Kiran Singh’s case, Lucknow: how a Second RTI Appeal exposed a PIO and FAA failure at the Police Commissionerate — and what relief she’s seeking from UPIC. This situation highlights the critical need for transparency in governmental processes, especially within law enforcement agencies. After her initial RTI application was disregarded, Kiran decided to file a second appeal, which revealed significant deficiencies in the handling of her requests by both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Kiran’s persistence reflects the struggles many citizens face when seeking information from public authorities. Through her appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), she is not only seeking answers regarding her original queries but is also advocating for better accountability measures within the Police Commissionerate, hoping to set a precedent that may help others in similar situations.

🚨 Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow: A Fight for Transparency Under the RTI Act

Kiran Singh’s case, Lucknow, centres on an appellant who had to file a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) after serious hurdles. Specifically, the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, failed to cooperate with her.

Indeed, UPIC has registered the case as UPICR20250000775 (Appeal Registration Number: A-20250200031). As a result, Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow highlights a serious lapse in how the Right to Information (RTI) mechanism is supposed to work, and it denies the applicant a fair, transparent resolution.

---

1. Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow: The Initial RTI Application and Misleading Response

First, Kiran Singh filed her initial RTI application (Section 6(1)) on October 17, 2024. Then, she submitted it under Registration Number PCLKO/R/2024/80186 (Transaction ID: PROLWR20240000000162) to the Police Commissionerate Lucknow. (Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow)

Specifically, the application asked for details about a private road dispute that had involved a police investigation. In particular, she raised three queries:

• Query 1: Who claims the private road — Shimla Devi W/O Ram Sahai, or Vidyavati Devi W/O Radhey Shyam?
  • PIO Response (22-11-2024): In reply, the PIO denied this, stating the matter concerns the Department of Revenue. However, Singh points out that police reports had already declared the land a common road without proper basis.
• Query 2: Which law addresses land grabbing carried out in collusion with police, under the Civil Procedure Code?
  • Similarly, the PIO denied this, calling the allegations baseless. In response, Singh counters that the police held a biased view and overlooked real allegations of corruption.
• Query 3: What are the posting details of two police personnel, Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki?
  • Again, the PIO denied the request, saying the information belongs to the police head office. Consequently, Singh argues this violates Section 6(3), which governs how the PIO must transfer applications.

Overall, then, the PIO, Naveen Kumar Singh (ADC), gave answers that were incomplete, unsatisfactory, false, or misleading.

2. Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow: Failure of the First Appeal Process

Understandably, Singh was dissatisfied with this response. So, she filed a First Appeal (Section 19(1)) on December 18, 2024, under Registration Number PCLKO/A/2024/60212.

At first, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Anil Kumar Yadav (DC), acted appropriately: on December 21, 2024, he sought comments from the PIO.

• FAA Action: “Comments sought from Central Public Information Officer dated 21/12/2024. Remarks: – comment pl”
• The Breakdown: Unfortunately, the PIO never provided the requested comments. Consequently, this obstructed the entire appeal process.
• Outcome: In the end, the FAA issued no answer and no order. As a result, Singh received no resolution and no fair, transparent process — a key turning point in Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow.

3. Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow: The Second Appeal and Relief Sought

Because the first appeal produced no result, Singh then filed a Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) with the UPIC on February 1, 2025. This step moved Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow to the state’s highest information-rights body.

🎯 Relief Sought by the Appellant

Specifically, Singh is seeking two things:

1. Action Against the PIO: An order for action against Naveen Kumar Singh under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing misleading and incomplete information.
2. Action Against the FAA: An order for disciplinary action against Anil Kumar Yadav for procrastinating and failing to decide her online RTI appeal.

In addition, Singh argues in her submission that the PIO violated Section 7(1) by withholding information without a valid reason. Furthermore, she argues that the FAA effectively supported this “illegal stand” by never concluding the appeal, even after the PIO failed to respond.

---

🏛️ Conclusion: What Kiran Singh’s Case in Lucknow Means for Democratic Values

Ultimately, Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow illustrates a broader problem: when public authorities ignore the RTI Act, they undermine transparency and accountability. Now, this Second Appeal places responsibility squarely on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to intervene, enforce the law, and ensure public services aren’t withheld arbitrarily.

---

📜 What the RTI Act, 2005 Is Designed to Achieve

To understand why Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow matters, it helps to look at what the RTI Act actually promises. Parliament passed the Right to Information Act in 2005 to make government functioning more transparent and accountable to citizens. In effect, it gives everyone the legal right to request information from a “public authority,” including police departments and revenue offices.

The Act builds in real safeguards. Section 7(1) sets a 30-day deadline for a PIO to respond. Section 6(3) requires a PIO to transfer a request within five days if the information sits elsewhere. And Section 19 creates a two-tier appeal system — first to a First Appellate Authority, then to the Information Commission — so citizens like Singh have somewhere to turn when a PIO stonewalls them. Section 20 gives these protections real teeth: it lets the Commission penalise a PIO personally for withholding information or supplying misleading answers, exactly the provision Singh has invoked against Naveen Kumar Singh.

---

✅ What Applicants Can Learn From Kiran Singh’s Case, Lucknow

Beyond its specific facts, this case offers a few practical lessons for anyone navigating the RTI process in Uttar Pradesh:

• Document every reference number. Singh built a clear paper trail by tracking her application, transaction, and appeal numbers at every stage — records Commissions rely on when assessing delay.
• Don’t assume silence closes the matter. When the FAA received no comments from the PIO, the appeal could easily have quietly died. Instead, Singh escalated to a Second Appeal.
• Cite the specific section violated. Singh ties each failure to a precise provision, giving the Commission a concrete legal basis for action.
• Ask for accountability, not just information. Singh’s appeal seeks action against both officers, invoking the Act’s penalty provisions rather than treating this as a one-off oversight.

---

⚖️ Alleged Violations of the RTI Act in Kiran Singh’s Case, Lucknow

Kiran Singh’s Second Appeal outlines specific violations by both the PIO and the FAA at the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

1. Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow: Violations by the Public Information Officer (PIO)

Here, Singh accuses Naveen Kumar Singh, the PIO, of several failures:

RTI Act Section	Alleged Violation	Details/Consequence
Section 7(1)	He failed to meet the time limit for providing information.	The PIO disposed of the application on November 22, 2024. However, Singh argues this still violated Section 7(1), since the law requires a complete response within 30 days. So her complaint focuses on the quality of the reply, not just the date.
Section 6(3)	He failed to properly transfer the RTI application.	For Query 3, the PIO denied the request, saying it concerned the police head office instead. But the Act requires him to transfer such a request within five days — and he didn’t.
Section 20 (Relief Sought)	He provided misleading and incomplete information.	Singh seeks action under this section, which lets the Commission fine a PIO who knowingly gives misleading information or obstructs its furnishing.

2. Violations by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Likewise, Singh accuses Anil Kumar Yadav, the FAA, of obstructing the resolution process: (Kiran Singh’s Case Lucknow)

RTI Act Section	Alleged Violation	Details/Consequence
Section 19(1) (Duty of FAA)	He failed to dispose of the appeal with an order.	His role is to review the PIO’s decision and issue a reasoned order. Instead, he sought comments from the PIO but never concluded the appeal.
Procrastination/Obstruction	He failed to meet the deadline for disposing of the appeal.	Under Section 19(6), the FAA must dispose of an appeal within 30–45 days. Singh filed on December 18, 2024, yet received no answer. So she argues this amounts to procrastination.
Disciplinary Action (Relief Sought)	He failed to perform his statutory duty.	Singh requests disciplinary action against him for not deciding the appeal.

---

🌐 Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) — Contact Details

Anyone following Kiran Singh’s case in Lucknow, or filing a similar appeal, can reach UPIC here:

Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in/ (You can file Second Appeals under Section 19(3) and check your case status here.)

Email Contacts:

• General/Technical Inquiries (Webmaster): webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• PIO Section: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in

Phone: 0522-27249302

Address: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226010sh, PIN Code-226010