Central Information Commission
Hemender Singh vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 29 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: -CIC/MOSPI/A/2019/114596
In the matter of:
Hemender Singh ... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Dy. Secretary,
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,
MPLADS Section, Level-6 Block 6, East Block,
R K Puram, New Delhi 110066 ... Respondent
RTI application filed with Rajya : 28/12/2018 Sabha Secretariat on 17.12.2018 transferred to the Respondent on CPIO replied on : 08/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 22/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 27/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 28/10/2020 Date of Decision : 28/10/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Sudhir Kumar, Deputy Director & Representative of CPIO along with M. Mukherjee, Deputy Director present through audio conference.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with reference to the MPLAD Scheme:1
1.Amount allocated for the development projects across Rajasthan (District Wise) in terms of letter No.824/30817 - 31st July, 2017 -MPLADS/05/2017 of the Vice-President of India (Ex-MP- Rajya Sabha).
2.Details of the amount of Rs.10 lakhs sanctioned for the Vidhya Niketan Higher Primary School, Rajanagar, Distt Rajsamund, Rajasthan under MPLAD scheme.
3. A copy of the Order issued for cancellation of the amount sanctioned to the said school. Also provide guidelines under MPLAD Scheme for cancellation of the sanctioned amount and thereafter distributing the same amount between two schools.
4. Any other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the CPIO submitted that the RTI Application was received upon transfer from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat vide a letter dated 28.12.2018 and uploaded on their RTI portal on 02.01.2019. He further submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the RTI Application vide letter dated 08.02.2019 informing the unavailability of the information sought in their records. He furthermore explained that the MPLAD scheme at the field level is implemented by the concerned State Governments/UT Administration and the Members of the Parliament send their recommendations of works directly to the respective nodal district authorities. That, therefore the RTI Applicants are advised to approach the concerned nodal district authorities of respective MPs for seeking the updated status of the works recommended and details thereof as stipulated vide a DOPT OM dated 02.06.2008 which states that if a RTI Applicant seeks information pertaining to a public authority which falls under the jurisdiction of the State Governments/UT Administration, then the CPIO who receives the RTI Application is required to inform the Appellant accordingly and in such a case the RTI Application need not be transferred. He also emphasised that the release of funds under MPLADs is given in the MPLADs guidelines which is available at www.mplads.gov.in as also the details of MPLADs funds release and utilization is available therein.2
The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the Second Appeal and insisted that the 'order of cancellation of the funds released to the averred School has been issued by the Ex-MP, Rajya Sabha so the information sought for in the RTI Application should be available with the Delhi office only'. He also pointed out that the CPIO has responded only on points 1-4 of the RTI Application and remaining points 5-7 have not been responded to by him. Lastly, he stated that he has sought for the information regarding the entire State of Rajasthan but the CPIO has informed him in the context of Nagaur district only.
At this point, the representative of the CPIO reaffirmed that the information sought for is not available in their records but considering the contentions of the Appellant, he agreed to provide proper guidance to him with respect to the particulars of the actual record holder of this information.
Observations:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO should have transferred the RTI Application to the concerned public authority since the Appellant may not be aware of the exact office of the averred District authority with whom he should file the RTI Application.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission is constrained to accept the submissions of the CPIO as the information sought pertains to the jurisdiction of the respective State Government. However, taking an empathetic view in the matter, as agreed upon during the hearing by the representative of the CPIO, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application explaining to the Appellant the exact details of the public authority to whom he can request for information on the instant subject. The said directions should be complied with by the CPIO under intimation to the Commission within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 3 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4