---

🚨 RTI Roadblock: The Case of the Misleading Reply and the Silent Authority in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of India’s democracy, empowering citizens to hold public servants accountable and fostering a culture of transparency and accountability within government institutions.
Nonetheless, a recent second appeal was filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, shedding light on critical issues that continue to plague the implementation of this vital legislation.
An appellant from Mirzapur highlights significant alleged failures by the Panchayati Raj Department’s officials, raising concerns about their responsiveness to the public’s right to access information.
The situation suggests a silent authority in Mirzapur that complicates transparency and raises suspicions regarding possible bureaucratic apathy or negligence.
These troubling issues not only hinder effective communication between government officials and the communities they serve but also raise serious questions about transparency, public trust, and adherence to the law in local governance.
Ultimately, the efficacy of the RTI Act in promoting accountability and democratic engagement is brought into stark relief by such challenges.

---

The Core Issue of Silent Authority in Mirzapur: Missing Public Information Boards

The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, initiated his RTI query with a specific and significant concern. He was concerned about the alleged failure of several Gram Panchayats in the Chhanvey Development Block, Mirzapur. They neglected to upload Public Information Board Images for the campaign year 2023-2024. This omission was about the official GPDP portal (Gram Panchayat Development Plan). The silence around this authority issue in Mirzapur cannot be, overlooked, especially when considering the silent authority in Mirzapur’s backdrop.

The appellant noted that out of 97 Gram Panchayats in the block, only 12 had uploaded the required images, which highlights a significant shortfall in compliance among the local governing bodies.
This is a critical issue that could potentially hinder the development initiatives planned for the region. The District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO) reportedly informed the appellant that the delay in image uploads is not merely procedural but has financial repercussions as well.
They explained that new financial year funds are released only after information from the earlier year is uploaded, creating a bottleneck that affects the timely allocation of resources essential for ongoing and future projects.
Furthermore, this situation raises concerns about transparency and accountability within the panchayat system, as the timely submission of necessary documentation is crucial for ensuring that funds are properly utilized for community development.

---

5 Critical Questions Posed to the PIO

To uncover the truth behind this irregularity, the appellant sought the next specific information from the Public Information Officer (PIO):

1. Reason for Non-Upload: Why did the remaining 85 Gram Panchayats fail to upload the Public Information Board images?
2. Monitoring Staff: The name and designation of the public staff. They are responsible for monitoring the uploading of these images on the GPDP portal.
3. Fund Release to Non-Compliant GPs: The list includes the names of the Gram Panchayats. These are among the 85 non-compliant ones. They were still issued development funds.
4. Staff Issuing Funds: The name and designation of the public staff who issued funds to these non-compliant Gram Panchayats.
5. District-Level Responsibility: The name and designation of the officers who monitor the GPDP portal at the district level. They are responsible for these alleged irregularities.

---

The Response: A Startling Misdirection

The response from the PIO, DPRO Santosh Kumar, was unsatisfactory. According to the appellant, it was utterly misleading and false. His handling of the issue hints at the silent authority operating within Mirzapur.

The PIO’s reply did not address the appellant’s query (Registration Number DIRPR/R/2024/60593). Instead, it provided information on a completely different RTI application. A different person, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, filed this application. It concerns individual toilets under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Registration Number DIRPR/R/2024/60644).

The appellant makes a forceful argument that this action reflects “anarchy in the working” of the DPRO. They argue that such a “blunder” be excused as a mere “clerical error” during an enquiry. Still, it is fundamentally a failure to give the information sought.

---

The Second Failure: A Silent FAA

The appellant received an unsatisfactory reply regarding their initial request for information. As a result, they filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1), seeking a more comprehensive examination of their case and the reasons for the denied request.
The appeal was directed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Deputy Director Ram Jiyawan, who is known for his expertise in resolving such matters. However, once again, the silent authority ordering moves in Mirzapur’s administration appears in the FAA’s conduct, leaving the appellant feeling as if their concerns were not being adequately addressed.
The tendency of the administration to maintain a low profile in these proceedings raises questions about transparency and accountability, leading to an increasing sense of frustration among the citizens.

The appeal details state, starkly, that the “Answer of First Appellate Authority (FAA)” was “There is no answer”. The “Date of Order” was “—”. This shows an alleged total failure by the FAA to handle the first appeal. This effectively halts the statutory process of redressal.

---

Prayer for Justice and Accountability in Silent Authority in Mirzapur

Both the PIO and the FAA allegedly failed in their duties, leading to significant ramifications for the appellant. The PIO provided misleading information, which not only obscured the truth but also hindered the appellant’s ability to seek justice effectively.
Furthermore, the FAA did not entertain the appeal, demonstrating a concerning lack of responsiveness to accountability concerns. As a result of this negligence, the appellant has approached the Chief Information Commissioner with a Second Appeal (A-20241200030).
This appeal challenges the silent authority present in Mirzapur and demands accountability. It underscores the pressing need for transparency, as the rights of citizens should not be overshadowed by bureaucratic indifference.
In the pursuit of justice, the appellant aims to shed light on the discrepancies and ensure that the responsible parties are held accountable for their actions, reinforcing the importance of ethical governance in matters affecting the community.

The appeal’s main prayers are clear:

• Take action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing misleading information.
• Order disciplinary action against the FAA for not entertaining the appeal.
• Direct the DPRO, Mirzapur, to give the sought information promptly.

Conclusion

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of vigilance in the RTI process, highlighting how crucial it is for citizens to remain engaged and proactive.
Citizens must ask the right questions, ensuring their enquiries are well-crafted and targeted towards obtaining meaningful information.
They must also be prepared to challenge arbitrary actions, silence, and attempts to subvert the spirit of the Act, recognising that their active participation is essential in upholding transparency and accountability in governance.
Moreover, fostering a culture of enquiry can empower more individuals to come forward, making collective efforts to safeguard their rights and demand clarity in the decision-making processes that affect their lives.
By doing so, they not only uphold their own rights but also contribute to a stronger democratic framework that benefits society as a whole.

Is the alleged subversion of the RTI process in Mirzapur with its quiet authority an isolated incident? Or is it a sign of deeper systemic issues in bureaucratic accountability? The commission’s response will decide the next chapter concerning these silent authorities.

DPRO sent RTI application about BDO Chhanbey to BDO Jamalpur