Grievance portal and its management is in dilapidated state, causing harm to Dayanand Singh.
The grievances filed by Dayanand Singh against the administrative machinery in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, reveal a significant problem. They highlight bureaucratic incompetence and misdirection. This case shows that a complaint about one department—the revenue administration—was illogically forwarded to a completely different one. It was sent to the electricity department. This led to a dead end and immense frustration for the applicant.
The Heart of the Grievance: A Tale of Two Departments
The core issue, as stated in the grievance (60000240256694), concerns the Tehsildar Sadar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar in Mirzapur. The applicant, Dayanand Singh, claims that these officials are not taking action. The matter was referred to them by the Executive Engineer of Electricity Distribution Division 2nd. The Executive Engineer had sent a letter (पत्रंक 6482) to the Tehsildar’s office. He requested an inquiry into a specific matter. Still, the revenue officials are allegedly “procrastinating”. They are failing to submit their report.
The Bureaucratic Blunder: Misdirection by the Chief Minister’s Office
Here’s where the administrative process breaks down entirely. Dayanand Singh submitted his grievance to the District Magistrate. The subject line was clear: “dereliction of duty by sub-divisional magistrate Sadar.” He explicitly asked a question. How could the Executive Engineer of the electricity department solve a problem? The issue was caused by the revenue department.
Nevertheless, the grievance was forwarded by the Chief Minister’s Office to the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). This transfer is the central point of the applicant’s complaint. He argues that this action is a prime example of “anarchy.” It demonstrates the incompetence of the officials who forwarded the complaint. They either failed to understand the contents or did so deliberately to promote corruption.
The Predictable Outcome: A Closed Case with No Resolution
The grievance reached UPPCL. It then transferred down the chain of command. It moved from the Chairman & Managing Director to the Managing Director. Then it went to the Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer. Finally, it arrived at the Executive Engineer. Unsurprisingly, the Executive Engineer’s report states that the complaint is a “suggestion” and arbitrarily closed. The UPPCL had no jurisdiction over the Tehsildar or Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
As a result, the applicant’s problem remains unresolved. They closed the case with the remark that it was a “suggestion.” The applicant rated the response as “poor.” They noted that the root cause of the problem—the procrastination by the Tehsildar—never addressed.
A Systemic Problem of Mismanagement
Dayanand Singh’s experience underscores a critical flaw in the online grievance redressal system. A complaint clearly expressed its concern about the revenue department. Nonetheless, They sent it inexplicably to the electricity department. This department had no authority to act on it. This misdirection not only wasted time and resources. It also demonstrated a profound lack of accountability and understanding by the officials handling the complaint. It raises serious questions about the effectiveness of public grievance portals. Do these portals truly serve their purpose of providing a transparent and responsive government?
Surekapuram Colony, Teliyaganj, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India • Update location
SDM Sadar presented report of sanction of compensation in non-prescribed format
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.