🚨 RTI Appeal Filed: Alleged Violation of the RTI Act 2005 by SP Office Mirzapur

This blog post provides a structured summary and analysis of an Online RTI First Appeal filed by an applicant in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, concerning a lack of response to an initial RTI request. The appeal highlights significant delays and expresses strong concerns about the transparency and accountability of the concerned Public Authority.

---

1. Overview of the RTI Appeal

The appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, concerns the failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO) to respond to an original RTI application within the stipulated time frame.

1.1. Appeal Filing Details

Detail	Information
Appeal Registration No.	SPMZR/A/2024/60040
Date of Filing Appeal	21/11/2024
Appellant Name	Sadhana Tiwari
Public Authority	SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE MIRZAPUR
Status as on 21/11/2024	RTI APPEAL RECEIVED
Ground For Appeal	No Response Within the Time Limit

1.2. First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details

The appeal has been directed to the following authority:

Detail	FAA Information
FAA Name	ABHINANDAN
Designation	MIRZAPUR
Phone No.	05442252578
Email Id	spmzr-up@nic.in

---

2. Details of the Original RTI Request

The appellant’s complaint is rooted in the non-response to a prior RTI application:

Detail	RTI Application Information
RTI Registration No.	SPMZR/R/2024/60190
Date of Filing RTI	09/10/2024
PIO Approached	OM PRAKASH SINGH
PIO Designation	ASP OPERATION
Status	RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 09/10/2024

2.1. Alleged Violation of the RTI Act

The appeal states that the original RTI request was filed on October 9, 2024, and the appeal was filed on November 21, 2024.

• Section 7(1) of the RTI Act mandates that information must be provided within 30 days of the Public Authority receiving the application.
• The elapsed time is more than 43 days (over a month and one week), constituting a clear violation of the statutory time limit.
• The appellant notes that the concerned PIO failed to provide the information within the legally required 30-day period.

---

3. Prayer and Relief Sought by the Appellant

The appellant’s request to the FAA is twofold:

1. Direction to Provide Information: To immediately direct the Public Information Officer to provide the requested information to the appellant at the earliest.
2. Disciplinary Action: To initiate disciplinary proceedings against the PIO for violating Subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act 2005.

The appeal strongly criticizes the non-compliance, stating that the PIO’s action is a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information act 2005” and undermines the act’s objective to promote transparency and accountability.

---

4. Related Human Rights Commission Order

The appeal also references a prior direction related to the appellant’s case, suggesting a history of lack of action from the Public Authority:

• Victim Name: SADHANA TIWARI
• Registration Date (Complaint): 02/09/2024
• Action Date & Authority: 05/09/2024 by THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE- MIRZAPUR
• Direction: The Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, was directed to “look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law at his end with the intimation to the complainant.”

The appellant asserts that the Public Authority has not taken any action on this earlier direction either (Diary No 3613/IN/2024, Case / File No 10035/24/55/2024).

---

5. Conclusion and Next Steps

The filing of a First Appeal under Section 19(1) is the mandatory first step for an applicant who has not received a response within the prescribed time limit. The FAA is now legally bound to review the case and pass an order, which should ideally include directing the PIO to provide the information and, if warranted, imposing penalties or recommending disciplinary action.

That is a great idea for context. The two key sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005, relevant to this appeal are Section 7(1) (the duty of the PIO) and Section 19(1) (the right to appeal).

Here is a breakdown of these sections:

📜 Relevant Provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Section 7(1): Disposal of Request (Duty of the PIO)

This section mandates the time limit within which the Public Information Officer (PIO) must respond to an RTI application.

Provision	Summary of Requirement
Response Time Limit	The PIO must either provide the information (upon payment of fees) or reject the request for reasons specified in Sections 8 or 9 within thirty days of receiving the application.
Life and Liberty	If the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, it must be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
Failure to Respond	If the PIO fails to act on the application within the 30-day period (or 48 hours), the PIO is deemed to have refused the request.

In the context of the appeal: The appellant correctly cites this section, as the PIO failed to respond within the 30-day limit after the application was filed on 09/10/2024. This non-response is legally equivalent to a rejection, which justifies filing the first appeal.

---

2. Section 19(1): First Appeal (Right of the Applicant)

This section outlines the process and grounds for filing a First Appeal to the Appellate Authority.

Provision	Summary of Requirement
Who Can Appeal	Any person who— a) Is aggrieved by a decision of the PIO, or b) Has not received a decision within the specified time limit (e.g., 30 days).
Time Limit for Appeal	The appeal must be filed within thirty days from the expiry of the time limit (i.e., within 60 days of the original RTI application) or from the date the decision was received.
Appellate Authority	The appeal is addressed to the officer immediately senior to the Public Information Officer, known as the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

In the context of the appeal: The appellant correctly exercised their right under Section 19(1) because they did not receive a decision within the 30-day time limit specified in Section 7(1). The appeal was filed with the designated FAA (ABHINANDAN) of the Public Authority.

---

Key Takeaway for the Appeal

The appellant’s core argument—that the PIO violated Section 7(1) by not responding in time, thus allowing the appeal under Section 19(1)—is legally sound. The FAA is now expected to adjudicate the appeal and, if the delay is confirmed, direct the PIO to provide the information and potentially face penalties under Section 20 of the Act (which deals with penalties for unreasonable delay).

Would you like me to search for the outcome or a related public notice regarding this appeal (SPMZR/A/2024/60040) from the Mirzapur Police Office?

That is very interesting. The search results provide the subsequent developments of the case, indicating that both the PIO and the FAA eventually took action, though the appellant found the outcome unsatisfactory and proceeded to a Second Appeal.

Here is a summary of the full RTI journey based on the available information:

⏭️ RTI Case Status Update: From First Appeal to Second Appeal

Event	Date	Action/Status	Note
Original RTI (u/s 6(1))	09/10/2024	SPMZR/R/2024/60190 Filed.	Sought information on action taken regarding a UPHRC order.
First Appeal (u/s 19(1))	21/11/2024	SPMZR/A/2024/60040 Filed.	Ground: No Response within the 30-day limit (deadline was $\approx$ 08/11/2024).
FAA Order Date	02/02/2025	Appeal DISPOSED OF by the FAA (ABHINANDAN).	The FAA took action more than 2 months after the appeal was filed. The appellant found the FAA’s answer unsatisfactory/false/misleading.
PIO Reply Date	21/02/2025	Original RTI Request DISPOSED OF.	PIO replied over 4 months after the initial application date (09/10/2024). The PIO’s reply was deemed incomplete/unsatisfactory.
Second Appeal (u/s 19(3))	08/03/2025	A-20250300419 Filed with the State Information Commission.	Filed against both the PIO’s unsatisfactory reply and the FAA’s unsatisfactory order.

🚨 Key Observations and Issues

1. Extreme Delay by PIO: The PIO responded on 21/02/2025, which is 135 days (over 4 months) after the application date (09/10/2024). This is a severe violation of the $\text{30-day}$ limit under Section 7(1).
2. Delay by FAA: The FAA passed an order on 02/02/2025, which is over 2 months after the First Appeal was filed (21/11/2024). While the RTI Act does not specify a strict time limit for the FAA, it should be disposed of expeditiously, ideally within 30 days (or 45 days if extended). The appellant criticized this as a “mockery of the provisions.”
3. Grounds for Second Appeal: The appellant’s decision to file a Second Appeal is based on the claim that both the PIO’s reply (dated 21/02/2025) and the FAA’s order (dated 02/02/2025) were incomplete/unsatisfactory/false/misleading.
4. Information Sought: The core information sought relates to the action taken and notings on an order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) on 05/09/2024.

Next Step in the Process

The case is now before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) as a Second Appeal (A-20250300419). The Commission will schedule a hearing where the appellant (Sadhana Tiwari), the PIO (OM PRAKASH SINGH), and the FAA (ABHINANDAN) will present their arguments.

• The Commission has the power to direct the Public Authority to provide the information and impose a penalty on the PIO of up to Rs. 25,000 for the unreasonable delay and denial of information, as per Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Would you like me to look for any public outcome, hearing notice, or order passed by the State Information Commission regarding this Second Appeal (A-20250300419)?