Urgent Action Needed: Citizen’s RTI Appeal Exposes Alleged RTI Violations by UP Energy Department Officials
A Second Appeal was filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, highlighting the critical issue of transparency and accountability in governance.
Yogi M P Singh of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, brings to light serious allegations that could have far-reaching implications for the functioning of public services.
These allegations involve not only non-compliance with the directives of the RTI Act but also a significant dereliction of duty by officials in the Energy Department, Mirzapur District, which is supposed to serve the public efficiently and ethically.
The appellant claims that the Public Information Officer (PIO) neglected to provide the requested information crucial for the public’s right to know. Furthermore, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) also did not fulfil this obligation and failed to address the concerns raised in the follow-up appeal.
This inaction perpetuates a culture of secrecy and impunity, prompting the appellant to argue that such negligence makes a “mockery of law of land.” As a result, urgent action is needed; the appeal calls for stringent action against the erring officials to restore faith in the system and ensure that the principles of justice and accountability prevail in the face of adversity. 😠
Background of the RTI Inquiry
Yogi M P Singh, the appellant, filed the first RTI application (PUVNL/R/2024/60463) on September 2, 2024, with the PIO, Yogesh Kumar (EE & PIO, EDD-1 FATAH MRZ).
In this application, he sought detailed information regarding the various operations and administrative procedures of the Electricity Distribution Division 1st, Mirzapur, which play a critical role in managing the electricity supply for local residents, particularly in ensuring that the needs and concerns of vulnerable communities are addressed with utmost priority.
He needs urgent action because the inquiry specifically concerns an electricity bill for a BPL (Below Poverty Line) connection holder, highlighting the importance of not only accuracy but also the fairness of charges levied on vulnerable populations who often face financial hardships.
The application focuses on the case of Shiv Lakhan, an individual seeking assistance and fair treatment, and seeks clarification on various charges that have been applied to his account, which may appear convoluted and unjust. This investigation aims to promote transparency and accountability within the electricity distribution system, ensuring that no undue financial burden is placed on those already struggling to make ends meet.
Additionally, it underscores the necessity for systematic reforms that can guarantee such oversight, lending credence to the idea that equitable access to electricity is a fundamental right that should never be compromised.
In light of the pressing issues surrounding electricity billing and its significant impact on the welfare of BPL customers, it is imperative that the concerned authorities respond promptly and address the issues raised in this application, as delays could exacerbate the already precarious situations faced by impacted families and individuals.
Key Information Sought:
The RTI application asked for answers to five specific points. It primarily focuses on transparency in billing and staff details, aiming to shed light on the often murky processes that can lead to confusion and mistrust among stakeholders.
In particular, we need urgent action to ensure clear communication and accountability in these areas, which are essential for fostering a trusting relationship between the administration and the public they serve.
Such measures not only help in addressing current concerns but also pave the way for enhanced clarity and understanding in future interactions.
- Staff Details: Name, designation, and posting details of the staff of the Department of Electricity.
- Bill Clarification: Detailed explanation of the current bill amount of ₹579.41 and the terms: BILLED UNITS (37.00 KWH), GROSS BILL (₹298.55), TARIFF SUBSIDY (₹129.50), LPSC (₹410.36), and NET CURRENT BILL (₹579.41).
- Unit Rate: The rate per unit charged for electricity and the total charge for 37 units.
- Field Officials: Name and posting details of the concerned Junior Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer.
- Tariff Inquiry: The tariff for 3415 KWH of electricity, relating to the present reading.
Allegations Against Public Officials
The core of the Second Appeal focuses on a specific issue that has far-reaching implications. The issue is the alleged failure of the concerned public authorities to respond appropriately to pressing concerns raised by citizens and organizations alike.
This failure not only highlights the urgent action needed to ensure accountability but also underscores the critical role of these authorities in safeguarding public interests.
Without a concerted effort to address this lack of responsiveness, there is a growing risk that the situation will worsen, resulting in a loss of trust in public institutions and an escalation of unresolved grievances among the populace.
It is essential for these authorities to not only acknowledge their shortcomings but also to take decisive steps to rectify them, fostering a culture of transparency and reliability that the public can depend on.
Failure to Offer Information (PIO)implies Urgent Action Needed
- Non-Response: The PIO, Yogesh Kumar, did not provide the information within the 30-day time limit. This period is stipulated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, highlighting the urgency of action needed.
- Wrongful Transfer: The RTI application was later transferred to another PIO. This was Manish Kumar Shrivastava, EE & PIO EDD-2 Mirzapur, on November 16, 2024. The appellant explicitly calls this a “wrongful transfer.” They see it as a strategy to withhold information. As of the appeal date (December 2, 2024), no information has been provided.
Failure to Entertain Appeal (FAA)
-
Non-Action: The First Appeal was filed on October 28, 2024, with the FAA, Ram Bhujarat (EDC FATAH MRZ). The status shows the appeal was received.
Nonetheless, the appellant states the FAA “did not entertain” the appeal. They provided “no answer” or order, highlighting the urgent need for action.
This situation raises concerns about the adherence to procedural timelines and the importance of transparency in the decision-making process, which are fundamental principles that govern such appeals and their resolutions.
The ongoing silence from the FAA complicates the case further and necessitates immediate attention to ensure that the rights of the appellant are upheld.
The appellant contends that the inaction by both officials is a clear violation of the law and warrants disciplinary action. It further highlights the urgent action that is necessary to address such non-compliance and ensure accountability.
Relief Sought by the Appellant and Urgent Action Needed by government staff
The appellant has appealed to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), requesting the following urgent actions:
- Imposition of Penalty (Section 20): The authorities should take action against Yogesh Kumar, the original PIO. This action is, required under Section 20 of the RTI Act for arbitrarily withholding information and wrongfully transferring the application.
- Disciplinary Action (FAA): The First Appellate Authority, Ram Bhujarat, should face disciplinary action for allegedly supporting the illegal stance of the PIO and failing to entertain the appeal, which undermines the spirit of the RTI Act.
- Provision of Information: Urgent Action Needed against PIO to give the five points of information requested.
The appeal emphasizes the need for “harsh steps against the wrongdoer.” Citizens must see these actions to win their confidence and strengthen democratic values. This case serves as a critical test for the UPIC, demanding urgent action to reinforce the mandate of transparency. It should also uphold the accountability intended by the RTI Act. The commission’s stand on official non-compliance will significantly depend on the outcome of this appeal, underscoring the necessity for urgent action.
What are your thoughts on this case? Should we apply penalties when officials allegedly fail to respond at both the PIO and FAA levels?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.