Accountability in Public Services is under scrutiny in Mirzapur, where an RTI appeal exposes a PIO’s 56-day silence and possible cover-up. The issue has sparked widespread concern among citizens who rely on transparent governance for effective service delivery. In this case, the PIO’s prolonged delay in responding to the RTI request raises serious questions about the processes in place to ensure accountability. Furthermore, it suggests a troubling lack of responsiveness within the public service sector, undermining trust in government institutions. As citizens demand answers, the situation highlights the critical need for reform in the way public officials handle requests for information. It serves as a reminder that transparency and accountability are foundational to a healthy democracy and essential for empowering citizens to hold their leaders accountable.

Accountability in Public Services: RTI Appeal Insights from Mirzapur’s Power Grid

Accountability in Public Services is the promise at the heart of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Lawmakers designed this “sunlight” law to illuminate the dark corners of bureaucracy. In turn, it was meant to hold public servants accountable to the citizens they serve. However, that light is currently flickering. The place where it flickers most is the Electricity Distribution Division Second, District Mirzapur.

Transparency advocate Yogi M. P. Singh recently filed a series of documents. These filings reveal a troubling pattern of evasion. As a result, this pattern now raises fresh questions about accountability in public services at Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PUVVNL).

1. The Timeline of Neglect: A Violation of Section 7(1)

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a Public Information Officer (PIO) has a duty. Namely, that PIO must provide information within 30 days of receiving an application. Unfortunately, the facts of this case tell a different story about public sector accountability. In short, they show a blatant disregard for that statutory timeline:

• Application Filed: 26th November 2024 (Reg No: PUVNL/R/2024/60647)
• Target Deadline: 26th December 2024
• Current Status: As of late January 2025, nearly two months have passed. Still, the department has not issued a formal response.

This delay is not merely a “clerical oversight.” Instead, it constitutes a violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Consequently, it strips citizens of their fundamental right to know — and it undermines accountability in public services at every level of this department.

2. Evasion in Government Departments: An Admission of Guilt?

At the heart of the dispute lies a specific issue. Namely, it is the arbitrary conduct of a Junior Engineer. This engineer works under the Executive Engineer (EE). When a public authority avoids providing specific, point-wise information, a question naturally follows: What is being hidden?

This refusal points to a likely explanation, and it is one that speaks directly to weak accountability in public services. Perhaps the department is shielding staff members from consequences. Specifically, those consequences involve corruption or administrative malpractice. In effect, the Executive Engineer of EDD-2 Fatha Mirzapur is acting as a barrier. This barrier stands between the public and the truth, and it exists simply because the office continues to withhold documents.

3. Public Sector Transparency and “The Honest Facade”

Perhaps the most poignant point in this appeal concerns a specific danger to public sector transparency. That danger is the “pseudo-honest” public servant. Openly corrupt officials, after all, are easy to spot. By contrast, officials who hide behind a facade of integrity cause more damage. This is because they mask administrative negligence while appearing honest — and this facade is precisely what erodes accountability in public services over time.

• Erosion of Trust: Constant delays discourage citizens from engaging with the government.
• Systemic Decay: Additionally, when authorities fail to hold PIOs accountable, this failure emboldens others. Specifically, it emboldens others to bypass the law and ignore RTI queries.

4. Strengthening Accountability in Public Services: The Path Forward

Singh has now lodged an appeal (Reg No: PUVNL/A/2025/60011). He filed it with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Mr. Ram Das (SE, EDC Mirzapur), whose role is defined under the Central Information Commission’s appeal guidelines. Therefore, to restore genuine accountability in public services, the following steps are essential:

1. Immediate Disclosure: First, the FAA must direct the PIO, Manish Kumar Srivastava, to act. Specifically, he must provide the sought information immediately and without further obfuscation.
2. Disciplinary Action: Next, the FAA must also exercise its power. In particular, it should recommend disciplinary proceedings against officials who deliberately obstruct information.
3. End to Arbitrary Actions: Finally, documented, transparent processes must replace arbitrary decision-making. This is often called the “Jungle Raj” of Junior Engineers.

---

Conclusion: What True Accountability in Public Services Requires

Transparency and accountability are not optional favors. Rather, the department grants them as a right, and together they form the cornerstones of public service. Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited must therefore make a choice. It must decide whether it wants to be seen as a genuine model of accountability in public services. Alternatively, it risks being seen as a sanctuary for administrative opacity. Ultimately, the citizens of Mirzapur deserve an answer.

To ensure a successful RTI appeal, clear presentation matters for anyone pursuing public accountability. Specifically, you must present these points of inquiry clearly to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Based on the case requirements, five precise points follow below. Together, they highlight the suspected irregularities and the PIO’s failure to act.

---

Refined Points of Information for the First Appeal

Subject: Specific information sought from PIO Manish Kumar Srivastava (EE, EDD-2, Mirzapur), filed in pursuit of accountability in public services

The appellant requires specific information below. This information concerns the arbitrary actions and possible collusion of staff at the Electricity Distribution Division Second:

1. Connection Details of Tarak Nath Yadav: Provide the complete records of the electricity connection. This connection belongs to Mr. Tarak Nath Yadav S/O Avadhraj Yadav. Include the meter number, sanctioned load, and installation date.
2. Ownership of Distribution Infrastructure: Provide a certified copy of the department’s verification report. This report concerns the “two-core black cable” used at the premises. That cable legitimately belongs to the aggrieved consumer, Mr. Lok Nath Yadav.
3. Details of Proxy Connections: Provide details of any electricity connection(s) taken in a specific name. Namely, any connection Mr. Tarak Nath Yadav took out in his wife’s name at a separate or distant location. Also include the address and current status of that connection.
4. Statement of Outstanding Dues: Provide the total outstanding amount (arrears). This figure should cover all connections registered in Mr. Tarak Nath Yadav’s name. Additionally, clarify whether these dues caused the department to refuse a second connection in his direct name.
5. Non-Disconnection Justification: Provide the official reason or department policy at play here. Specifically, explain why the department did not disconnect Mr. Tarak Nath Yadav’s connection. This is despite heavy dues and despite the standard recovery protocols of PUVVNL.

---

Strategy for the Appeal: Enforcing Accountability in Public Services

The delay in this case now stands at 56 days (as of the filing date). To hold the PIO accountable for it, emphasize the following legal grounds. Use these points during the hearing or in a written rejoinder:

• Section 7(1) Violation: The PIO failed to respond within 30 days. As a result, the law now treats this as a “Deemed Refusal.”
• Section 20(1) Penalty: Also, remind the FAA of a key liability. The PIO is liable for a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) for this unexplained delay.
• Section 19(5) Burden of Proof: During the appeal proceedings, one rule applies. Specifically, the burden of proving that the denial or delay was justified rests solely on the PIO, not the appellant.

Potential Impact: Restoring Public Trust and Accountability

These specific details serve a clear purpose in the broader push for accountability in public services. By requesting them, the appellant pins the department down on two fronts:

1. Revenue Loss: If the department has not disconnected a defaulter with “heavy dues,” a consequence follows. Namely, it causes a loss to the state exchequer.
2. Discrimination: Furthermore, the case highlights an “arbitrary action.” In this pattern, the department harasses one brother, Lok Nath Yadav. Meanwhile, it allegedly shields the other, Tarak Nath Yadav, despite his non-payment.

For easy tracking, the following sections list official identification details, contacts, and digital resources. All of these relate to this RTI application and appeal, and to the case’s larger goal of accountability in public services.

---

1. Official Case Identification

Keep these numbers ready for future correspondence. You may need them for the department or the State Information Commission.

• RTI Application Reg. No: PUVNL/R/2024/60647 (Filed: 26/11/2024)
• First Appeal Reg. No: PUVNL/A/2025/60011 (Filed: 22/01/2025)

---

2. Key Contact Directory for Accountable Public Service (Mirzapur Division)

These officers hold direct responsibility for this case. If the online portal does not update, you can still reach them. Simply use the channels below.

Designation	Name of Officer	Mobile Number	Email ID
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Ram Das	9415304000	se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Manish Kumar Srivastava	9450963598	ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
Nodal Officer (PUVVNL)	Sandeep Kumar Verma	—	rtipuvvnl@gmail.com
PUVVNL Customer Care	Toll-Free	1912	1912@puvvnl.in

---

3. Essential Web Links & Portals

Use the links below to track the appeal’s live status. They also help you file further complaints, and they support broader efforts toward accountability in public services across the state.

• UP RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Use this portal to check “View Status.” You will need your Registration Number and email.
• PUVVNL Official Site:puvvnl.in
  • Access the “Officers Directory” here. Also, check the “Mirzapur Map” for structural details of the authority.
• UPPCL RTI Dashboard:uppcl.org/uppcl/en/article/right-to-information
  • This dashboard covers overarching rules. It also lists contacts for the parent organization.

---

4. Next Steps Toward Greater Accountability in Public Services

The mandatory 30-day period for the PIO has long expired. Meanwhile, the First Appeal is now active. Given this, take the following steps:

1. Draft a Reminder: First, send a brief email to the FAA (se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in). In it, reference Appeal Number PUVNL/A/2025/60011.
2. Request a Hearing: Next, ask the FAA to fix a hearing date. This hearing can happen online or offline, in line with RTI Act guidelines.
3. Prepare for Second Appeal: Finally, watch the clock on the FAA’s response. If the FAA does not pass an order within 30 to 45 days of the filing date (22/01/2025), a new option opens. At that point, you become eligible to file a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC).

This case is one more test of whether accountability in public services remains a lived reality in Uttar Pradesh, or merely a phrase written into law.