MP / MLA fund utilization — file an RTI to find out

Rahul, a citizen of Lucknow, wanted to know how his MP had used the MPLADS fund in his constituency from 2020-2024 (Lok Sabha tenure). The mplads.gov.in portal showed aggregate sanctions but not contractor names or completion status.

He filed an RTI to the DM Lucknow PIO. Twenty-four days later the reply: a 28-page disclosure listing every sanctioned work (47 projects), contractor names, sanction date, completion status (15 incomplete despite full payment), and beneficiary villages. Rahul shared the report with local journalists; three under-completed roads were taken up for re-execution.

MPLADS is administered by the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoSPI) with District Magistrates as nodal authorities. State MLALADS schemes are administered by State Planning Departments with the same DM nodal structure.

1. 30-day clock under §7(1).
2. §20(1) personal liability.
3. Comprehensive disclosure under §4(1)(b)(xii) — beneficiary lists are suo motu disclosable, but full work-wise file noting needs RTI.

• §6(1) RTI Act.
• §7(1) — 30 days.
• §4(1)(b)(xii) — beneficiary lists suo motu disclosable.
• MPLADS Operational Guidelines (latest 2023) — issued by MoSPI; mandates disclosure of every work sanctioned, beneficiary, contractor.
• State MLALADS / MLA-LADS Guidelines — analogous to MPLADS at state level.

To,
The Public Information Officer (PIO),
Office of the District Magistrate / Collector / District Planning Office,
[Your district HQ]

Subject: §6(1) RTI Act 2005 — MPLADS / MLALADS fund utilization
         in [Constituency name]

Sir/Madam,

Under §6(1) RTI Act 2005, please provide:

   1. Complete list of works sanctioned under MPLADS by [MP name],
      [Constituency], [Lok Sabha period — e.g. 2019-2024], with:
      - Work description
      - Sanction date
      - Sanctioned amount
      - Released amount
      - Implementing agency (Panchayat / PWD / municipality / others)
      - Contractor name (if any)
      - Beneficiary village / ward
      - Completion status (completed / in-progress / not-started)
      - Date of completion / expected completion

   2. Same details for MLA [MLA name], [Assembly Constituency], for
      MLALADS funds in [period — e.g. 2019-2024].

   3. Total funds released vs unspent for the above periods.

   4. List of inspection reports / utilisation certificates submitted
      by implementing agencies.

   5. Any complaints received about MPLADS / MLALADS works in the
      above periods, and action taken.

   6. Name + designation of the dealing officer who maintains the
      MPLADS / MLALADS register at this office.

I am a citizen of India.

Fee: ₹10 IPO/DD enclosed.

Yours faithfully,
[Name + address + signature + date]

1. Identify your MP (current + outgoing if last 5 years).
2. Identify your MLA (current + previous tenure).
3. Find DM postal address (state portal).
4. File via rtionline.gov.in → MoSPI for MPLADS portion + state RTI portal for MLALADS, OR a single combined RTI to the DM PIO (the DM holds both registers).
5. ₹10 fee.
6. Diary 30-day deadline.
7. First Appeal → DM (FAA); Second Appeal → CIC for MPLADS / SIC for MLALADS.

Ask for the field-inspection report + beneficiary statement.

Ask for the tender process documents + bid evaluation criteria.

Ask for utilisation certificate + photographs of completed work (most schemes mandate geo-tagged completion photos).

File parallel RTIs to each district DM. MPLADS data is also at mplads.gov.in (aggregate level).

Ask for the schedule + procedure for citizen participation in social audit.

• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2018) — §4(1)(b)(xii) suo motu disclosure of beneficiary lists is mandatory.
• CIC, MPLADS Disclosure (2016) — DM directed to disclose work-wise sanction; “data with implementing agency” not §8 ground.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. PMO (CIC 2014) — Public-interest disclosure of high-value spending is mandatory.
• State Information Commission (Maharashtra, 2022) — DM fined ₹20,000 for failing to disclose MLALADS works to citizen RTI.

• Not naming the MP / MLA + period — too vague.
• Asking for politician's personal financial data (denied under §8(1)(j)).
• Filing only at MoSPI — the DM has the actual register, ask there too.
• Skipping the contractor / beneficiary detail ask.

• Always specify the constituency + period (Lok Sabha / Assembly tenure) clearly.
• Ask for field inspection reports + completion photos — surfaces ghost works.
• Cross-reference with mplads.gov.in aggregate data — discrepancies are appeal grounds.
• If you're a journalist / researcher, mention this — public interest under §8(2) overrides any §8(1)(d) commercial-confidence objection on contractor data.
• Ask for the DM's MPLADS register — that's the ground truth, not the portal.

Yes. It's your fundamental right as a citizen under Art. 19(1)(a) (freedom of information) + RTI Act §6(1). Politicians' use of public funds is not §8 exempt.

No. The DM holds the register; the MP/MLA cannot block. CIC has consistently overruled any such objection.

File first appeal citing the public-interest override under §8(2) and the Subhash Chandra Agarwal principle.

Yes — file separate RTIs to each district DM (DMs are state-bound).

Use the RTI evidence to file with the CVC, state Lokayukta, or the District Vigilance Officer. RTI gives you the documentary base.

MPLADS + MLALADS represent thousands of crores of public money every year. Yet utilisation is opaque to most citizens. RTI is the cheapest, most powerful tool to bring transparency to your representative's spending. ₹10.

File the RTI.

• §4(1)(b) suo motu
• §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence boundary
• First Appeal

1. RTI Act 2005 — §6(1), §7(1), §8(1)(d), §8(1)(j), §8(2), §19, §20.
2. MPLADS Operational Guidelines (2023).
3. State MLALADS / MLA-LADS Guidelines.
4. Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2018).
5. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. PMO, CIC (2014).
6. mplads.gov.in — official MoSPI portal.

Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.