This case highlights a citizen’s persistent effort in the face of bureaucratic challenges. The individual, a determined advocate for transparency, sought to obtain essential information from the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), aiming to shed light on crucial developments affecting the community.
They utilised the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a powerful tool designed to empower citizens and promote accountability within public authorities. However, after facing significant delays, evasive responses, and a troubling pattern of non-compliance from the department, the appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, refused to be deterred.
Recognising the importance of his request for public interest, he escalated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, a higher authority tasked with ensuring adherence to the RTI Act. After careful review of the circumstances and the apparent disregard for the law, the commission has now issued a decisive order mandating the LDA to provide the requested information without further delay, reinforcing the vital role of citizen activism in promoting government accountability.

---

Case Overview

• Appellant: Shri Yogi M.P. Singh
• Public Authority: Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), Lucknow
• Issue: The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not give the requested information within the stipulated time. There was also non-compliance with the First Appellate Authority’s order.
• Current Status: The State Information Commission has ordered the PIO to give all information within two weeks. It has also scheduled a follow-up hearing.

---

Timeline of Events

1. RTI Application (19-Jan-2024): Shri Yogi M.P. Singh filed an RTI application seeking information related to alleged irregularities at the Lucknow Development Authority.
2. No Response from PIO: The Public Information Officer did not give any information within the mandatory 30-day period.
3. First Appeal (10-Mar-2024): The appellant filed the first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the LDA.
4. FAA Order (20-Mar-2024): The FAA noted the absence of evidence for information sent to the appellant. They ordered the concerned PIO to provide the requisite information within 15 days.
5. Continued Non-Compliance: The PIO neglected to follow the FAA’s order.
6. Second Appeal (20-Jun-2024): Having received no information, Shri Singh filed a second appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
7. State Information Commission Order (12-Dec-2024): The Commission issued a notice to the PIO. It directed the immediate release of information. The notice also warned of potential penalties.

---

Information Requested by the Applicant

The original RTI application (Registration No: LKDPA/R/2024/60058) sought the following five points of information to expose alleged corruption and inaction within the LDA:

1. Details of the title suit were filed by a lady named Anuradha Singh. She is also known as Guddi Singh. These details are in LDA records. The records include the name and designation of the public staff who executed it.
2. A copy of the court order decided the title suit of Anuradha Singh. This was in compliance with the High Court’s order in Writ Petition Number 135 (HC) of 2006.
3. Posting details (including name and designation) of the staff who executed the registry of the impugned plots to allottees.
4. Details of the committee set up to investigate the irregularities. This includes the names, designations, posting details, and joining dates of its members.
5. Details of the government functionaries who nominated the committee members. It includes their posting details. Additionally, the stipulated time given to the committee to finish its enquiry is specified.

---

State Information Commission’s Final Order

The case was heard by the State Information Commissioner, Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi. Below is the summary of the order issued on December 12, 2024.

Appeal Number: S10/A/1318/2024

Original Order Text (Hindi):

पुकार करायी गयी। उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि अपीलकर्ता को उनके मूल आवेदन के कम में वांछित सूचनाएं उपलब्ध नहीं करायी गयी हैं। अतः न्यायहित में जनसूचना अधिकारी, कार्यालय उपाध्यक्ष, लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण, लखनऊ को अपीलकर्ता के मूल आवेदन की प्रति संलग्न करते हुए नोटिस जारी की जाए कि वह अपीलकर्ता को उनके मूल आवेदन के कम में नियमानुसार सम्पूर्ण सूचनाएं अगले दो सप्ताह के अंदर पंजीकृत डाक के माध्यम से प्रेषित करें तथा प्रकरण की अगली सुनवाई तिथि पर आयोग के समक्ष सूचनाओं की प्रति व भेजे जाने का प्रमाण प्रस्तुत करें, अन्यथा की स्थिति में क्यों न आपके विरूद्ध सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 20 (1) व 20 (2) के तहत नियमानुसार दण्डात्मक कार्यवाही की जा सकती है। अपील वास्ते अगली सुनवाई हेतु दि० 30.12.2024 को पेश हो।

Summary of the Order in English:

The State Information Commission noted the following:

• Both parties were absent during the hearing.
• It is clear from the record that the appellant has not been provided the requested information.

The Commission has thus ordered the Public Information Officer, Lucknow Development Authority, to:

1. Send the entire, legally permissible information to the appellant via registered post within the next two weeks.
2. Before the Commission on the next hearing date with a copy of the information provided and proof of dispatch.
3. The Commission issued a stern warning. If there is failure to comply, penal proceedings will be initiated against the PIO. This follows Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Next Hearing Date: The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for December 30, 2024.

---

Key Contact and Application Details

Appellant:

• Name: Yogi M P Singh
• Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City, Uttar Pradesh – 231001
• Mobile: 7379105911
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Public Authority:

• Department: Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), Lucknow
• Public Information Officer (PIO): Atul Krishna, Deputy Secretary
  • Mobile: 9918001893
  • Email: raz.9125@gmail.com
• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Gyanendra Verma
  • Mobile: 9918001927
  • Email: ldartionline@gmail.com

Case IDs:

• RTI Application No: LKDPA/R/2024/60058
• First Appeal No: LKDPA/A/2024/60057
• Second Appeal File No: S10/A/1318/2024
• Second Appeal Registration No: A-20240601728

Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted representation before vice chairman L.D.A. as they are procrastinating on serious issue of corruption

LDA did not provide plots to allottees, but preferred to auction, is corruption

Despite procrastination of L.D.A. in providing information, information sought from LDA