The Mirzapur Smart Meter RTI Appeal: A Citizen’s Fight for Transparency

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 is a powerful tool for citizens, designed to empower them with the means to inquire about the workings of their government. The government established it to promote accountability and transparency within government bodies, thereby fostering an environment where citizens are informed and engaged.
Nonetheless, the path to obtaining information can often be fraught with delays and non-compliance, which can discourage citizens from pursuing their inquiries. A recent second appeal filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission by Mirzapur resident Yogi M. P. Singh exposes this very struggle, shedding light on the intricate challenges individuals face when navigating the bureaucratic systems designed to facilitate transparency.
It raises significant questions about the installation of smart electricity meters in the district, specifically regarding the quality of information provided to the public and the potential ramifications for accountability in the implementation of such projects. This situation reveals broader implications for how effectively citizens can utilize the RTI Act to hold authorities to account, highlighting the urgent need for reforms that ensure timely and comprehensive responses to RTI requests.

A Timeline of Unanswered Queries

The journey of this particular request for information began in late 2024. It has since escalated due to a lack of response from the designated authorities.

The First RTI Application On October 23, 2024, Mr. Singh filed an RTI application (No. PUVNL/R/2024/60577) with the Energy Department in Mirzapur. The inquiry was directed to the Public Information Officer (PIO), Mr. Manish K. Shrivastava. Yet, despite the mandated timeframe for response under the RTI Act, the status of the inquiry remained “RTI plea RECEIVED.” No information was provided.

The First Appeal So, after the stipulated period lapsed, Mr. Singh filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Mr. Ram Das, on November 28, 2024. This appeal (No. PUVNL/A/2024/60328) also failed to elicit a response, with its status similarly stuck at “RTI APPEAL RECEIVED.

Escalation to the State Commission Faced with silence from both the PIO and the FAA, Mr. Singh exercised his right to file a second appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission on January 7, 2025. This step represents a formal complaint against the department’s failure to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act.

The Core of the Matter: Five Key Questions Left Unanswered

The crux of Mr. Singh’s inquiry revolves around the implementation of the smart meter installation project in Mirzapur, a matter of wide public interest. The specific information he sought is detailed in the following five points:

1. Use of Old Cables: Why was a smart meter installed at the appellant’s premises using the old, existing cable? Reports suggest that new armored cables should be used instead.
2. Project Funding and Contractor Details: What was the total amount of funds given to contractors? This funding was for the smart meter installation project in Mirzapur. Furthermore, Mr. Singh requested detailed payment information, including exchange details and dates, for the contractors involved.
3. Monitoring and Oversight: The details of officials from Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited who monitored installations. Please give their names and designations. They were responsible for monitoring the installation process in Mirzapur city.
4. Inconsistent Installation and Action Taken: Why, they did not install smart meters in several consumer premises? This happened even months after the project began. The appellant requested copies of communications. They also asked for details of any action taken by the department to handle this inconsistency.
5. Data Transfer and Payment Delays: Referencing a departmental letter dated September 24, 2024, Mr. Singh questioned the time, the installation company will take to transfer consumer data. This delay reportedly affects the reflection of consumer payments in the new smart meter system. He asked for a timeline for completion and questioned the department’s “insensitivity” to consumer rights in this regard.

Allegations of Malpractice and Wider Public Concern

Adding weight to the RTI application is a report, published in a local daily “Khabare Din Bhar ki.” This report alleged that contractors were demanding that consumers buy their own armored cables for the new smart meters. This directly contradicts what department officials reportedly stated.
They claimed that 40 meters of armored cable is provided free with each smart meter. Consumers should complain if asked to buy their own.
This context elevates the RTI from a personal grievance to a matter of significant public concern. It touches upon potential malpractice.
The context also brings attention to financial irregularities.

A Plea for Accountability

In his appeal to the State Information Commission, Mr. Singh is not merely seeking the information he was initially denied; rather, he is advocating for a more substantial accountability from the public officials involved in the situation.
He has explicitly requested punitive action against these officials, underscoring the importance of transparency and responsibility in public service.
Specifically, he has called for: thorough investigations into the circumstances surrounding the denial of information, implementation of stricter guidelines to prevent such occurrences in the future, and appropriate disciplinary measures to ensure that similar infractions do not happen again, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the information dissemination process within the state.

• Action against the PIO: Imposition of penalties on the Public Information Officer, Mr. Manish K. Shrivastava, under Section 20 of the RTI Act for failing to provide information.
• Disciplinary Action against the FAA: Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Ram Das, for failing to adjudicate the first appeal, thereby supporting the PIO’s inaction.

Mr. Singh concludes his appeal by questioning how withholding public services can be justified. He also questions ignoring the law. He urges the commission to take “harsh steps against the wrongdoer.”
These measures aim to win the confidence of the citizenry. They also strengthen democratic values.
This case now rests with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The Commission will decide the course of action. Their goal is to make sure to uphold the spirit of the Right to Information Act.

Smart meters are incredible like electronic voting machines in India