No VIP Hostel Exists, Yet 12 Rooms Exist?

 

Sports Directorate RTI Response Raises New Questions

Musarrat Ullah Jan , KikxNow , Digital Creator

An RTI response from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sports Directorate regarding an alleged VIP hostel at a sports complex has raised more questions than it answered.

An application filed nearly a year ago specifically sought information about who was residing in the VIP hostel, the policy for charging rent, the total amount collected so far, the procedure for room allocation, the maximum period an officer could stay there, the number of officers who had stayed there during the previous five years, and the government account into which the income from the accommodation had been deposited.

However, after nearly a year, the Public Information Officer provided a brief response stating that “no VIP hostel exists.”

This immediately raises a basic question: if there is no VIP hostel, then what is the purpose of the 12-room building located within the sports complex?

According to available information and photographs taken at the site, the building contains 12 rooms, with air-conditioning facilities installed in the rooms. It is reported that rent is being collected from only four rooms, while no rent has reportedly been paid to the Sports Directorate for the use of the remaining eight rooms for approximately three years.

The central issue, therefore, is not simply why eight rooms were allegedly provided without rent.

The more important questions are:

If this is not a government hostel, under which law, policy or allotment arrangement is rent being collected from four rooms?

And if it is a government residential facility, why did the Public Information Officer state in response to the RTI request that the VIP hostel “does not exist”?

The 12 rooms are not reportedly the property of a private individual or private institution. They form part of a government sports complex. Their construction, maintenance, electricity and other associated services are therefore connected to public resources.

If eight rooms have genuinely been used without rent for approximately three years, the department should be able to establish:

• What was the approved monthly rent for those eight rooms?
• How much revenue should have been deposited into the government treasury over three years?
• Under whose authority was the rent waived or not collected?
• Was there written approval from a competent authority?
• Were electricity and other utility bills also paid from public funds?
• Most importantly, who were the individuals using these rooms, and on what basis were they given access to the facility?

If individuals were permitted to reside in or use a government building, the relevant allotment order, approval, duration, rent and terms and conditions should form part of the official record.

Nearly One Year Later, the Answer Is: “No VIP Hostel Exists”

The purpose of the RTI application was to establish transparency regarding the use of a public asset and any revenue generated from it.

But after waiting nearly a year, receiving an answer that “no VIP hostel exists” while a 12-room building is reportedly physically present raises the need for further clarification.

The issue is therefore not merely a failure to provide information. It concerns a possible discrepancy between the department's official position and the physical reality at the site.

If the department stands by its position, it should publicly clarify:

1. What is the official name of the 12-room building in government records?
2. For what purpose was the building constructed?
3. How much public money was spent on its construction?
4. How much rent is currently being collected from the four rooms?
5. Who is using the remaining eight rooms?
6. Why has no rent reportedly been collected for those eight rooms during the past three years?
7. Is there written authorization allowing free accommodation or use of these rooms?
8. If such authorization exists, which officer or competent authority issued it?
9. Where is the record of individuals who stayed in the building during the past five years?
10. Who bears the costs of electricity, water, sanitation, maintenance and repairs?
11. How much total income has the building generated during the past five years, and into which government account was it deposited?
12. If the department maintains that “no VIP hostel exists,” what is the legal basis for collecting rent from four rooms?

These questions are not intended to declare any individual guilty. They are intended to examine the use of a public asset, possible loss of public revenue, and administrative transparency.

If the department has valid approvals, allotment orders and financial records, providing them should help resolve the matter.

A government-owned building is a public asset. If some of its rooms are being used by individuals while the basis, authorization and financial record of that use remain unclear, asking questions about it is a legitimate public-interest matter.

Photo: A 12-room building at the sports complex, regarding which the RTI response reportedly stated that “no VIP hostel exists.”

#KP #KhyberPakhtunkhwa #SportsDirectorate #SportsDirectorateKP #RTI #RightToInformation #PublicAssets #PublicMoney #GovernmentProperty #Accountability #Transparency #GoodGovernance #SportsComplex #VIPHostel #KPNews #InvestigativeJournalism #PublicInterest #TaxpayersMoney