RTI Appeal Filed with Lucknow Police Commissionerate i.e. Kiran Singh’s second appeal

Kiran Singh filed an RTI appeal with the Police Commissioner’s Office in Lucknow, seeking transparency and accountability in the actions taken by the police regarding a pressing issue that has garnered significant attention.

The appeal, registered on December 18, 2024, challenges the response received for an initial RTI application concerning a land dispute that has escalated tensions in the local community, affecting the livelihoods and harmony of many families.
In his appeal, Kiran outlines specific concerns regarding the conduct of police personnel, which includes their perceived bias and a troubling pattern of neglect in addressing crucial evidence that could have significantly influenced the outcome of the dispute. He highlights instances where key testimonies were overlooked and critical documentation was not thoroughly considered, raising questions about the integrity of the investigation.

Moreover, Kiran emphasizes the necessity for an impartial and transparent review of the case to ensure justice is served, asserting that the rights of citizens must be upheld in the face of potential misconduct by law enforcement. He insists that the public deserves clarity in such matters and advocates for mechanisms that enhance accountability within the police force, ultimately aiming to restore faith and trust among the community members affected by this situation.

Appeal Registration Number: PCLKO/A/2024/60212 Original RTI Registration Number: PCLKO/R/2024/80186

---

Appellant and Authority Details in case of Kiran Singh’s second appeal

Personal Details

• Name: Kiran Singh
• Address: Ali Nagar Sunahla, Police Commissionerate Lucknow, Police station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow – 226001
• Mobile Number: +91-8687593247
• Email: kiransingh9389752386[at]gmail[dot]com

Public Authority Details

• Public Authority: Police Commissioner Office, Lucknow
• First Appellate Authority (FAA): अनिल कुमार यादव (Anil Kumar Yadav), Deputy Commissioner of Police
  • Phone: 9140770107
  • Email: dcphqoffice@gmail.com
• Public Information Officer (PIO): धनंजय सिंह कुशवाहा (Dhananjay Singh Kushwaha), Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
  • Email: jansuchanalko@gmail.com

---

Grounds for Appeal and Information Sought

The appellant filed the appeal because they deemed the information provided in response to the original RTI incomplete, misleading, or false.
This decision arose from a careful examination of the documents received, which the appellant found lacking in key details necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the matter at hand.
The appellant argues that the deficiencies in the provided information not only obscure the truth but also hinder their ability to effectively engage with the issues presented, thereby affecting their rights.
Furthermore, the shortcomings in the data have led to significant confusion regarding the relevant facts, raising questions about transparency and accountability in the handling of the original request.
Given that the appellant relies on the availability of accurate and thorough information to navigate the complexities of the case, the implications of these deficiencies are far-reaching.
Below are the specific points raised by the appellant.

1. Ownership Details of a Private Road

• Information Sought: The appellant requested investigation details clarifying the ownership of a private road, questioning whether it belongs to Shimla Devi (from whom the appellant purchased land) or Vidyavati Devi (from whom the opposing party purchased land).
• Information Provided by Police: The PIO stated that this information pertains to the Department of Revenue and cannot be provided by the police.
• Appellant’s Submission: Kiran Singh argues that the police must provide the basis for declaring the land a “common road” in their reports. He contends that without a valid reason, the police reports are baseless. He claims the road is part of the land agreement with Shimla Devi and questions how the opposing party can claim it if their seller, Vidyavati Devi, did not provide it.

2. Allegations of Land Grabbing and Police Collusion

• Information Sought: The appellant requested the provision of law that classifies the alleged grabbing of his private road, supposedly in collusion with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Krishna Nagar police station, as a civil matter. He also claimed that the SHO confined him and his family to the police station.
• Information Provided by Police: The PIO dismissed the request, stating the allegations are baseless.
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant argues that the police show prejudice and have prematurely concluded that the concerned personnel are innocent. He insists that he is seeking an inquiry into irregularities and corruption, which the authorities ignore by labeling the issue as a revenue matter.

3. Posting Details of Police Personnel

• Information Sought: The appellant requested the current and past posting details for two police personnel, Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki, including the date they joined the Lucknow Police Commissionerate.
• Information Provided by Police: The information was denied, with the PIO claiming it was concerned with the Police Head Office.
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant asserts that this denial violates Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which requires the relevant public authority to receive an application when the subject matter more closely connected with their functions.

Kiran Singh sought information from police Commissionerate Lucknow

Kiran Singh seeking actions against land grabbers. It is most unfortunate that land grabbers belong to the police community, creating a disturbing scenario where those sworn to protect the law are instead facilitating its violation.
Many citizens have raised concerns, believing that the police are favoring these individuals, thereby compromising public trust. This troubling situation underscores the urgent need for a thorough investigation and accountability, as the local community deserves to feel secure in their property rights and should not have to fear those meant to uphold the law.
The involvement of law enforcement in such actions not only tarnishes the image of the police force but also endangers the very fabric of justice within society.