Second Appeal Against UP DPRO is the surprising story of DPRO Mirzapur negligence. Obviously, in this case, the Public Information Officer did not entertain the RTI application. Consequently, this raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability. Moreover, the situation escalated when the UPIC commissioner disposed of the matter on flimsy grounds. As a result, this left the petitioner feeling frustrated and unheard. Notably, this lack of due process not only undermines the principles of the Right to Information Act but also highlights a broader issue of inefficiency and apathy within governmental institutions. Furthermore, such negligent behavior can severely erode public trust in the systems designed to uphold citizen rights. Therefore, it’s crucial for authorities to take these appeals seriously. Doing so would foster a more transparent, informed society that values the voices of its citizens and promotes justice.

🚨 Second Appeal Against UP DPRO: RTI Accountability Under Scrutiny

This analysis examines the Second Appeal Against UP DPRO, a case marked by procedural delays and non-compliance in a recent hearing before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). It highlights the citizen’s fight to obtain vital information about local development projects.

---

📍 Case Context: Focus on NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat

This appeal (UPIC File No. S09/A/1103/2024) centers on one significant failure: specifically, the Panchayati Raj Department did not disclose crucial information regarding a specific village development project. (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Detail	Specifics
Appellant	Shri Yogi M P Singh (Mirzapur)
Department	PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT
Office/Village	NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat, Block CHHANVEY, District MIRZAPUR
PIO Addressed	J.S.A./PIO Office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur
RTI Act Section	Second Appeal under Section 19(3)

The Core Information Withheld (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

The original RTI application, dated 10-01-2024, sought five specific points of information concerning the developmental schemes executed in NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat over the last three years:

1. Estimates of executed developmental schemes.
2. Distribution of government fund for these schemes.
3. Work booklet details of the schemes.
4. Description of the release of government fund.
5. Wall painting details and the associated government expenditure.

---

⏳ The Core Issue: Statutory Failure and Procedural Lapses

The fundamental issue is the PIO’s violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act: failing to provide the requested information within the mandatory 30 days. Furthermore, even the PIO’s eventual reply, sent on 03-05-2024, remained “incomplete/unsatisfactory.” (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Moreover, both the appellant and the opposing PIO failed to appear for three consecutive scheduled hearings before the State Information Commissioner.

---

⚖️ The Commission’s Direction

Despite the repeated non-attendance, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, firmly directed the PIO to correct the non-compliance: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

The PIO is ordered to “dispose of the application of the appellant as per the rules and provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005″; consequently, it must provide the information to the appellant before the next hearing date, along with evidence of compliance to the Commission.

So the case remains adjourned until 29.01.2025, underscoring the Commission’s commitment to ensuring the information on the NIBI GAHRWAR village schemes is eventually disclosed.

---

This revision makes the specific location and the precise nature of the information sought much more prominent.

Would you like me to find out the provisions in the RTI Act for penalizing a PIO who fails to provide information in time?

That’s a very relevant follow-up, especially since the State Information Commissioner’s orders are an implicit warning of potential penalties.

So here is a brief summary of the penalty provisions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, primarily governed by Section 20.

---

⚖️ Penalties for PIO Non-Compliance (Section 20 of the RTI Act)

The Right to Information Act grants the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commission (SIC) power to impose penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs). This ensures strict adherence to the law’s timelines and provisions.

1. Grounds for Imposing Penalty

The Commission can impose a penalty on a PIO if it finds that, without any reasonable cause, the PIO has: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

• Refused to receive an RTI application.
• Not furnished the information within the mandatory 30 days (or 48 hours in life/liberty cases).
• Malafidely denied the request for information.
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroyed information that was the subject of the request.
• Obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information.

2. Quantum of Penalty

The Commission calculates the penalty as a fine levied on the PIO personally: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

• Rate: ₹250 per day.
• Calculation: The Commission imposes the penalty for every day the delay occurs until the information is finally provided or the application is received.
• Maximum Limit: The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.

3. Personal Liability

The authorities deduct the penalty directly from the PIO’s salary. The Public Authority (the government department) cannot pay it on the PIO’s behalf. This provision ensures personal accountability.

4. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action

In addition to the financial penalty, Section 20(2) empowers the Commission to recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the relevant service rules. Commissions often use this power in cases of persistent non-compliance or serious misconduct.

Key Condition: Burden of Proof (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Crucially, before imposing a penalty, the Commission must give the PIO a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently rests entirely upon the PIO, not the applicant or the Commission.

---

This framework is the “teeth” of the RTI Act. It is the mechanism the State Information Commissioner could employ if the PIO in the Mirzapur case continues to fail in his duty before the next hearing on 29.01.2025.

🛑 Summary of the Final Order and Reason for Disposal (Date: 07.03.2025)

The final order (dated 07.03.2025) confirms that the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, has Disposed of your Second Appeal Against UP DPRO (File No. S09/A/1103/2024).

This is a critical point. So let’s analyze the final order and the relevant provisions of the RTI Act to answer whether the Public Information Officer (PIO) attended the latest proceeding, and to clarify the PIO’s legal obligations.

---

1. Did the PIO Attend the Final Proceeding?

Based on the final order of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (dated 07.03.2025), the answer is: No, the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not attend the final proceeding.

The order explicitly states: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

“आज पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार करायी गयी। उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं।” 1

(Today the file was presented. The call was made. Both parties are absent.)

Therefore, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner noted that both the Appellant and the PIO were absent on the final hearing date (07.03.2025). ²

2. Does the Law Privilege the PIO Not to Entertain the RTI Application?

No. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, contains absolutely no provision that provides any privilege to the Public Information Officer (PIO) to ignore or not entertain an RTI application, especially when the State Information Commission (SIC) is monitoring the matter. (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

On the contrary, the law mandates the following duties and imposes penalties when the PIO fails to meet them:

A. PIO’s Statutory Duty (Under the Act) (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Provision	Mandate	Implication in Your Case
Section 7(1)	Requires the PIO to provide the information or reject the application (stating reasons) within 30 days of receiving it.	The PIO failed this basic duty, leading to the First and Second Appeals.
Section 19(4)	Requires the PIO to comply with the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) or the Information Commission (SIC).	The SIC’s previous orders explicitly directed the PIO to dispose of the application and provide information. So ignoring these orders is a direct violation of the law.

B. Penalty for Non-Compliance (Section 20) (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

The PIO’s repeated failure to provide the information, together with their absence from the Commission’s proceedings, constitutes a serious violation. This makes them liable for penalties under Section 20.

• If the Commission finds that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, failed to furnish the information or obstructed the process, the Commission shall impose a penalty.
• The penalty is ₹250 per day until the information is supplied, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

The PIO failed to attend the hearings and failed to comply with the Commission’s prior orders, and that makes them subject to these punitive provisions. So your claim that the PIO “did not entertain the RTI application Even after the orders of the commission” forms the very grounds for seeking a penalty.

🔑 Your Path Forward (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

As discussed previously, your next step should be to file a Restoration Application combined with a strong Penalty/Contempt Petition. This should focus heavily on the PIO’s repeated absence and willful non-compliance with the Commission’s orders on all scheduled dates (01.10.2024, 07.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 29.01.2025, and 07.03.2025).

You’ve raised a powerful and fundamental argument based on the principles of Administrative Law: the right to a reasoned order. Indeed, the Indian Supreme Court has emphasized that giving reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial and administrative system, since it ensures transparency and prevents arbitrary action.

The short answer is: the order bases the disposal of your appeal on your absence, not the PIO’s compliance. However, the order fails to provide a clear, reasoned justification for letting the PIO go “scot-free” despite their documented non-compliance.

---

1. ⚖️ The Right to Reason in Administrative Orders

The principle of the “Right to Reason” dictates that judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative authorities must provide clear, intelligible reasons for their decisions. This matters for: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

• Transparency and Accountability: It shows that the authority applied its mind to the facts and the law.
• Judicial Review: It allows a higher court or authority to assess the correctness of the decision.

Analysis of the Order (07.03.2025) (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Element	Finding in the Order	Lack of Reasoning
Reason for Disposal	The Commission disposed of the appeal because the Appellant was repeatedly absent on five hearing dates and filed no statement.1	The reason for disposal is procedural (Non-Prosecution) and focuses only on the Appellant’s default.
PIO’s Absence/Non-Compliance	The order explicitly states “Both parties are absent” (“उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं”)2. The PIO had also failed to comply with the previous four orders.3	The order provides no ground or reason for not proceeding against the PIO under Section 20 for their repeated absence and failure to comply with the statutory duty and the Commission’s prior orders.

Conclusion on Reasoning: The order meets the requirement to give a reason for closing the case against the Appellant (absence). However, it stays silent on the PIO’s non-compliance, so it fails to provide a reasoned decision on that critical aspect of the appeal. This silence is the source of your argument that the decision is arbitrary or unreasoned regarding the PIO’s conduct.

---

2. 🛡️ Grounds for PIO being “Scot Free”

The order sets out no grounds that legally excuse the PIO’s conduct. Indeed, no provision in the RTI Act privileges a PIO to ignore the Commission’s orders just because the appellant is absent.

Three failures underlie the PIO’s conduct: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

1. Failure to provide information within the 30-day statutory limit (the original ground for the Second Appeal).⁴
2. Failure to comply with the Commission’s directives issued during the earlier hearings (01.10.2024, 07.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 29.01.2025). The previous orders directed the PIO to dispose of the application and provide the compliance report.
3. Failure to attend the hearing on 07.03.2025.⁵

The Commission’s decision to dismiss the appeal without imposing a penalty, or even mentioning the PIO’s non-compliance, likely rests on the legal presumption that a matter cannot proceed without the party prosecuting the case (the Appellant). In essence, the Commission used the Appellant’s procedural default as a justification to cease monitoring, and this indirectly let the PIO escape immediate scrutiny.

---

3. 📝 Your Recourse to Enforce Reasoning (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

To force the Commission to explain the PIO’s actions (or lack thereof), you must use the procedure designed to address this lack of reasoning:

1. File a Restoration Application: Argue that the appeal must be restored because the Commission failed to apply its mind to the PIO’s repeated, deliberate non-compliance, which constituted a serious breach of the RTI Act and the Commission’s own orders.
2. Explicitly Demand Action under Section 20: Your application must state that the final order is unreasoned and arbitrary, since it failed to decide on the PIO’s liability under Section 20 despite evidence of failure to furnish information without reasonable cause.

This forces the Commission to either restore the appeal or issue a reasoned order specifically addressing why the PIO was not penalized, or why the matter was closed despite the PIO’s documented non-compliance.

This is the central question arising from your case. It highlights the conflict between procedural compliance and the substantive goal of the RTI Act.

Yes, based on the final order, the Commission appears to have overlooked or deferred addressing the PIO’s substantive violations and non-compliance in favor of prioritizing the procedural default (your absence).

The Commission’s action of dismissing the appeal due to your non-attendance effectively halted the punitive process against the PIO. As a result, the PIO’s violations went unpunished at that time.

---

🧐 Analysis of the Commission’s Rationale

The Commission’s final order (dated 07.03.2025) focused entirely on one procedural issue: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

1. The Violation Overlooked: The PIO failed to comply with Section 7(1) (timely disposal of RTI application) and Section 19(4) (compliance with Commission’s orders), and also showed disregard for the Commission by staying absent (“उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं”). This misconduct warrants penalty under Section 20.
2. The Reason Used for Disposal: Instead, the Commission used your absence on multiple hearing dates as the sole reason, stating there was “no justification for keeping the appeal ongoing” (“अपील को गतिमान रखने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है”).

Why Did the Commission Do This? (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

While it appears unjust, the Commission’s decision to dismiss on procedural grounds often reflects administrative expediency:

• Lack of Prosecution: Quasi-judicial bodies generally operate on the principle that a matter cannot proceed if the appellant (the petitioner/complainant) is not present to prosecute the case, especially when the goal is to secure compliance for the appellant.
• Waiver of Relief: By not attending, you appeared to waive your right to the relief (the information and the penalty). So the Commission often requires the appellant’s presence to confirm non-compliance and to present arguments for the quantum of penalty.

The result: the PIO, who committed the initial statutory violation, benefitted from your procedural lapse.

🛠️ The Commission’s Unexercised Obligation (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

Your argument is legally sound because the Commission had an obligatory duty that did not depend on your presence: (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

• Duty to Impose Penalty (Section 20): If the Commission already had evidence from earlier hearings that the PIO failed to comply with multiple binding orders, it had the power, and arguably a duty, to initiate penalty proceedings suo motu (on its own motion) against the PIO for failing to furnish information “without reasonable cause”.
• Duty to Secure Compliance (Section 19(8)): The Act mandates the Commission to take steps to secure compliance. So allowing the PIO to escape consequence, by dismissing the appeal due to the appellant’s absence, undermines this core mandate.

Conclusion (Second Appeal Against UP DPRO)

The Commission’s order is procedurally defensible on the grounds of non-prosecution. However, it is legally flawed in its failure to provide a reasoned decision on why the PIO’s clear violation of Section 20 was not addressed before the file was closed.

Your recourse remains to file a strong Restoration and Penalty Petition arguing that the dismissal rewards the PIO’s violation of the law and the Commission’s own binding orders.

Secretary of village panchayat Nibi Gaharwar is taking under teeth provisions of RTI Act 2005