Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Saturday reserved review PIL alleging irregularities in the PM Cares Fund for judgment.
Earlier, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in its reply had demanded dismissal of the PIL with exemplary cost to prevent misuse of such judicial forums.
The PIL by lawyer Arvind Waghmare was listed before a division bench comprising Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Anil Kilor.
The PMO’s reply on affidavit filed by undersecretary Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, through additional solicitor general Anil Singh, informed that the PM Cares Fund is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and it doesn’t have any provision of appointment of two trustees from opposition parties, as demanded by the petitioner.
“Even the HC, while dismissing the first PIL by the petitioner, had held that nomination of two members on the fund wasn’t mandatory for the chairman,” said Srivastava.
Waghmare had pointed out that three trustees weren’t appointed on the board till date despite clear guidelines, but crores of rupees are being accepted. Being a donor to this fund himself, he insisted on appointment of other trustees for fortifying the confidence of the general public.
However, the PMO argued that Waghmare failed to explain how and why the statutory mechanism applicable to the Public Charitable Trust Act is insufficient.
“Petitioner wrongly mentioned that the PM Cares Fund was created by the central government. It is, in fact, a public charitable trust. It can’t be created by the Constitution of India or by any law made by the Parliament or by state legislature,” said Srivastava.
On the petitioner’s contention that Public Charitable Trust Act is not applicable in the national capital, the PMO said the PM Cares Fund is registered under the Registration Act, and such trusts are governed by their own trust deed and by the provisions of the Act. “There are statutory mechanisms in law that oversee conduct of such public trusts. There’s no occasion for audit by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India for such trusts, as demanded by the petitioner. Audit statements of receipt and payment accounts for financial year 2019-20 are available on the PM Cares Fund website,” he said.
Quoting earlier HC verdict that had dismissed Waghmare’s plea, the PMO pointed out that no case was made out as the petitioner failed to proper research or present material to back his allegations.
“The HC also observed that since the contributions to the PM Cares Fund are voluntary, its interference isn’t justified. This review plea lacked bona fides and it’s another misconceived attempt of using the medium of public interest litigation as publicity interest litigation. Not all aspects of public interests could be a matter for PIL unless there’s dereliction of statutory duty. No specific grounds are made for filing a review petition, only bald and bare points were made which are vague,” said Srivastava.