Central Information Commission
Adduri Srinivasa Rao vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 19 February, 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
Decision no.: -CIC/MOSPI/C/2018/165617/02897
File no.: - CIC/MOSPI/C/2018/165617
In the matter of:
Adduri Srinivasa Rao
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/DDG(SSD)
Ministry of Statistic & Programme Implementation,
West Block-8, Wing No-6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi- 110066
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/08/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21/09/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 27/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 17/02/2020 Date of Decision : 17/02/2020
Based on the relief sought by the complainant, the present complaint is converted into second appeal.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shiv Balak Verma, Deputy Director & CPIO alongwith M Mukherjee, both present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the information regarding the petition filed for construction approach "Bridge" between Vijayawada Bus Stand and Kaleswararao Market area under MPLADS Scheme vide citizen suggestion on 06.07.2018.1
1. Provide information as per records, status of appellant's petition and action initiated on the petition, which was submitted to the Deputy Director General, P I Wing, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi-110066.
2. Provide information as per your records, how much amount has been sanctioned so far under MPLADS Scheme through citizen suggestions in 13 districts of Andhra Pradesh (16th Parliament members constituencies).
3. Provide the guide-lines for grant of funds under MPLADS Scheme.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO and FAA did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date no reply has been provided to him and hence the CPIO may be penalized under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that the above mentioned RTI application and first appeal dated 21.09.2018 had never been received in their Division. Hence, no reply could be provided to the appellant. The reason for not receiving this RTI application is that the appellant had addressed the RTI application to "NSSO(FOD HQ)" as their organisation i.e. PI wing and NSSO(FOD) HQ are two different and separate offices.
With regard to the subject matter of the RTI application, the CPIO submitted that the provision of 'citizen suggestion tab' on the MPLADS portal is merely a window for receiving suggestions/ideas from the general public which gets referred in original without any alteration to the concerned Nodal District Authority/Office for further necessary action, if any. Thereafter, the Nodal District Authority forwards the suggestions to the account of Hon'ble MP through MPLADS portal. It is the prerogative of the Members of Parliament to recommend works to the District Authorities which in turn executes them subject to being found eligible as per the provisions of the MPLADS Guidelines as well as the State Governments Administrative/Technical and Financial rules. Their organisation has no role to play in the implementation of the ideas/suggestions received through Citizen Suggestion tab. Thus, the question 2 File no.: - CIC/MOSPI/C/2018/165617 of any action on their part does not arise. This information may be available with the concerned District Authority i.e. Vijaywada. Further, the information on MPLADS fund release and utilization is already available in public domain and the same may be seen under the Head "Fund Release Statements" and "Expenditure Report". Moreover, since the MPLAD Scheme at the field level is implemented by the concerned State/UT Governments and the Members of Parliament send their recommendations of work directly to their respective Nodal District Authority, therefore, the appellant may approach the concerned Nodal District Authority for getting the information. He referred to para 3(iv) of DoPT's OM No. 10/2/2008-IR DATED 12.06.2008 and submitted that "If a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, the Central Public Information Officer of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government or the UT Administration. Application, in such a case, need not be transferred to the State Government/UT Administration. He handed over a copy of the written submissions dated 17.02.2020 for perusal of the Commission.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that till date no reply has been given to the appellant. During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that due to incorrect address mentioned by the appellant in his RTI application, they never received the RTI application nor the subsequent first appeal and hence no reply could be provided. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and the question of imposing any penalty does not arise, however, the present CPIO is directed to file an affidavit in this regard.
As far as the subject matter of the RTI application is concerned, the CPIO explained that since they have no role to play in the implementation of the ideas/suggestions received through Citizen Suggestion tab and their job is to provide a mechanism for Members of Parliament to recommend works of developmental nature for creation of durable community assets based on local needs, policy formulation and release of funds and hence they do not take any action on any suggestion given by any citizen on the MPLADS portal.3
The Commission finds the explanation of the CPIO justified. However, based on the fact that the RTI application was filed in the year 2018 and till date no response could be provided to the appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to make possible efforts to collect the desired information from its holder i.e. Vijaywada so that a reply could be provided to the appellant. Since the CPIO was not in receipt of the letter dated 06.07.2018, a copy was handed over to the CPIO during the hearing for initiating necessary action on their behalf.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit that the RTI application dated 13.08.2018 and the first appeal 21.09.2018 were not received in the office and hence a timely reply could not be given. This should be done within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant.
The CPIO is also directed to collect the relevant information with regard to the letter dated 06.07.2018 from the concerned District Authority i.e. Vijaywada and provide the relevant information to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission and also to send a copy of the letter dated 17.02.2020 to the appellant within 03 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) 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