhay Singh is the Managing Director of the company HSTPL and owns 98.04% of its equity shares. The same Mr Abhay Singh is also the Chief Executive Officer of an NGO- Manav Vikas Evam Shiksha Sansthan. As a matter of fact, the NGO of Mr. Abhay Singh- Manav Vikas Evam Shiksha Sansthan has been sanctioned DDUGKY projects across many States (1 project each in Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, 2 projects in Maharashtra and 3 projects in Uttar Pradesh). All these projects were appraised and monitored by Ministry of Rural Development through a website www.ruralskills.in which was designed and owned by none other than Mr. Abhay Singh himself. Thus, there was a clear clash of interest and it can be safely assumed that because of vested interests of certain involved parties, the sanctity of the project management was severely compromised. The estimated sanctioned project amount for these projects sanctioned to Mr. Abhay Singh comes around Rs. 70 Crore.
Shri Bhim Prakash, Under Secretary and CPIO (Skills) submitted the point-wise reply as follows:
Q 1: Was MoRD the owner of website-www.ruralskills.in? If no, then who was the owner?
Reply: MoRD is not the owner of the website i.e. www.ruralskills.in. The ownership details for the mentioned website may be taken from the address provided on website.
He further explained that MoRD and Central Technical Support Agency (CTSA) i.e. NABARD Consultancy Services (NABCONS) and National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRD-PR) are not the owners of the website. The owner of the website is Hard Shell Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which may be ascertained from the website.
Q 2: How did MoRD procure the services offered on www.ruralskills.in? Was it done through open tendering or nomination basis? Provide the copy of Purchase order/MoU/Work Order issued from MoRD to owner of www.ruralskills.in Reply:The said website was not procured by MoRD.
3He further explained that DDU-GKY is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme where projects are being implemented and monitored through CTSAs. All States are distributed among these two CTSAs. States are using services of Technical Support Agency (TSA) for monitoring of respective projects. The www.ruralskills.in was developed by Hard Shell Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and they offered services for use by the DDU-GKY stakeholders. MoRD never procured any services for the website. However, NIRD&PR and NABCONS procured their services for monitoring of their respective States in the capacity of CTSA/TSA. Further, Hard Shell Technologies Pvt. Ltd. had extended their services for receiving of the project proposals for all the States without any financial implications to users.
Q 3: If procurement was done through open tendering process, then mention the tender reference number, tender issue and closing date, and tender allotment date. Also mention the turnover/networth requirement of bidder sought in the tender document and the one provided by the owner of www.ruralskills.in. Kindly mention the number of bidders who had shown interest in the tendering process by participating in the pre-bid meeting and submission of bids? Reply:Not applicable in view of above reply to Q 2.
Q 4: If procurement was done through nomination basis, then mention the reason and merit of selecting www.ruralskills.in over other web portals provided by other web service provider. Provide copies of office noting and official order justifying the merit of www.ruralskills.in and its owner over other available web service provider.
Reply:Not applicable in view of above reply to Q 2.
Q 5: What is the time period during which MoRD availed the services offered by the owner of www.ruralskills.in for the website.
Reply:The services of website were used by MoRD along with other stakeholders since December 2015. A copy of Notification 69/2015 dated 17 Dec 2015 is attached for ready reference (Annexure 1). These are being continued in 06 States by NABCONS for TSA purpose. The Ministry of Rural Development notified the use of erp.ddugky.info for appraisal of proposals from 10th July 2018.
Q 6: What other services of www.ruralskills.in were availed by MoRD apart from using it for inviting fresh DDU-GKY proposals? Was it also used for Monitoring, Evaluation, Monthly reporting etc. Reply:The services like monitoring through related reports availed by MoRD.
4[Explanation: Services availed by various other Stakeholders. States for appraisal of their proposals by their appointed Appraisal Agencies and Monitoring through State appointed TSA/CTSA/State.] Q 7: What amount of money has been paid by MoRD to owner of www.ruralskills.in in lieu of the services availed? Reply:Not applicable as no payment has been made by MoRD in this respect. [Explanation: However, the payments were made by the States/CTSA/TSA of the States for monitoring the training centres. The Payment was initially made @ Rs. 1700 per training centre + taxes, which were subsequently increased to Rs. 2000 and Rs. 2200 per training centre + taxes.] Q 8:How many DDU-GKY proposals have so far been received on the website www.ruralskills.in ? What is the size of data of all such proposal received on www.ruralskills.in.
Reply:NABCONS has received 1356 DDU-GKY proposals as on 30.09.2018 for the States where NABCONS was working as Appraisal Agency, as provided by them in response to the First Appeal of the Applicant vide letter dated 28 Nov 2018. Information about the size of data is not available with MoRD or NABCONS. The same would be available with the owner of the website. Q 9:Did MoRD ascertain that the portal www.ruralskills.in fulfils the standard software data safety and security requirement adopted for such portal as per industry standards? What security standards were sought by MoRD and what were provided by the owner of www.ruralskills.in ? How many information and data security audits were carried out by MoRD directly or through expert external auditors? What were the recommendations of such audits and which legal entity was the auditors?
Reply:Not applicable in view of above reply to Q 2.
It was not procured by MoRD. Project applications were filed and stored on the said website, State project appraisal agencies used the website to view the stored documents and reports. No audit has been conducted as asked in the question.
Q 10: Has MoRD discontinued the services offered by the portal www.ruralskills.in? What were the reasons for discontinuation of the services? Provide the official file notings and official order for contract exit, after which the services of www.ruralskills.in were discontinued though Notification 17/2018 for inviting fresh DDU-GKY proposals. Reply:On development of the Enterprise Resource Platform (ERP) system by NIRD&PR, MoRD notified for its use by stakeholders through Notification no.
517/2018 dated 10 July 2018 along with a copy of official noting portion is enclosed for ready reference (Annexure 2) Q 11: Who is the owner of the new portal-erp.ddugky.info through which fresh proposal are currently being invited?
Reply:The owner of the website erp.ddugky.info is MoRD, which has been developed by NIRD&PR. The States/UTs are using this website for submission of fresh proposals on this.
Q 12. If services of a new portal have been adopted, has all the previous data been received by MoRD in safe and retrieval form from owner of www.ruralskills.in? Has MoRD obtained the generally followed and practised contract exit clauses like obtaining the agreement on non-disclosure of data etc? Reply:DDU-GKY is implemented by the States so appraisal data should be with the States. Since MoRD has not procured services of the said website so contract exit clause is not applicable.
He explained that the data on the website for project appraisal was received and utilized by the States. Copy of the same should be with the States only. MoRD doesn't keep copy of the proposals. Data of all the States (related to project monitoring) which were using services of this website has been taken through API integration or offline by NIRD&PR and NABCONS.
The appellant's representative submitted that no information has been provided to the appellant till date. She further submitted that point no. 1 was not satisfactorily replied to. She stated that NIRD and NABCONS stated that information lies with the Ministry. The owner of the website is HSPCL and services have been procured by NABCOMS and NIRD.
The CPIO, NABCONS submitted that the RTI application was transferred to them on 13.09.2018 by MoRD, however, by virtue of the letter dated 24.09.2018 they transferred the RTI application back to MoRD as the matter was related to them. He further submitted that anappropriate order was passed by their FAA on 28.11.2018 whereby the view of the CPIO was endorsed and some information on point no.8 was provided to the appellant.
The CPIO, MoRD in his written submissions dated 22.12.2020 has stated that they did not receive the RTI application back from the NABCONS and thus were not aware that no information was provided to the appellant so far. After receipt of the CIC's hearing notice, a point-wise reply was given to the 6 appellant on 22.12.2020 and also a point-wise reply was submitted after the hearing which was mentioned above.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that even though a point-wise reply has been provided to the appellant by the CPIO, MoRD vide the letter dated 22.12.2020, however, the same is extremely delayed. The explanation of the CPIO that he was not aware that the RTI application was returned back by the NABCONS is not sustainable as there seems to be no valid justification as to why the RTI application was transferred to NABCONS and NIRD & PR, if the information was to be provided by MoRD only. It is further noted that even if the CPIO was under the impression that the reply was to be given by the NABCONS, however, until and unless the matter was listed for CIC's hearing, the CPIO, MoRD had failed to keep track as to what had happened to the RTI application after the same was transferred to some other public authority. This shows the way in which the RTI matters are being handled by the respondent authority.
The Commission after going through the point-wise reply of the CPIO and the contentions of the appellant, is of the opinion that the available information has now been given by the Ministry and in case there is any irregularity in the functioning of the website etc. the same cannot be settled through the RTI Act.
Decision:
The CPIO MoRD is cautioned to be vigilant and provide timely replies in future. Proper coordination amongst several CPIOs is required when appearing before the Commission for hearing. This should be noted for future . The Commission however finds that relevant information has now been given and there is no further action required in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 8