The Fight for Transparency: Analyzing the Second Appeal of Yogi M P Singh vs. Revenue Department, Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was envisioned as a beacon of democratic accountability. However, the transition from law to practice often hits a wall of administrative apathy. The case of Yogi M P Singh (Appeal No. A-20241200313) is a quintessential example of “Deemed Refusal,” where both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to respond, forcing the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

1. Case Background: The Silence of the Authorities

On September 12, 2024, the appellant, Yogi M P Singh, filed an RTI application (Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60097) seeking critical information regarding a court order compliance and alleged revenue record forgery.

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a PIO is mandated to provide information within 30 days. In this case, the PIO, Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, provided no response. Following the legal hierarchy, the appellant 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, the appeal was met with total silence.

2. The Core Issues: Forgery and Judicial Compliance

The information sought by the appellant is not merely administrative; it touches upon serious allegations of corruption and judicial negligence within the Mirzapur Tehsil. The five points of information requested include:

• Action Taken Report: Details on how the Tehsildar complied with a specific court order.
• Accountability for Delay: Why the compliance has been pending for over 1.5 years.
• Personnel Tracking: The names and designations of staff members who handled the case file.
• Evidence of Submission: A copy of the report submitted to the court.
• Allegations of Forgery: Identifying the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector responsible for deleting a name (“Todai”) from the revenue records.

3. The Legal Basis of the Second Appeal

The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. When a citizen is aggrieved by the lack of a decision from the First Appellate Authority, they have 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 have triggered the “Deemed Refusal” clause. 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

The appeal identifies two primary respondents who failed in their statutory duties:

1. The PIO (Tehsildar Hemant Kumar): Responsible for the initial 30-day response window. Failure to respond can lead to penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.
2. The FAA (SDM Sadar Asharam Varma): Responsible for overseeing the PIO’s conduct and ensuring the information is released. The FAA’s silence is a procedural lapse that often leads to a backlog at the Commission level.

5. Potential Outcomes and Penalties

As the matter moves to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in Lucknow, the Commission has the power to:

• Direct Disclosure: Order the PIO to provide the information immediately and free of cost (as the deadline was missed).
• Impose Penalties: 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: If the denial of information is found to be mala fide or persistent, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the officers involved.

6. Why This Case Matters for Every Citizen

This case is a reminder that the RTI Act is only as strong as the citizen’s willingness to pursue it to the highest level.

• Combatting Forgery: By asking for the names of officials involved in “deleting names from revenue records,” the appellant is using the RTI as a tool for anti-corruption.
• Judicial Integrity: Ensuring that Tehsildars cannot sit on court orders for years without accountability.
• Strengthening Democracy: 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) is now a test for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Will the Commission take a strict stand against the Mirzapur Tehsil officials?

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

---

Key Information for Reference:

• 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, as these are statutory constitutional posts designed to be independent of government pressure. Because they hold high office, they cannot be removed or disciplined like ordinary government employees.

If you believe a Commissioner is guilty of misconduct, bias, or corruption, 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, the power to remove a Commissioner rests solely with the Governor (for UP State IC) or the President of India (for Central IC).

Grounds for Complaint:

• Proved Misbehavior: Corrupt practices, bias, or acting in a way that benefits a private party.
• Incapacity: Physical or mental inability to perform duties.¹
• Conflict of Interest: Engaging in paid employment outside the office or having financial interests that affect their functions.²

Procedure:

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

---

2. Writ Petition in the High Court

Since Information Commissions are “quasi-judicial” bodies, their orders and conduct are subject to Judicial Review.

• 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., not hearing you), or shows patent bias.
• Relief: The Court can quash the Commissioner’s order, direct them to rehear 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:

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

---

4. Administrative Complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC)⁵

While the Chief Information Commissioner (State) does not have the power to “fire” another Commissioner, they do have powers of “general superintendence and management” under Section 15(4).⁶

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

---

Summary Table: Where to go?

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 is currently at the level of the PIO and FAA. The Information Commission has not failed you yet. 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?