Kanhaiya Lal’s appeal for justice exposes the RTI silence by Mirzapur officials over alleged revenue record forgery.
It also highlights serious concerns regarding transparency and accountability within local governance.
Furthermore, despite multiple requests for information under the Right to Information Act, officials have remained unresponsive.
This raises questions about their commitment to upholding the law.
Moreover, Kanhaiya’s situation affects him personally and sheds light on systemic issues that many citizens may face when seeking legal recourse.
As he navigates this challenging landscape, it is crucial to explore available legal options and understand the potential avenues for justice.
In addition, engaging legal experts and advocacy groups can provide essential support in confronting bureaucratic hurdles.
This ensures that rightful claims are addressed.
Read the full case and legal options.

Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice: Analyzing the Second Appeal of Yogi M P Singh vs. Revenue Department, Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 envisioned a beacon of democratic accountability. However, the transition from law to practice often hits a wall of administrative apathy. Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice — filed by Yogi M P Singh (Appeal No. A-20241200313) — illustrates this situation quite clearly. It serves as a quintessential example of “Deemed Refusal.” Both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) notably failed to respond. This significant failure ultimately forced the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

1. Case Background: The Origins of Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice

Specifically, on September 12, 2024, the appellant, Yogi M P Singh, filed an RTI application (Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60097) on behalf of Kanhaiya Lal.
He was seeking critical information regarding a court order compliance.
Additionally, he was inquiring about alleged revenue record forgery.

To begin with, under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a PIO must provide information within 30 days. However, in this case, the PIO, Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, gave no response at all. Consequently, following the legal hierarchy, the appellant subsequently filed a First Appeal on November 1, 2024. Despite the law requiring the First Appellate Authority (SDM Sadar Asharam Varma) to dispose of the appeal within 30 to 45 days, total silence once again met this appeal.

2. The Core Issues: Forgery and Judicial Compliance

The information the appellant sought is not merely administrative; rather, it touches upon serious allegations of corruption and judicial negligence within the Mirzapur Tehsil.
At the heart of Kanhaiya Lal’s appeal for justice lie five points of information requested:

• Action Taken Report: Specifically, details on how the Tehsildar complied with a specific court order. Moreover, it outlines the steps taken to ensure adherence and describes any challenges encountered during the process.
• Accountability for Delay: Specifically, this raises the question of why compliance has been pending for over 1.5 years.
• Personnel Tracking: Additionally, the names and designations of staff members who handled the case file.
• Evidence of Submission: Furthermore, a copy of the report submitted to the court.
• Allegations of Forgery: Finally, the identity of the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector responsible for deleting a name (“Todai”) from the revenue records.

The Legal Basis Behind Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice

Accordingly, the appellant filed the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. Indeed, when a citizen is aggrieved by the lack of a decision from the First Appellate Authority, the law grants them the right to approach the State Information Commission.

The Argument of “Insolence and Anarchy”

The appellant’s prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner highlights a growing concern in Uttar Pradesh’s administrative corridors: Insolence toward the Law. By ignoring the application and the subsequent appeal, the officials triggered the “Deemed Refusal” clause. Therefore, the appellant argues that this behavior is “tantamount to anarchy” and undermines the democratic values the Act was meant to protect.

4. Roles and Responsibilities of the Respondents

Kanhaiya Lal’s appeal for justice identifies two primary respondents who failed in their statutory duties:

1. The PIO (Tehsildar Hemant Kumar): He held the responsibility for the initial 30-day response window; consequently, failure to respond can lead to penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.
2. The FAA (SDM Sadar Asharam Varma): He held responsibility for overseeing the PIO’s conduct and ensuring the release of information. Consequently, the FAA’s silence ultimately amounts to a significant procedural lapse that often leads to an inevitable backlog at the Commission level.

5. Potential Outcomes and Penalties for Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice

Now, as the matter moves to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in Lucknow, the Commission holds the power to:

• Direct Disclosure: First, it can order the PIO to provide the information immediately and free of cost, since the deadline was missed.
• Impose Penalties: Additionally, under Section 20(1), the Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) on the PIO for the delay.
• Recommend Disciplinary Action: Finally, if the denial of information turns out to be mala fide or persistent, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the officers involved.

6. Why Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice Matters for Every Citizen

Ultimately, this case reminds us that the RTI Act is only as strong as the citizen’s willingness to pursue it to the highest level.

• Combatting Forgery: First, by asking for the names of officials involved in “deleting names from revenue records,” the appellant uses the RTI as a tool for anti-corruption.
• Judicial Integrity: In a similar vein, this appeal ensures that Tehsildars cannot sit on court orders for years without accountability.
• Strengthening Democracy: Finally, as the appellant states, taking harsh steps against wrongdoers is the “need of the hour” to win back the confidence of the citizenry.

Conclusion: The Path Ahead

The Second Appeal (Registration Number: A-20241200313) now stands as a test for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Will the Commission take a strict stand against the Mirzapur Tehsil officials and finally deliver on Kanhaiya Lal’s appeal for justice?

For the residents of Mirzapur and the state at large, the outcome of this case will ultimately signal whether the RTI Act remains a powerful weapon for truth or whether local bureaucracy can easily ignore it as a paper tiger.

---

Key Information for Reference:

• Case: Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice
• Appellant: Yogi M P Singh
• Commission: UP State Information Commission, Lucknow
• RTI Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60097
• Key Offices Involved: Revenue Department, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur

Filing a complaint against an Information Commissioner (IC) is a serious and complex process, because these posts are statutory constitutional positions designed to be independent of government pressure. Since they hold high office, no one can remove or discipline them like ordinary government employees.

If you believe a Commissioner is guilty of misconduct, bias, or corruption in a matter like Kanhaiya Lal’s appeal for justice, here are the legal avenues available under the RTI Act, 2005:

---

1. Complaint to the Governor (State) or President (Central)

Under Section 17 (for State Information Commissioners) and Section 14 (for Central Information Commissioners) of the RTI Act, only the Governor (for UP State IC) or the President of India (for Central IC) holds the power to remove a Commissioner.

Grounds for Complaint:

• Proved Misbehavior: For instance, instances of corrupt practices, blatant bias, or actions that conspicuously benefit a private party.
• Incapacity: Alternatively, due to circumstances, there may be a physical or mental inability to perform duties.
• Conflict of Interest: In other words, engaging in paid employment outside the office or, conversely, holding financial interests that may impact their functions.

Procedure:

1. Draft a Formal Petition: First, clearly state the instances of “proved misbehavior” or “incapacity” with supporting evidence (e.g., copies of orders where officials ignored the law, proof of bias).
2. Submit to the Governor’s Office: Subsequently, send the petition to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (for the UPIC).
3. Supreme Court Inquiry: Then, if the Governor finds the complaint has merit, they must refer the matter to the Supreme Court of India, which will then conduct an inquiry.
4. Final Action: Finally, if the Supreme Court finds the Commissioner guilty, it reports back to the Governor, who then issues the removal order.

---

2. Writ Petition in the High Court: Another Route in Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice

Since Information Commissions function as “quasi-judicial” bodies, Judicial Review governs their orders and conduct.

• Article 226: You can file a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench for Mirzapur matters).
• When to use this: If a Commissioner passes an order that is completely contrary to the law, violates the principles of natural justice (e.g., by not hearing you), or shows patent bias.
• Relief: The Court can quash the Commissioner’s order, direct a rehearing of the case, or pass strictures against their conduct.

---

3. Complaint to the Lokpal or Lokayukta

If your complaint involves financial corruption or abuse of office for personal gain, then this route applies:

• State Lokayukta: You can file a formal complaint with the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta. This body has the power to investigate allegations of corruption against high-ranking state officials.

---

4. Administrative Complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC)

While the Chief Information Commissioner (State) cannot “fire” another Commissioner, they nonetheless hold powers of “general superintendence and management” under Section 15(4).

• You can write to the Chief Information Commissioner of the UPIC regarding the conduct or persistent delays caused by a specific Information Commissioner. In response, they can change the “bench” or issue internal guidelines to correct the behavior.

---

Summary Table: Where to Take Kanhaiya Lal’s Appeal for Justice

Issue	Authority	Legal Provision
Misconduct / Removal	Governor of UP	Section 17, RTI Act
Legal Error / Bias	Allahabad High Court	Article 226 of Constitution
Corruption / Bribery	UP Lokayukta	Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act
Procedural Grievance	Chief IC (UPIC)	Section 15(4), RTI Act

---

Important Note for your Case

In your Mirzapur case (UPICR20240000149), the delay currently sits at the level of the PIO and FAA. The Information Commission has not failed you yet. Therefore, your current goal is to ensure the UP State Information Commission hears your Second Appeal quickly.

Would you like me to help you draft a “Request for Urgent Hearing” (Urgency Application) to send to the Chief Information Commissioner of UP regarding your pending appeal?gent Hearing” (Urgency Application) to send to the Chief Information Commissioner of UP regarding your pending appeal?