Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 Points in respect of the name, address and registration certificates of the Institutions affiliated under The National Programme for Control of Blindness & Visual Impairment (NPCB&VI), Rajasthan, details of the appropriate government granting funds to the affiliated/ approved institutions and issues related thereto The CPIO, vide its reply dated 08.12.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.02.2018, concurred with the response of the CPIO.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mehta through VC;

Respondent: Dr. Indu Grewal, CMO & CPIO (NPCBVI) and Mr. S. S. Chauhan, SSO;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was received by him from CPIO and that the application was also transferred to the State Government Department of NPCB&VI, Rajasthan beyond the period stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005 since the same was sent by ordinary post on 12.12.2017 and received by him on 22.12.2017. He further referred to his written submission dated 22.06.2019 and submitted that the information sought being related to utilization of public funds granted by the Central Government having a majority stake in the National Programme for Control of Blindness & Visual Impairment (NPCB&VI), Rajasthan should have been disclosed to him after obtaining the details from the concerned organization / authority / department. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated their earlier responses and submitted that the RTI application apart from point No. 06 was transferred to the State Programme Officer (NPCB&VI), Rajasthan who were the custodian of the information. However, despite the transfer of the RTI application, no reply was forwarded by them to the Appellant. On being queried by the Commission regarding their stake in the programme which was the subject matter of the RTI application, the Respondent submitted that the Central Government had a 60% share in the implementation of the programme and the remaining 40% share was held by the State Government of Rajasthan who were concerned with determining the eligibility / qualifications etc. of the NGOs participating in the programme and to ascertain if the objectives were being fulfilled or not. On being questioned by the Commission if he had approached the State Government of Rajasthan on these issues, the Appellant replied in the affirmative and submitted that consequent to not receiving any satisfactory response from the State Government, he was compelled to file the instant RTI application with the DGHS, New Delhi. To a query from the Commission regarding monitoring and auditing of district-wise implementation of the programme and utilization of funds in the project which was majorly funded by the Central Government as conveyed by the Respondent during the hearing, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent who submitted that consolidated audit statements were already furnished to them and that the budgetary process was accordingly finalized. When questioned about seeking the information from the concerned State Government and providing the same to the Appellant and also disclosing the information if so desired by the Parliament / State Legislature, the Respondent submitted that they had already acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for transferring the RTI application and that if any such details were indeed required by the Parliament / State Legislature they would make necessary attempts to collate and furnish the same. The Respondent was unaware of the total budgetary allocation and the modalities adopted for its utilization. It was submitted that the audited receipt of the fund utilization was accepted by their Finance Wing without examining the procedures deployed for monitoring the expenditure and its real impact at the grass root level.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that the Appellant had raised very pertinent issues regarding utilization of public funds in National Programme for Control of Blindness & Visual Impairment (NPCB&VI), Rajasthan which as a citizen of India he was entitled to seek. Admittedly during the hearing the Respondent conveyed that they were 60% stakeholders in the project and that by virtue of such contribution they could obtain the details from the concerned State Government and provide it to the Appellant.