Such crucial budgetary information as total budget proposed, budget allocated for a financial year, budget released and budget actually spent should be available on the web site of the federal public bodies to ensure public participation so that citizens could provide informed input into entire budget making process as well as its utilization.
While the Respondent did not attend the hearing, it provided through E-mail requested information to the Appellant and also shared that the requested information was available on the web site of Financial Division. This commission holds that the Respondent should make available budget related information on its web site as well as required under “2017 Act”.
In APPEAL NO. 378-06/2020, also against this Respondent, this commission observed that “This commission is not a post office which collects information from public bodies and hands it over to the appellants”. The commission also observed that “the Respondent should have directly sent the information to the Appellant with intimation to the commission”.
In the instant Appeal, while the Respondent shared the requested information with the Appellant, it unnecessarily sent a large number of hard copies to this commission which is waste of public funds.
The requested information pertaining to BO/NIS forms for Development budget for FY 2022-23 submitted to Finance Division by the Respondent should have been available on the web site of the Respondent had Section 5 (1) (g) of the Act been implemented by the Respondent which is as under:
“Detailed budget of the public body; including proposed and actual expenditures, original or revised revenue targets, actual revenue, receipts, revision in the approved budget and the supplementary budget;”.
Such is the significance of proactive disclosure of information that the Respondent would have only been required to guide the Appellant to the link where the requested information was available on the web site if the Respondent had implemented Section 5 of the Act.