Central Information Commission
Vishnu Dev Bhandari vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 18 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Phone: 011- 26181927 | Fax: 011- 26185088
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195
Vishnu Dev Bhandari v. PIO, M/o Statistics & Programme
Implementation
RTI : 12.07.2016
FAO : Nil
Second Appeal : 20.09.2016
Hearing : 07.09.2017
Appellant : Not present
Shri Venkatesh Nayak from CHRI present
Public authority : Shri D. Saibaba, Director (MPLADS)
Shri S.K. Roy, Under Secretary
Shri S.K. Pathania, ASO
Decided on : 18.10.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought certified copies of action taken report on his representation dated 12.10.2015. There was no response either from CPIO or FAA, the appellant approached this Commission. In his representation the appellant asked for the progress of the works undertaken in Khatauna block of Madhubani District, Bihar, and under RTI he was asking for action taken report.
2. The Commission's order dated 18.08.2017:
2. Appellant represented in video conference that CPIO did not care to respond, while the Fist Appellate Authority also did not bother to hear his first appeal, and wanted stern penal action against the CPIO and FAA for their non-
responsive attitude, because of this he was not in a position to know how the works are being taken up and when are they going to be completed. He also asked, if the CPIO of the Ministry does not respond, whom should he ask?
"Whether MP or his party would answer me?"
3. The voter-appellant was furious over non-response of the public authority. His questions appear to be genuine and quite democratic. If not the voter who would ask the representative or agency that executes the works for which representative has allocated funds? If a voter sought information about his representative in Parliament regarding the progress of works initiated under his MPLADs, it has to be appreciated as proper use of RTI. The voter-appellant wanted to know the progress/status of developments in the Parliamentary CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 1 constituency of Madhubani under Member of Parliament Local Area Development scheme (MPLADS) in Khatauna block of Madhubani district, Bihar. A voter has every right under the RTI to know about selection of works, progress, incomplete works, the delay, reasons thereof and possible time of their completion.
4. It is pertinent to note that from the tax payer's money, each parliamentarian is getting Rs. 5 Crore per annum, besides all his primary and VVIP standard facilities were taken care of. Each Member of Parliament is privileged to allocate from his Rs. 5 crore annual fund for the developmental activities in his constituency which is called "Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)". Under this scheme, each MP has the choice to suggest various works in his constituency to the District Collector to the tune of Rs.5 Crore per annum.
5. The representatives of the Ministry say that actual progress on the field could be ascertained by the local authorities like District Magistrate and his subordinates. Regarding how the works were chosen, the officers said that it was totally in the discretion of the concerned MP and no authority could intervene in it.
6. The appellant wanted to know how the works were selected and progressed with details under MPLADs in his constituency. As rightly represented, this information is partly held by the respondent Ministry, District Collectors/Magistrates in the Constituency, the MP, his legislature party and the political party, if they have any guidelines or policy regarding allocation of funds for the works in the constituencies. All of these authorities have a duty to answer to the voter-citizen. There is no doubt that the Ministry and the District Collectors are public authorities under the RTI Act and they are supposed to answer the appellant within 30 days.
7. The Appellant's request for information appears to be genuine and not motivated by any personal interest, and he was not asking any personal information or private information about the MP. He is not even asking about their assets, or increase during the term or the money he spent to get elected etc. He was also not raising any political issue. The information sought does not fall under any category of exceptions prescribed under RTI Act. In fact it was the duty of the Ministry, which is called "Statistics and Programme Implementation"
that means it is supposed to have information and also supervise the implementation of the programs. The question, questioner and also questioned authority were proper and legal. It is not known why he was not answered. The public authority did not bother to respond to his RTI request and First appeal was totally ignored. It is a fit case for complaint and second appeal too.
8. The officers or District Magistrates/Collectors of concerned districts wherein the MPLADS related activity was taken up can provide statistical data as available with them. The real questions regarding criterion etc of the MP's decision to allot funds for some works and refusing others remain unanswered, which could be answered either by MP or his legislature party or its original political party.
9. The Commission directs the CPIO of Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, and CPIO of Lok Sabha Secretariat to provide a report on activities on MPLADS in Khatauna block of Madhubani constituency along with details sought by the appellant, besides placing it in their official website, before 7th September 2017.
10. The Commission directs the CPIO and Mr. S.K. Surwade, Director and HOD, who is considered as deemed CPIO to show cause why penalty should not be CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 2 imposed against each of them for not responding, which amounts to deemed refusal under Section 7(2) and will attract Section 20 of the RTI Act.
11. The First Appellate Authority is also directed to explain why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for not taking up the first appeal at all, which amounts to abdication of responsibility under RTI Act. All the responses should reach before 7th September, 2017.
12. The Commission directs the PIO/PA or PS of the concerned MP, Honorable Shri Hukumdev Narayan Yadav to furnish the details of the works recommended by him, the criterion of selection or rejection and progress of the work etc before 7th September 2017.
13. Considering the possibility of policy or guidelines being issued from the Parliamentary Party of the BJP, in which the concerned MP is the member, invites the views/contentions of the Government Chief Whip, the Leader, and Deputy Leader (LS) of BJP, or any other authorized representative as to why the BJP Parliamentary Party should not be declared as 'public authority' under 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, on 7th September 2017 at 2 pm before this Commission. The case is posted for hearing on 7th September at 2 pm. They may choose to appear in person before the Commission or send their written submission through authorized representative.
14. As the BJP Parliamentary Party is the ruling party of the Government of India, proclaimed its commitment to transparency and clean government, the Commission recommends to voluntarily disclose the criterion for selection of works under MPLADs along with constitution wise works list and their progress with regular updating, on their official website/websites of the party or Legislature Party or individual MPs, if they have any, to fulfil their democratic obligation to inform the voters of India, within reasonable time.
15. In principle every legislature/parliamentary party shall be considered as public authority. Either because of RTI Act, or because of their Constitutional obligation to give good governance or because of their oath under the Constitution, every legislator and their group called "Legislature/Parliamentary Party" or their "Original Political Party" as defined under the Constitution (Tenth Schedule), have moral, legal and constitutional obligation to disclose at least the MPLADs related information on their own under Section 4(1). The Commission recommends every legislator to fulfil this obligation as they have promised this nation to work as per the Constitution. The Commission would like to remind the elected legislators the oath they have taken while assuming the office of membership of legislature. The MPs and if one of the MPs is the Minister, are under obligation to take following oath as per the Third Schedule of our Constitution:
Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union:-
"I, [the name], do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, [that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill- will."
Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union:-
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 3 "I, [the name], do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the Union except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister."
Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a Member of Parliament:-
"I, [the name], having been elected (or nominated) a member of the Council of States (or the House of the People) do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and that I will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter."
(Similar oaths were expected to be taken by the Ministers and Legislators in the States)
16. The Supreme Court in many of its cases has declared that the Right to Information is not just a legal right under RTI Act, but also a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which the members have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance. The Commission hopes that all the MPs and legislators in our country understand the true meaning of the oath they have taken and also know how the oath commits them not to breach the same.
17. The Commission hopes that the Ministers who took oath of secrecy, need not be reminded that they have a duty to reveal that information that may be required for the due discharge of their duties as minister. This means the information like progress of works under MPLADs scheme shall be disclosed as that would be required in due discharge of the duties. The MPs, who will not take oath of secrecy, are bound to give all information, including that was asked by the appellant in this case. They have to uphold integrity of India, which cannot be done without integrity of individual members of legislature, and if the anti- corruption measures including transparency are not ensured. All of them have duty to faithfully discharge their duties under the Officer they entered upon.
18. For the above reasons the Commission considers that it is required and that will be appropriate for all other parties, who have presence in their respective legislative houses at centre or states, also to express their views on the point why their respective legislature/parliamentary parties shall not be brought under the purview of RTI Act, as public authorities and why not they disclose such information voluntarily.
19. Apart from political parties in centre and states, the Commission also invites civil society including NGOs and individual citizens having concern for democracy and transparency to express their opinion/contentions or views on the issue of bringing legislature parties/parliamentary parties under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide people access to information, by email to [email protected] before 8th September, 2017.
20. The Commission media and civil society to provide enough publicity to the last date and emaild to facilitate people to present their views within time.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 4 Proceedings on 7th September 2017
3. Main contention of the Appellant on 18.8.2017 represented in video conference was that CPIO did not care to respond to his RTI request, and the First Appellate Authority also did not bother to hear his first appeal. He insisted on stern penal action against the CPIO and FAA for their non-responsive attitude, because of this he was not in a position to know how the works are being taken up and when are they going to be completed. He wanted to know how works are selected and executed. The officers who represented told the Commission that except sanctioning and releasing of the funds they have no role to play and that entire information about sanction and release is available on the website http://www.mplads.gov.in.
4. There was no response to the direction dated 18.08.2017 issued to the CPIO, and Mr. S.K. Surwade, Director & HOD, deemed CPIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not responding, which amounted to deemed refusal under Section 7(2) and will attract Section 20 of the RTI Act.
5. None filed any explanation but Shri D. Saibaba, Director (MPLADS) submitted a detailed note as to how the interim-order of the Hon'ble Commission dated 18.08.2017 was implemented. Shri D. Saibaba, wrote a letter to the appellant on 25.08.2017 explaining their compliance of CIC's Order. The Joint Director of MPLADS Smt. Chetana Shukla wrote on 28.07.2017 to the District Planning Officer, Madhubani, Bihar - 817211 to furnish comprehensive point- wise report to the appellant in response to appellant's representation dated 09.07.2016. The Deputy Director of MPLADS wrote another letter to District Planning Officer on 14.10.2016 to furnish complete information to the appellant. On 30.08.2017 Shri D. Saibaba wrote another letter to the appellant Shri Vishnu Dev Bhandari attaching several pages of information furnished by the District Planning Officer about the status of 57 works pertaining to 14th Lok Sabha, 34 works (15th Lok Sabha) and 11 works (16th Lok Sabha). On 04.09.2017 Shri D. Saibaba sent another compliance report to the Deputy Registrar of the Central Information Commission. On 04.09.2017 the Lok Sabha Secretariat sent a reply saying that the Committee on MPLADS is not directly involved in its implementation and that it provides only secretarial assistance.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 5
6. The Commission finds that none of the officers gave causes show cause notice why there was no response to the appellant's RTI application dated 12.07.2016. Until interim-order of CIC dated 18.08.2017, there was no iota of information supplied to the appellant. His first appeal was totally ignored. The Commission could not find which officer was exactly the CPIO as on the date of RTI application i.e., 12.07.2016 and who the first appellate authority during that period. There was no mention of the name of the CPIO or FAA in any of the responses to the interim order of this Commission. The Commission takes serious exception for non-furnishing of names of the CPIO and FAA, and for total lack of response to the show-cause notices. As far information supply is concerned Director D Saibaba has complied with the directions, but his report does not mention any reason for absolute lack of response to RTI and first appeal in this case. It's a matter of concern that the officers did not even inform who the CPIO or FAA at relevant period. The website has some names under RTI, but it is impossible to know who the CPIO was at a particular period and jurisdiction. Hence Commission is compelled to conclude that the CPIO of relevant period with concerned jurisdiction is guilty of breach of RTI of the appellant and directs Shri D. Saibaba, Director (MPLADS), to arrange for payment of penalty from the concerned CPIO and recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the officer designated as first appellate authority as on the date of first appeal filed by this applicant. The Commission also directs him to file a compliance report of this order regarding payment of penalty by CPIO and disciplinary action against the first appellate authority.
7. The Commission directs the respondent authority to pay a token compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the appellant for depriving him of his rightful information and compelling him to file this second appeal, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
8. Regarding the execution of work, the appellant need to approach district authorities. It has state-wise, district-wise and MP-wise details. There are consolidated annual reports also. But the website did not reflect latest annual reports for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Latest report available was for the year 2014-15. Same is the status with Hindi reports also. Fund release statement is available as on 16.10.2017.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 6
9. As appellant asked about a constituency in Bihar, Commission refers to status of funding in that state. As on 16th October 2017, in the year 2017-18, among Bihar Lok Sabha constituencies, Rs 12.5 cr was used out of Rs 200 cr entitlement and among Rajya Sabha MPs entitlement Rs 5 cr was released out of Rs. 80 cr. In last year 2016-17, Rs 87.5 crore is released out of Rs. 200 cr entitlement for Lok Sabha MPs, and for Rajya Sabha MPs, only Rs 25 cr is released out of Rs 80 cr entitlement.
10. In Delhi the utility of MPLADS by MPs of both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha is 'zero' in both 2016-17 and 2017-18 as on 16-10-2017, against entitlement of Rs 35 cr for Lok Sabha and Rs 10 cr for Rajya Sabha MPs. The entitlement and utility details are given below:
Source:http://www.mplads.gov.in/MPLADS/UploadedFiles/html/summ/s2017- 2018_htm.htm
11. Rs. 1620 cr was released/utilized out of total fund of Rs. 2725 cr entitled under MPLADS scheme for MPs in Lok Sabha, Rs. 673 cr out 1225 crore was released/utilized for MPS in Rajya Sabha in 37 states/UTs in 2016-17 as on 16.10.2017.
SUMMARY OF FUNDS RELEASED UNDER MPLADS
FOR 2016-2017 as on 16/10/2017
Sl. STATE/UT LOK SABHA RAJYA SABHA
N
No. of No. No. of Total Total Total No. of No. of No. of Total Total fund Total
o.
instal of 2nd No. of fund fund instalm 1st 2nd No. of entitled fund
ments 1st instal instalm entitled release ents instal instal instalm by the released
entitle instal ment ents by the d by entitled ment ment ents State/UT( by Govt.
d by ment releas release State/U Govt. by the releas releas release Rs. Crore) of
the relea ed by d by T(Rs. of state ed by ed by d by India(Rs.
state sed Govt Govt of Crore) India(R Govt Govt Govt of Crore)
by of India s. of of India
Govt India Crore) India India
of
India
1 Nominated 4 2 2 4 10 10 24 6 4 10 60 25
2 Andhra 50 17 5 22 125 55 22 8 4 12 55 30
Pradesh
3 Arunachal 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
Pradesh
4 Assam 28 13 7 20 70 50 14 5 5 10 35 25
5 Bihar 80 23 12 35 200 87.5 32 4 6 10 80 25
6 Goa 4 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 5 0
7 Gujarat 52 23 13 36 130 90 22 8 3 11 55 27.5
8 Haryana 20 10 7 17 50 42.5 10 1 2 3 25 7.5
9 Himachal 8 4 4 8 20 20 6 3 3 6 15 15
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 7
Pradesh
10 Jammu & 12 2 0 2 30 5 8 4 4 8 20 20
Kashmir
11 Karnataka 56 16 9 25 140 62.5 24 6 6 12 60 30
12 Kerala 40 18 7 25 100 62.5 18 7 1 8 45 20
13 Madhya 58 25 23 48 145 120 22 9 9 18 55 45
Pradesh
14 Maharashtr 96 33 11 44 240 110 38 3 7 10 95 25
a
15 Manipur 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
16 Meghalaya 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
17 Mizoram 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
18 Nagaland 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
19 Odisha 42 19 11 30 105 75 20 9 8 17 50 42.5
20 Punjab 26 12 9 21 65 52.5 14 7 6 13 35 32.5
21 Rajasthan 50 17 9 26 125 65 20 6 5 11 50 27.5
22 Sikkim 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
23 Tamil Nadu 78 37 26 63 195 157.5 36 14 8 22 90 55
24 Tripura 4 1 1 2 10 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
25 Uttar 160 63 30 93 400 232.5 62 20 15 35 155 87.5
Pradesh
26 West 84 34 26 60 210 150 32 10 6 16 80 40
Bengal
27 A & N 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Islands
28 Chandigar 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
h
29 D & N 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haveli
30 Daman & 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diu
31 Delhi 14 0 0 0 35 0 6 0 0 0 15 0
32 Lakshadee 2 1 0 1 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
p
33 Puducherry 2 1 0 1 5 2.5 2 0 0 0 5 0
34 Chhattisgar 22 10 9 19 55 47.5 10 5 5 10 25 25
h
35 Uttaranchal 10 2 2 4 25 10 6 1 2 3 15 7.5
36 Jharkhand 28 10 3 13 70 32.5 12 0 2 2 30 5
37 Telangana 34 8 3 11 85 27.5 14 5 3 8 35 20
TOTAL: 1090 410 238 648 2725 1620 490 148 121 269 1225 673
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 8
12. Rs. 370 cr was released/utilized out of total fund of Rs. 2725 cr entitled under MPLADS scheme for MPs in Lok Sabha, Rs.162 cr out 1225 crore was released/utilized for MPS in Rajya Sabha in 37 states/UTs in 2017-18 as on 16.10.2017.
SUMMARY OF FUNDS RELEASED UNDER MPLADS
FOR 2017-2018 as on 16/10/2017
Sl.N STATE/UT LOK SABHA RAJYA SABHA
o.
No. of No. of No. of Total No. Total Total No. of No. of No. of Total No. Total Total
instalme 1st 2nd of fund fund instalme 1st 2nd of fund fund
nts instalm instalm instalme entitled releas nts instalm instalm instalme entitled releas
entitled ent ent nts by the ed by entitled ent ent nts by the ed by
by the release release released State/UT( Govt. by the release release released State/UT( Govt.
state d by d by by Govt Rs. of state d by d by by Govt Rs. of
Govt of Govt of of India Crore) India( Govt of Govt of of India Crore) India(
India India Rs. India India Rs.
Crore) Crore)
1 Nominate 4 0 0 0 10 0 24 2 0 2 60 5
d
2 Andhra 50 1 0 1 125 2.5 22 1 0 1 55 2.5
Pradesh
3 Arunacha 4 2 0 2 10 5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
l Pradesh
4 Assam 28 4 1 5 70 12.5 14 3 0 3 35 7.5
5 Bihar 80 5 0 5 200 12.5 32 1 1 2 80 5
6 Goa 4 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 5 0
7 Gujarat 52 7 1 8 130 20 22 1 1 2 55 5
8 Haryana 20 1 0 1 50 2.5 10 2 0 2 25 5
9 Himachal 8 4 0 4 20 10 6 2 0 2 15 5
Pradesh
10 Jammu & 12 0 0 0 30 0 8 0 0 0 20 0
Kashmir
11 Karnatak 56 2 0 2 140 5 24 4 0 4 60 10
a
12 Kerala 40 3 0 3 100 7.5 18 0 0 0 45 0
13 Madhya 58 17 5 22 145 55 22 6 4 10 55 25
Pradesh
14 Maharas 96 2 0 2 240 5 38 3 0 3 95 7.5
htra
15 Manipur 4 1 0 1 10 2.5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
16 Meghalay 4 2 0 2 10 5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
a
17 Mizoram 2 1 0 1 5 2.5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
18 Nagaland 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
19 Odisha 42 6 0 6 105 15 20 5 0 5 50 12.5
20 Punjab 26 7 0 7 65 17.5 14 4 0 4 35 10
21 Rajastha 50 5 0 5 125 12.5 20 2 0 2 50 5
n
22 Sikkim 2 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 5 0
23 Tamil 78 16 0 16 195 40 36 2 0 2 90 5
Nadu
24 Tripura 4 1 0 1 10 2.5 2 1 0 1 5 2.5
25 Uttar 160 15 1 16 400 40 62 7 0 7 155 17.5
Pradesh
26 West 84 21 4 25 210 62.5 32 5 0 5 80 12.5
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 9
Bengal
27 A & N 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Islands
28 Chandiga 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rh
29 D & N 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haveli
30 Daman & 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diu
31 Delhi 14 0 0 0 35 0 6 0 0 0 15 0
32 Lakshade 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ep
33 Puducher 2 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 5 0
ry
34 Chhattisg 22 8 0 8 55 20 10 3 0 3 25 7.5
arh
35 Uttaranch 10 1 0 1 25 2.5 6 1 0 1 15 2.5
al
36 Jharkhan 28 1 0 1 70 2.5 12 0 0 0 30 0
d
37 Telangan 34 1 0 1 85 2.5 14 0 0 0 35 0
a
TOTAL: 1090 135 13 148 2725 370 490 60 6 66 1225 162
SUMMARY OF FUNDS RELEASED UNDER MPLADS
FOR 2015-2016 as on 16/10/2017
Sl. STATE/ LOK SABHA RAJYA SABHA
No. UT
No. of No. of No. of Total Total Total No. of No. of No. of Total Total Total
instalm 1st 2nd No. of fund fund instalm 1st 2nd No. of fund fund
ents instal instal instalm entitled relea ents instal instal instalm entitled relea
entitled ment ment ents by the sed entitled ment ment ents by the sed
by the releas releas release State/UT by by the releas releas release State/UT by
state ed by ed by d by (Rs. Govt. state ed by ed by d by (Rs. Govt.
Govt Govt Govt of Crore) of Govt Govt Govt of Crore) of
of of India India( of of India India(
India India Rs. India India Rs.
Crore Crore
) )
1 Nominat 4 0 2 2 10 5 24 7 4 11 60 27.5
ed
2 Andhra 50 24 22 46 125 115 22 8 7 15 55 37.5
Pradesh
3 Arunach 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
al
Pradesh
4 Assam 28 14 13 27 70 67.5 14 6 6 12 35 30
5 Bihar 80 36 29 65 200 162.5 32 10 6 16 80 40
6 Goa 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 0 0 0 5 0
7 Gujarat 52 26 26 52 130 130 22 10 9 19 55 47.5
8 Haryana 20 10 10 20 50 50 10 5 3 8 25 20
9 Himach 8 4 4 8 20 20 6 3 3 6 15 15
al
Pradesh
10 Jammu 12 6 6 12 30 30 8 4 4 8 20 20
&
Kashmir
11 Karnata 56 28 23 51 140 127.5 24 8 7 15 60 37.5
ka
12 Kerala 40 20 20 40 100 100 18 9 7 16 45 40
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 10
13 Madhya 58 29 27 56 145 140 22 9 8 17 55 42.5
Pradesh
14 Mahara 96 47 43 90 240 225 38 13 10 23 95 57.5
shtra
15 Manipur 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
16 Meghala 4 2 2 4 10 10 2 1 1 2 5 5
ya
17 Mizoram 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
18 Nagalan 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
d
19 Odisha 42 21 20 41 105 102.5 20 9 9 18 50 45
20 Punjab 26 13 13 26 65 65 14 6 6 12 35 30
21 Rajasth 50 24 22 46 125 115 20 8 7 15 50 37.5
an
22 Sikkim 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
23 Tamil 78 39 39 78 195 195 36 16 14 30 90 75
Nadu
24 Tripura 4 1 1 2 10 5 2 1 1 2 5 5
25 Uttar 160 79 75 154 400 385 62 28 24 52 155 130
Pradesh
26 West 84 42 38 80 210 200 32 15 13 28 80 70
Bengal
27 A & N 2 1 1 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Islands
28 Chandig 2 1 1 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
arh
29 D & N 2 1 0 1 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haveli
30 Daman 2 1 0 1 5 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
& Diu
31 Delhi 14 5 1 6 35 15 6 0 0 0 15 0
32 Lakshad 2 1 1 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
eep
33 Puduch 2 1 1 2 5 5 2 0 1 1 5 2.5
erry
34 Chhattis 22 11 11 22 55 55 10 5 5 10 25 25
garh
35 Uttaranc 10 5 3 8 25 20 6 2 2 4 15 10
hal
36 Jharkha 28 13 12 25 70 62.5 12 6 4 10 30 25
nd
37 Telanga 34 16 12 28 85 70 14 6 4 10 35 25
na
TOTAL: 1090 530 487 1017 2725 2542. 490 200 170 370 1225 925 5
13. The tables above reveal the utility of the funds by MPs and need for their accountability and answerability. The Commission requires that all District Authorities shall also disclose the progress reports of the works in terms of percentage of completion, the work left out, and possible date of completion, in their respective websites to give effective meaning to the voters' (including this applicant) right to know the progress of works in their constituency. In fact, this is information forms part of Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 11
14. From the records, files, websites and responses the Commission found that the MPs are not fully utilising the funds available for them under MPLADs scheme along with a mechanism of recommendation of works release of funds and implementation of schemes by different authorities, as explained above. When each MP is given Rs. 5 crores for development of their constituency, it is the right of the citizen to demand why funds were not utilised. As per the MPLADs scheme, neither the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation nor the district administration of the concerned MP can answer the questions about non-utilization of funds. In the interim order it was explained that there is no answerability for MPs discretion power in accepting certain requests and rejecting the other regarding development works in their constituency. There is men, money and machinery but MPs do not have will to use all the money for the people of their constituency. In spite of having system, mechanism and funds, most of the MPLADs funds are lying un-utilized or underutilized. Does it not amount to abdication of responsibility by elected representatives? They spend hundreds of crores to get elected but do not spend Rs 125 crores of MPLADS for those elected him. It's pathetic that certain Rajya Sabha MPs did not even choose the area where they could have spent money for development and thus there was no utilization of funds at all.
15. Hence Commission strongly recommends that the Legislature party of original political party having elected MPs in either of the houses should own up the duty of 100% proper utilization of MPLADs funds by each MP besides being accountable and answerable to the voters under RTI Act and also otherwise because of their political obligation to be answerable to the electors. Each original political party, which has some presence in Legislature, should introduce financial transparency regarding their sources of income, including donations and names of donors, expenditure during elections and non-election period. Those parties should make suo-motu disclosure at regular intervals on their official websites. Their Legislature parties should voluntarily appoint a PIO and FAA to answer about works under MPLADs, utilization and non-utilization of funds, and criteria for recommendation of works, as soon as possible.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 12
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Dinesh Kumar)
Deputy Registrar
Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, M/o Statistics & Programme Implementation, Plot No. 22, Knowledge Part-II, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh-201310.
2. Shri Vishnu Dev Bhandari,
3. Dr. D. Saibaba, Director, Ministry of Statistics and & Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
CIC/MOSPI/A/2017/176195 Page 13