The RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari exposes significant delays by the SP Office Mirzapur under the RTI Act 2005, consequently raising important questions about transparency and accountability in the public sector. Moreover, this case highlights the challenges faced by citizens in obtaining timely information from government authorities, as mandated by law. In addition, the full case timeline provides a detailed account of the journey from the first appeal to the second appeal, effectively illustrating the steps taken by Sadhana in her pursuit of justice. Furthermore, it sheds light on the procedural inefficiencies and underscores the necessity for reforms to ensure that the rights of citizens are upheld. Therefore, understanding this case is crucial for anyone interested in the effectiveness of the RTI Act and the role of public officials in either facilitating or hindering access to information.

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

To begin with, the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari summarizes and, in turn, analyzes an Online RTI First Appeal that an applicant in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, filed over a lack of response to an initial RTI request. Specifically, the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari highlights significant delays. Moreover, it also raises strong concerns about the transparency and accountability of the concerned Public Authority.

---

1. Overview of the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

Firstly, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The reason, in short, is straightforward: the Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to respond to an original RTI application within the stipulated time frame.

1.1. Appeal Filing Details

Specifically, the table below sets out the core filing details of the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari:

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

Next, and just as importantly, the appellant directed the appeal 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 Behind the Appeal

To begin with, the appellant’s complaint stems from the non-response to a prior RTI application. Below, therefore, is a summary:

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

First, the appellant filed the original RTI request on October 9, 2024. Later, and only after waiting, the appellant filed the appeal on November 21, 2024.

• To start, Section 7(1) of the RTI Act mandates that information must reach the applicant within 30 days of the Public Authority receiving the application.
• Consequently, more than 43 days (over a month and one week) had elapsed — in other words, a clear violation of the statutory time limit.
• As a result, and for this reason, the appellant notes that the concerned PIO failed to provide the information within the legally required 30-day period.

---

3. Prayer and Relief Sought in the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

Overall, the appellant’s request to the FAA is twofold:

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

Additionally, the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari strongly criticizes the non-compliance. Indeed, it states that the PIO’s action makes a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information act 2005″ and, furthermore, undermines the act’s objective of promoting transparency and accountability.

---

4. Related Human Rights Commission Order

In addition, the appeal references a prior direction related to the appellant’s case, which, in turn, suggests a history of inaction from the Public Authority. Specifically:

• Victim Name: Sadhana Tiwari
• Registration Date (Complaint): 02/09/2024
• Action Date & Authority: On 05/09/2024, obviously, the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, took action.
• Direction: Specifically, the Commission directed the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, to “look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law at his end with the intimation to the complainant.”

Furthermore, and despite this order, the appellant asserts that the Public Authority has not acted on it either (Diary No 3613/IN/2024, Case/File No 10035/24/55/2024).

---

5. Conclusion and Next Steps

To summarize, filing 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. Therefore, the FAA is now legally bound to review the case and, subsequently, pass an order — one that should ideally direct the PIO to provide the information and, if warranted, impose penalties or recommend disciplinary action.

In particular, two sections of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are especially relevant to the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari: namely, Section 7(1) (the duty of the PIO) and Section 19(1) (the right to appeal). Below, therefore, you’ll find a breakdown of both.

📜 Relevant Provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005

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

To begin, 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	However, if the information concerns a person’s life or liberty, the PIO must provide it within forty-eight hours of receiving the request.
Failure to Respond	Otherwise, if the PIO fails to act on the application within the 30-day period (or 48 hours), the law deems the PIO to have refused the request.

In the context of the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari: Accordingly, the appellant correctly cites this section, since the PIO failed to respond within the 30-day limit after the application was filed on 09/10/2024. In other words, this non-response legally equates to a rejection, which, therefore, justifies filing the first appeal.

---

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

Next, 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, alternatively, b) has not received a decision within the specified time limit (e.g., 30 days).
Time Limit for Appeal	Specifically, the applicant must file the appeal within thirty days from the expiry of the time limit (i.e., within 60 days of the original RTI application) or from the date they received the decision.
Appellate Authority	Ultimately, the appeal goes to the officer immediately senior to the Public Information Officer, known as the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

In the context of the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari: Therefore, the appellant correctly exercised their right under Section 19(1), since they did not receive a decision within the 30-day time limit specified in Section 7(1). Accordingly, the appellant filed the appeal with the designated FAA (Abhinandan) of the Public Authority.

---

Key Takeaway from the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

In short, the appellant’s core argument — namely, that the PIO violated Section 7(1) by not responding in time, thereby triggering the right to appeal under Section 19(1) — is legally sound. Now, therefore, the FAA must adjudicate the appeal and, if the delay is confirmed, direct the PIO to provide the information. Additionally, the FAA may impose penalties under Section 20 of the Act, which addresses unreasonable delay.

---

⏭️ RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari: Case Status Update, From First Appeal to Second Appeal

Subsequently, developments show that both the PIO and the FAA eventually took action on the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari. However, the appellant found the outcome unsatisfactory and, as a result, proceeded to file a Second Appeal.

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

🚨 Key Observations and Issues in the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

1. Extreme Delay by PIO: To begin, the PIO responded on 21/02/2025 — that is, 135 days (over 4 months) after the application date (09/10/2024). Clearly, therefore, this delay represents a severe violation of the 30-day limit under Section 7(1).
2. Delay by FAA: Similarly, the FAA passed an order on 02/02/2025, more than 2 months after the appellant filed the First Appeal (21/11/2024). While the RTI Act does not specify a strict time limit for the FAA, it should, nonetheless, ideally dispose of appeals within 30 days (or 45 days if extended). Consequently, the appellant criticized this delay as a “mockery of the provisions.”
3. Grounds for Second Appeal: For these reasons, the appellant decided to file a Second Appeal, because both the PIO’s reply (dated 21/02/2025) and the FAA’s order (dated 02/02/2025) were incomplete, unsatisfactory, false, and misleading.
4. Information Sought: Specifically, the core information sought relates to the action taken and notings on an order the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) issued on 05/09/2024.

Next Step in the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

At this stage, the case currently sits before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) as a Second Appeal (A-20250300419). Subsequently, the Commission will schedule a hearing during which the appellant (Sadhana Tiwari), the PIO (Om Prakash Singh), and the FAA (Abhinandan) will present their arguments.

Ultimately, the Commission has the power to direct the Public Authority to provide the information. In addition, and just as importantly, it can 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.

---

Frequently Asked Questions About the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari

What is the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari about? Factually, the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari concerns the failure of the PIO at SP Office Mirzapur. Consequently, he must respond to an RTI request within the stipulated 30-day limit established by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

What was the outcome of the RTI Appeal of Sadhana Tiwari? The FAA disposed of the appeal on 02/02/2025, and the PIO replied on 21/02/2025. However, the appellant found both responses unsatisfactory and filed a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission on 08/03/2025.

Authority	Role in the Case	Official Link
Uttar Pradesh Police – Mirzapur (SP Office)	Public Authority against whom the RTI and appeal were filed	https://uppolice.gov.in/en/officerprofile?transid=1424&slugName=mirzapur
Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)	Handles the Second Appeal (A-20250300419)	http://upic.gov.in/