Understanding False Feedback by ACP is essential for any citizen who has relied on the Right to Information Act to hold public authorities accountable; however, they often receive responses that appear complete yet conceal more than they reveal. This issue comes into sharp focus in the case of RTI Registration No. SSPPY/R/2021/60093, which was filed against the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, seeking crime statistics, expenditure records, and personnel posting details for Mauaima Police Station. Despite being marked “REQUEST DISPOSED OF,” the PIO’s terse reply stating that information had been sent effectively masked what the applicant contends was an evasive, incomplete response. Consequently, examining this pattern of false feedback reveals how vague disposal notices can be employed to close appeals without genuine disclosure, thereby undermining the transparency that the RTI Act was designed to guarantee.

🚨 RTI Request Analysis: Understanding False Feedback by ACP in Mauaima Police Station

Understanding False Feedback by ACP starts with a simple question: does a “disposed of” status actually mean that a citizen received real answers? In this context, this post examines an Online RTI (Right to Information) request concerning Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Notably, the request sought specific data across several operational and administrative areas of the police station. However, the response that the applicant received, unfortunately, raises serious questions about transparency.

---

📝 RTI Request Overview: The Case Behind the False Feedback by ACP

Yogi M P Singh filed the application on 30/09/2021. He addressed it to the Public Authority, the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police Prayagraj.

Detail	Information
Registration Number	SSPPY/R/2021/60093
Applicant	Yogi M P Singh
Filing Date	30/09/2021
Public Authority	Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police Prayagraj
PIO Concerned	ACP SORAON
Current Status	REQUEST DISPOSED OF (as on 23/01/2025)
PIO’s Reply	सूचना प्रेषित की जा चुकी है। (Information has been sent.)

---

🧐 Core Issues: What the Applicant Sought

The RTI aimed to obtain detailed, specific figures and records for the Mauaima Police Station. Specifically, it covered crime statistics, as well as resource expenditure and personnel postings.

1. Crime & Preventive Measures Data

Specifically, this section requests quantitative data on crime registration and preventive actions for the current financial year (as of the filing date, 30/09/2021).

• The number of NCR (Non-Cognizable Reports) registered.
• The number of FIRs (First Information Reports) registered.
• The number of cases that culminated in preventive measures under sections 107/116/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC).

2. Administrative Expenditure (Figures Only)

In addition, the applicant sought financial figures for two specific fiscal years: 2019-20 and 2020-21.

• Fuel Expenses: Diesel and petrol expenditure details.
• Electricity Bills: Government funds spent on electricity.
• Maintenance Funds: Money spent on painting and whitewashing over the last five years.

3. Police Personnel Postings: Another Angle on False Feedback by ACP

Finally, this part focuses on service details for the officers and staff currently posted at the police station.

• Station House Officer (SHO): Posting details and date of joining the district Prayagraj.
• Sub Inspectors (SIs): Posting details (with name) and date of joining the district.
• Police Constables (PCs): Posting details (with name) and date of joining the district.

---

💡 Why This Case Matters for Transparency

This RTI request shows a citizen using the Right to Information Act to push for accountability in a local government body — the police station. By seeking specific, verifiable figures on crime, expenditure, and staffing, the applicant wanted to gauge how efficiently the Mauaima Police Station used its resources.

The request was marked “DISPOSED OF.” The official response claimed the information had been provided. But did it actually answer the questions asked? This is where understanding false feedback by ACP becomes essential.

🔍 Update: More Evidence of False Feedback by ACP in RTI Registration No. SSPPY/R/2021/60093

Further review of registration number SSPPY/R/2021/60093 reveals significant context about the case filed by Yogi M P Singh regarding the Mauaima Police Station. Although the exact content of the initial reply (23/01/2025) is not fully available, the surrounding context strongly suggests something important: the applicant considered the PIO’s information incomplete, evasive, or misleading — in other words, another case of false feedback by ACP officials. As a result, he pursued appeals and sustained his effort for transparency.

Below is a breakdown of the findings related to this case and similar RTIs.

1. The Initial Outcome and the Appeal That Followed

Officials marked the original RTI request SSPPY/R/2021/60093 as “REQUEST DISPOSED OF” on 23/01/2025. The PIO stated that the information had been sent (सूचना प्रेषित की जा चुकी है।). However, the applicant challenged this outcome.

Subsequent posts referencing this case, and similar RTIs the same applicant filed against Mauaima Police Station — including those seeking FIR and NCR numbers plus personnel details — indicate the applicant disputed the official response.

In a related case, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal. The FAA stated the information had been provided per the rules on 23.01.25 and dismissed the appeal as “not maintainable.”

2. Core Issues in Contention: Denial of Information

The applicant submitted further appeals against the Prayagraj Police Commissionerate. These appeals highlight common grounds on which authorities denied or obscured information — another clear example of misleading ACP feedback in action.

Denial of Personnel Details (Points 3, 4, 5): The PIO reportedly denied information on the posting details of the SHO, Sub Inspectors, and Constables. He invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which covers personal information unrelated to public activity or interest.

• Applicant’s Counter: The applicant argued that transfer and posting details for police personnel — public servants — fall under mandatory disclosure per Section 4(1)(b)(ix). Therefore, this information is not “personal” in this context.

Denial of Expenditure Details (Fuel, Electricity, Painting – Points 2, 6, 7): The PIO also denied electricity bill details, attempting to classify them as personal information.

• Applicant’s Counter: The applicant questioned this logic. How could expenses on government vehicles or the electricity bill of a public police station count as private, personal information belonging to any individual?

Evasive Replies: In related instances involving Mauaima Police Station, the applicant accused PIOs of sending irrelevant investigation reports — for example, a land dispute report — instead of answering the specific questions point by point.

3. Current Status of the RTI Battle

Indeed, the applicant remains highly active in pursuing transparency. He has escalated multiple similar cases to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), including filing Second Appeals against FAA dismissals. The broader issue points to a systemic pattern: public authorities allegedly misapply RTI exemptions, particularly for police administrative and operational data.

🛡️ Analyzing False Feedback by ACP: RTI Exemptions Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h)

The Prayagraj Police’s alleged denial of information likely rests on two exemption clauses in the Right to Information Act, 2005. Understanding these clauses — and how courts interpret them — is essential for evaluating whether the denial holds up.

1. Section 8(1)(j): Personal Information and Public Interest

This is the most common clause authorities use to deny information related to government employees. It appears to have been the basis for denying personnel posting details (SHO, SIs, PCs).

📜 The Clause

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts:

Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual — unless the PIO or Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation: The Contention

The police likely argued that the specific date of joining, promotion history, transfer records, and names of individual Constables and SIs count as personal service details unrelated to the station’s public activity.

However, the applicant’s position holds up better against Central Information Commission (CIC) and Supreme Court precedents:

• Public Activity: Courts generally treat an employee’s performance, attendance, duty roster, and posting location as part of their public activity as a government servant.
• Mandatory Disclosure (Sec 4): The RTI Act itself, under Section 4(1)(b)(ix), requires public authorities to disclose the particulars of their officers and employees, including their powers and duties. A police officer’s position and location fall squarely within this requirement.
• Supreme Court Caveat: The Supreme Court has ruled that detailed service history — ACRs, APARs, income tax returns, or private disciplinary records — counts as personal information. Even so, courts often view basic posting status (who serves as SHO, and when they joined) as a necessary check on tenure and performance. Consequently, this information typically serves the public interest.

2. Expenditure Details: Fuel, Electricity, and Painting Funds

The alleged denial of financial figures for fuel, electricity, and painting costs likely reflects an incorrect application of Section 8(1)(j) or any other exemption.

Funds spent on government property and operations — like a police station’s building maintenance or vehicle fuel — count as public expenditure. This spending has no connection to any individual employee’s personal information. Because the Police Commissionerate holds these records as a public authority, it must disclose them. Doing so ensures the optimum use of limited fiscal resources and holds the government accountable, exactly as the RTI Act intends.

3. Section 8(1)(h): Impeding Investigation or Prosecution

The applicant did not seek information on any specific, ongoing case. Still, police sometimes broadly — and incorrectly — apply this clause to deny all crime-related information.

📜 The Clause

Section 8(1)(h) exempts:

Information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation: The Contention

If the data on NCR, FIR, and Cr.PC 107/116/151 cases was still being compiled, the PIO might claim disclosure would impede the ongoing record-keeping or statistics process.

But courts have consistently rejected this reasoning on its own. The mere existence of an investigation or prosecution does not justify invoking this exemption.

• The Burden of Proof: The Public Authority — in this case, the police — must provide cogent, satisfactory reasons. It must also show specifically how releasing the information would actively hamper the investigation.
• Statistical Data: General statistics on registered cases (NCR/FIR numbers) and preventive actions (107/116/151) usually count as standard public information. Courts typically exclude this data from the exemption unless it relates to a specific, ongoing, and sensitive investigation.

---

Conclusion: Understanding False Feedback by ACP and What It Means Going Forward

The denial of expenditure details and general crime statistics looks highly questionable — and likely invalid — under the RTI Act. The personnel-detail denial is more nuanced and depends on exactly how much detail the applicant sought. Even so, core information — a public servant’s name, designation, and posting location — generally must be disclosed, or falls under mandatory Section 4 disclosure.

Ultimately, understanding false feedback by ACP matters because it exposes a recurring pattern: authorities issue technically “complete” responses that avoid answering the real questions. The SPIO in the office of the SSP Prayagraj did not provide information even after two months and 23 days, and earlier responses were similarly cryptic. The C.O. Soraon denied information arbitrarily, undermining the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. Consequently, the first appeal — submitted against this arbitrary denial by C.O. Soraon — reflects a deeper pattern of institutional resistance to transparency.

Related reading:

Police Station Mauaima Information and RTI Requests — a fuller account of the seven-point information request, the Circle Officer’s failure to respond, and the next steps for filing a Second Appeal or Complaint with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission.information seeker as sought — quite obvious from SSPPY/R/2021/60093

Related reading: ACP Manoj Kumar Singh: Service Details Revealed