---

🚨 Bureaucratic Gridlock: How Jurisdictional Confusion Undermines the Right to Grievance Redressal

The foundation of a responsive democracy is the Right to Grievance Redressal. Yet, the case of Anil Kumar Maurya in Mirzapur exposes a severe breakdown in this fundamental administrative principle, where the combined arbitrary actions of the Tehsil Sadar (Revenue Department) and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) have created a frustrating and legally dubious jurisdictional confusion.

---

⚠️ The Core Issue: A Textbook Case of Bureaucratic Evasion

The central problem is a classic “jurisdictional ping-pong” game.

• IOCL staff reportedly completed all necessary formalities at the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) office, Sadar.
• The SDM office (Tehsil Sadar) then allegedly refused to act, claiming the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG).
• Concurrently, the MoPNG or IOCL seems to be deflecting responsibility back to the local administration (the SDM/Tehsil).

This evasion violates a citizen’s right to fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to a fair and speedy hearing of grievances). When central and state departments, along with a Public Sector Undertaking, engage in such a blame game, it fundamentally undermines accountability.

---

🏛️ The Failed Administrative Mechanism: RTI Non-Compliance

The appellant, Anil Kumar Maurya, was forced to seek information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a mechanism designed to promote transparency and hold public officials accountable. However, his RTI attempts met with outright non-compliance at two critical levels:

1. Failure by the Public Information Officer (PIO)

• PIO: Hemant Kumar, Tehsildar Sadar (Revenue Department, Mirzapur Tehsil).
• RTI Application Date: 25-10-2024 (Application No. DMOMR/R/2024/60121).
• Status: “RTI REQUEST RECEVED as on 25/10/2024.
• Failure: The PIO did not provide information within the stipulated time, effectively denying the request and making a “mockery of the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005.” The request specifically sought notings on IOCL communications, copies of MoPNG communications, the Action Taken Report, and reasons for inaction on new constructions in the danger zone.

2. Failure by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

• FAA: Gulab Chandra Second SDM.
• First Appeal Date: 04-12-2024 (Appeal Registration No. DMOMR/A/2024/60064).
• Status: “RTI Application Received on 04/12/2024.
• Failure: The FAA provided no answer/order, compounding the initial denial and reflecting “insolence to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.”

The combined inaction of both the PIO and the FAA has necessitated the filing of a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), registered under UPICR20250000640 (Appeal Registration Number – A-20250102076).

---

🧑‍⚖️ The Legal Recourse: The Authority of the UP Information Commission

The Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act is the appellant’s last resort within the information framework. This appeal empowers the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) to take decisive action against the erring public officials:

1. Impose Penalties: The UPIC can impose significant financial penalties on the PIO and FAA for failure to provide information or act on the appeal.
2. Recommend Disciplinary Action: It has the authority to recommend disciplinary proceedings against the Tehsildar and SDM for violating RTI norms, as their inaction is “tantamount to anarchy in the working of the public authority.
3. Order Disclosure: The primary relief sought is an order to compel the Revenue Department to disclose the five points of information requested. These points are crucial for determining the source of the jurisdictional logjam and identifying the responsible authority.

---

🧩 What This Reveals About Governance and Accountability

This specific case is a microcosm of systemic weaknesses in India’s grievance redressal framework:

• Fragmented Responsibility: The core issue involves a public safety matter related to IOCL’s pipeline infrastructure, requiring coordination between the central (MoPNG/IOCL) and state (Revenue/SDM) governments. The failure to coordinate allows both sides to shirk responsibility.
• Weak Enforcement: The existence of platforms like the MoPNG e-Seva Portal for grievance lodging is negated by the “systemic delays and lack of enforcement” at the field level. Regulatory bodies like the PNGRB exist for dispute resolution but specifically do not entertain individual consumer complaints, leaving citizens dependent on the often-failing local authorities or Consumer Forums.
• Erosion of Citizen Confidence: When the administrative machinery—the PIO and the FAA—shows “insolence” to a law as critical as the RTI Act, it forces citizens to undertake protracted legal remedies just to get an administrative response. This damages public confidence and weakens democratic values.

The request for information related to “new constructions… in the danger zone” highlights the potential public safety risk inherent in the administrative delay. The failure to process the communications from a central authority like IOCL or MoPNG by the Tehsildar’s office not only violates the RTI Act but potentially puts citizens at risk, reinforcing the appellant’s claim that such an act promotes “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos.

The UPIC’s intervention is now critical not only for securing the information requested by Anil Kumar Maurya but for sending a clear signal that the constitutional right to fair administration and the statutory Right to Information are not optional provisions for public officials. The time for “harsh steps against the wrongdoer” is now, to strengthen democratic values and win back the confidence of the citizenry.

Point No.	Focus of the Request	Purpose/Significance
1	Notings on IOCL Communication: Provision of the notings made on the communication sent by Lalji, Senior Operations Manager, IOCL, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar for action.	To determine the internal administrative process, who received the communication, and the preliminary decision (or non-decision) made by the Tehsil staff regarding the IOCL matter.
2	Copy of MoPNG Communications: Provision of a copy of all communications made in this matter by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) with the Sub-Divisional Magistrates, Sadar, District Mirzapur.	To verify if the MoPNG is actively involved, and whether the SDM’s claim of the matter belonging to the MoPNG is based on current official correspondence.
3	Action Taken Report (ATR) on MoPNG Communications: Provision of the Action Taken Report specifically detailing what steps have been taken in response to the communications mentioned in Point 2 from the MoPNG.	To determine if any official work has been executed on the ground or in the files, thereby ending the status of “no action.”
4	Staff Processing MoPNG Communications: Provision of the name and designations of the Tehsil Sadar staff who are currently processing the communications from the MoPNG in this matter.	To pinpoint specific individuals responsible for the file and hold them accountable for delays, as per the spirit of the RTI Act.
5	Reasons for Inaction on New Constructions: Provision of the reason for new constructions taking place in the danger zone (in the matter under context) and the reason for not taking any action on the communications of the MoPNG.	This is the most critical question, as it addresses a potential public safety risk and directly challenges the Tehsil for its alleged negligence in a matter involving a pipeline’s danger zone.

Based on the document provided, here is a consolidated list of the application IDs, contact details, and emails for the key parties involved in the Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

🆔 Application & Appeal Identification Numbers

Category	Type	Registration/Transaction ID
RTI Request (Section 6(1))	Application No.	DMOMR/R/2024/60121
	Transaction ID	DMOMRR20240000000150
First Appeal (Section 19(1))	Registration No.	DMOMR/A/2024/60064
Second Appeal (Section 19(3))	UPIC Registration No.	UPICR20250000640
	Appeal Registration No.	A-20250102076

---

📞 Key Contact Details and Email Addresses

1. The Appellant (Citizen/Information Seeker)

Detail	Information
Name	Anil Kumar Maurya
Mobile Number	9125142451
Email ID	anilkumarmaurya9125142451@gmail.com
Address	Lohiya Talab, Post-Rajapur, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, PIN code-231001

---

2. The Respondents (Public Authority Officials)

Role	Name	Mobile Number	Email ID
PIO (Public Information Officer)	Hemant Kumar (Tehsildar Sadar)	9454416823	teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
FAA (First Appellate Authority)	Gulab Chandra Second SDM (as per First Appeal details)	9454416813	sdm-Lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
Concerned Appellate Authority (Respondent 2 in Second Appeal)	Asha Ram Verma (SDM Sadar)	9454416810	sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in

---

The second appeal is addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner/Companion Information Commissioners at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), Lucknow.