|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

Center Seeks Dismissal of PM Cares Merits Review Petition | India News


MUMBAI: On Saturday, the Center requested the dismissal of a petition for review in which information was requested on the funds received by the fund for assistance and relief to the Prime Minister’s citizens in emergency situations (PM Cares).
The Union government told the Mumbai High Court Nagpur court that the audit statement of the PM Cares fund receipt and payment accounts for 2019-20 was available on the trust’s website.
Pradeep Srivastava, Undersecretary of the Prime Minister’s Office, submitted an affidavit to a divisional court by Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor in response to a petition filed by attorney Arvind Waghmare.
Waghmare has requested a review of the August 2020 order from the high court dismissing his request for a declaration of the funds received by PM Cares, a charitable trust created by the Union government amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, in August 2020, the higher court dismissed the petition saying that, since the Public Charity Trust Law was applicable to the PM Cares fund, the petitioner could use the mechanism provided in the Law to repair his public disclosure complaint. . Of funds.
Later, in December 2020, Waghmare filed a petition for review with the higher court, claiming that the Public Charity Trusts Act was not applicable in Delhi and asked the court to order the government to disclose the details of the funds received and expenses incurred.
The Center, in its affidavit, stated that the request for review was completely “ill-conceived and is just another attempt to seek publicity.”
He added that no new reasons have been raised in the request for review.
“The PM Cares Fund Payment and Receipt Audit Statement for Fiscal Year 2019-20 is available on the trust’s website. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to have any complaints about the disclosure of income. and expenditure of funds, “the affidavit said.
Furthermore, he claimed that the higher court had already dismissed Waghmare’s petition in the past and should now reject his petition for review at exemplary cost.
On Saturday, the high court heard arguments from all parties and reserved its order on the review statement.

Reference page