This RTI Violation Case lays bare how “investigations” are being weaponised in Uttar Pradesh to stifle a citizen’s legitimate right to know. Indeed, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power, empowering the common citizen to hold the executive accountable. However, as this RTI Violation Case involving Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/62121) demonstrates, procedural excuses and “flimsy grounds” for denial are systematically undermining the spirit of this law — and, in doing so, exposing just how easily a Public Information Officer can dodge accountability by hiding behind the word “investigation.”

RTI Violation Case: Systemic Evasion of Accountability in Uttar Pradesh

This RTI Violation Case is a clear illustration of how “investigations” are being weaponised to stifle citizens’ rights in Uttar Pradesh. Indeed, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. In particular, it was designed to empower the common citizen to hold the executive accountable. However, as seen in the recent case of Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/62121), procedural excuses and “flimsy grounds” for denial are systematically undermining the spirit of this law.

Above all, at the heart of this matter is a fundamental violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Specifically, a Public Information Officer (PIO) has essentially blocked access to information regarding corruption and administrative non-cooperation by citing an ongoing IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) matter.

---

The Core Issue Behind This RTI Violation Case: Obstruction of Justice in Medical Governance

Essentially, the controversy centers on a complaint that Shri Jaichand Maurya filed against Dr. Pradeep Kumar, a physician at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital, Bhadohi. In short, the complaint alleges professional misconduct and administrative irregularities.

For instance, a formal letter (No. 5/2 dated 31.01.2024) from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Bhadohi to the Director General of Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, explicitly stated that the investigation was being hampered. Specifically, the CMO noted that:

• Dr. Yadav and the Chief Medical Superintendent of Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital were not cooperating with the probe.
• The CMO of Prayagraj failed to provide necessary assistance regarding the jurisdiction of Chhote Lal Bind Hospital.

As a result, when information seeker Yogi M. P. Singh attempted to follow up on the “Action Taken Report” (ATR) regarding this blatant non-cooperation, he was met with a wall of silence.

---

The PIO’s Reply: A Violation of Section 7(1)

To begin with, the RTI application sought five specific points of information, including the tenure of the officers involved and the communications exchanged with the State Information Commission. However, the PIO’s disposal of the request on 13/02/2025 was brief and evasive:

“प्रश्नगत प्रकरण जांच/आई0जी0आर0एस0 से आच्छादित है।”

(The matter in question is covered under investigation/IGRS.)

Why this is a “Flimsy Ground” (RTI Violation Case)

First and foremost, under the RTI Act, officials can deny information only under specific exemptions listed in Section 8. Indeed, there is no blanket exemption for “matters under IGRS.” Unless the PIO can prove that disclosing the information would “physically impede the process of investigation” (Section 8(1)(h)), the law obligates them to provide the records.

In other words, by simply stating the case is “under investigation,” the PIO, Joint Director (DGMH Karmik Section), has effectively bypassed the statutory requirement to provide information within 30 days as Section 7(1) mandates.

---

The Culture of Non-Cooperation and Corruption

This RTI Violation Case also lays bare a larger societal issue: rampant corruption and the “protective shield” of bureaucracy. When the CMO of one district (Bhadohi) officially complains that the CMO of another district (Prayagraj) is “colluding with the offenders” to stall an investigation, it indicates a deep-seated rot within the Medical and Health Directorate. Furthermore, when the PIO then refuses to disclose the status of this internal friction, it suggests that the department cares more about protecting its own than about delivering justice to the aggrieved citizen, Jaichand Maurya.

---

Breakdown of Information Sought vs. Information Denied

In total, the applicant sought clarity on five critical points: (RTI Violation Case)

1. Action Taken Report (ATR): What did the Director General do about the CMO Bhadohi’s letter regarding non-cooperation?
2. Accountability of CMO Prayagraj: Details of any disciplinary action for allegedly colluding with offenders.
3. Accountability of CMS Bhadohi: Details of action taken for obstructing the internal probe.
4. Information Commission Transparency: Copies of the communications that led to the closure of previous appeals.
5. Administrative Tenure: The posting history of Dr. A. K. Shrivastava, which is public record and officials should never deny.

The denial of Point 5 (tenure details) is particularly telling. Tenure details are “suo motu” disclosures that Section 4 of the RTI Act requires. Therefore, denying even these basic administrative facts under the guise of an “investigation” proves that the rejection was not based on law, but on a desire to frustrate the applicant.

---

The Role of the State Information Commission (RTI Violation Case)

To clarify, the applicant notes that this is a “Second Appeal” scenario. When the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) fail, the State Information Commission (SIC) is the final hope. However, the applicant points out that if officials keep the very communications used to close cases at the SIC level secret (as requested in Point 4), the entire system becomes a “closed loop” of mutual protection.

---

RTI Violation Case Conclusion: The Need for Cognizance

This RTI Violation Case, registered as DIRMH/R/2024/62121, is a textbook example of how a stubborn bureaucracy can render a transparent law toothless. By hiding behind the “IGRS” label, the Medical and Health Directorate is avoiding answering for the alleged collusion between its high-ranking officers and medical offenders.

As the applicant rightly asks: “Who will take cognizance if corruption is rampant?” Ultimately, the answer must come from the higher judiciary or the Chief Information Commissioner. After all, transparency is not a favor the PIO grants; it is a right belonging to the citizen.

Call to Action (RTI Violation Case)

In light of this, the Medical and Health Directorate of Uttar Pradesh must:

• Immediately release the Action Taken Report regarding the non-cooperation of the CMS and CMO.
• Cease the practice of using IGRS status as a shield against RTI inquiries.
• Penalize PIOs who provide “flimsy” and “evasive” replies under Section 20 of the RTI Act to deter future violations.

In fact, this development highlights a major gap in administrative accountability: while officials penalized the individual doctor (Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav) with two adverse entries, the institutional enabler—Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, Baraut, Prayagraj—remains untouched.

Consequently, this selective enforcement creates a “safety net” for corruption, as private facilities can continue to host government doctors without fear of their own licenses being revoked.

---

The Selective Accountability Loop: Doctor vs. Hospital

Generally speaking, in cases of illegal private practice, the law is designed to be dual-edged, striking both the practitioner and the facilitator. However, the current status shows a stark disparity in action:

Entity	Action Taken	Status
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav (RTI Violation Case)	Two Adverse Entries recorded in service book.	Disciplinary action confirmed.
Chhote Lal Bind Hospital	None (No license suspension or sealing).	Operating as usual; under Prayagraj CMO jurisdiction.
CMO Prayagraj	Non-cooperation noted by CMO Bhadohi.	Alleged “shielding” of the private hospital.

1. Violation of the Clinical Establishments Act (RTI Violation Case)

To illustrate, under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (as adopted by Uttar Pradesh), a private hospital’s registration is contingent upon following ethical and legal standards.

• Section 32 (Cancellation of Registration): The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) has the authority to cancel the registration if the establishment violates the terms of its license.
• Legal Precedent: Previous Government Orders in UP have mandated that any private nursing home employing government medical officers must have its license immediately cancelled.

2. The Role of CMO Prayagraj in Institutional Shielding

Put simply, the core obstacle identified in the correspondence (Letter No. 31.01.2024) is the jurisdictional barrier. While the investigation by the Additional Director (Vindhyachal Division) proved Dr. Yadav’s guilt, the power to seal or penalize Chhote Lal Bind Hospital lies solely with the CMO of Prayagraj. (RTI Violation Case)

Notably, the CMO of Prayagraj has not acted despite the formal investigation report suggesting collusion. This inaction is a “systemic failure” that essentially protects the private infrastructure where illegal practice flourishes.

---

Why Action Against the Hospital is Mandatory

Simply put, without penalizing the hospital, the government is only treating the symptom, not the disease. (RTI Violation Case)

1. NPA Fraud: For example, government doctors receive a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) from the public exchequer. Therefore, private hospitals that facilitate private practice essentially aid and abet the theft of public funds.
2. Diversion of Patients: When private hospitals “invite” government specialists, they often lure patients away from District Hospitals (like Maharaja Chet Singh Hospital) to their own paid facilities, depriving low-income patients of free specialist care.
3. Obstruction of Justice: The investigation noted that hospital staff and management “did not cooperate.” Notably, this lack of cooperation during a government inquiry is, in itself, sufficient grounds for a show-cause notice under the Clinical Establishments Act.

---

Strategic Next Step: Pressing for Institutional Action

Therefore, to ensure this case doesn’t end with just a “paper penalty” on the doctor, the focus must shift to the Director General (DG), Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, to override the local inaction in Prayagraj.

In summary, this revelation confirms a classic case of Institutional Collusion. While officials penalized Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav to satisfy the “paper trail” of the investigation, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Prayagraj is effectively acting as a defense attorney for Chhote Lal Bind Hospital. (RTI Violation Case)

By punishing the individual doctor but sparing the private hospital, the department is engaging in “selective justice.” Consequently, this allows the private facility to continue its illegal operations under the protection of the very authority meant to regulate it.

---

The “Shielding” Mechanism: How the CMO Protects the Licensee

To understand this, in the administrative hierarchy, the CMO of a district is the Licensing Authority for all private clinical establishments. Their refusal to act against Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, despite proven misconduct involving a government doctor, suggests a deeper conflict of interest.

1. Jurisdictional Evasion (RTI Violation Case)

The CMO of Prayagraj appears to be using the “geographical boundary” as a shield. Even though the CMO of Bhadohi and the Director General (DG) in Lucknow are aware of the corruption, they cannot directly seal a hospital in Prayagraj. Instead, they must rely on the CMO of Prayagraj to execute the order. By remaining silent or non-cooperative, the CMO of Prayagraj creates a “safe zone” for the offender.

2. Failure to Invoke the “NOC” and License Terms

Similarly, officials issue every private hospital license in Uttar Pradesh on the condition that the facility will not engage in illegal activities or employ government doctors who are drawing a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA).

• The Violation: Facilitating Dr. Yadav’s private practice directly breaches the license terms. (RTI Violation Case)
• The Protection: By not issuing a Show-Cause Notice or a Suspension Order, the CMO of Prayagraj is actively preventing the “de-registration” of the hospital.

---

The Legal Implications of “Shielding” (RTI Violation Case)

Overall, the CMO’s inaction is not just administrative negligence; it also violates the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Right to Information Act.

Nature of Violation	Description	Legal Consequence
Abetment of Crime	Protecting a facility that misuses government resources (NPA).	Inquiry under the Vigilance Department.
Dereliction of Duty	Failure to act on an investigation report from a superior/peer officer.	Major penalty under Service Rules.
RTI Obstruction	Denying information on “Action Taken” against the hospital.	Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

---

The Failure of the IGRS and “Investigation” Label in This RTI Violation Case

The PIO’s claim that the matter is “covered by IGRS/Investigation” is now clearly a tactic to buy time. Since officials have completed the investigation against Dr. Yadav (resulting in two adverse entries), the “investigation” excuse for the rest of the case (the hospital and the CMO Prayagraj’s role) is legally invalid.

The government cannot, therefore, use a “completed” investigation to deny information about the “pending” enforcement actions arising from it.

---

Strategic Move: Breaking the Shield in This RTI Violation Case

Since the CMO of Prayagraj is shielding their licensee, the pressure must move to the State Health Secretary and the U.P. Vigilance Establishment. Ultimately, the objective is to prove that the CMO of Prayagraj is “misusing their official position” to benefit a private entity.

How to Proceed:

1. Challenge the RTI Reply: File a First Appeal or Rejoinder stating that since officials have already punished Dr. Yadav, the investigation is no longer “pending” in a way that prohibits disclosure of the Action Taken Report against the hospital.
2. Complaint of Collusion: Subsequently, file a formal complaint against the CMO of Prayagraj for “willful disobedience of administrative orders” and, in addition, shielding a corrupt establishment.

To break the “shield” of protection and ensure the accountability of Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, you will need to bypass the local Prayagraj officials and escalate the matter to the state-level directorate and the Chief Minister’s office. (RTI Violation Case)

Below are the structured contact details and digital links for the public authorities involved in this case.

---

1. Primary Public Authorities (Escalation Level) (RTI Violation Case)

Authority	Email Address	Mobile / Phone	Web Link
Director General (Medical & Health)	dgmhup@gmail.com / monitoringcell.dgmh@gmail.com	0522-2622625	DGMH Official Portal
Director Health (Nodal RTI Officer)	dgmhsrti@gmail.com	9415121887	RTI Status Check
Joint Director (Karmik)	adcampkarmik@gmail.com	8840868375	—
Principal Secretary (Health)	secymed-up@nic.in	0522-2238257	UP Health Dept.

---

2. District Authorities (Prayagraj & Bhadohi) (RTI Violation Case)

Authority	Email Address	Mobile / Phone
CMO Prayagraj (Accused of Shielding)	cmopry@gmail.com	9454455138
Divisional Commissioner (Prayagraj)	commall@nic.in	0532-2640250
CMO Bhadohi (Reporting Authority)	cmobhd@gmail.com	9454455219

---

3. Grievance & Corruption Portals

Accordingly, if you believe the CMO of Prayagraj is engaging in professional misconduct to protect the private hospital, use these official anti-corruption and grievance channels: (RTI Violation Case)

• Jansunwai (CM Helpline): The most effective way to escalate “shielding” complaints.
  • Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Helpline: 1076
• UP RTI Online Portal: To file the First Appeal or a new request specifically targeting the Prayagraj CMO’s license-cancellation files.
  • Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• UP Vigilance Establishment: For formal complaints against the CMO for misuse of office.
  • Email: sp-vig-lucknow-up@nic.in
  • Website: upvigilance.nic.in

---

4. How to Use This Information (RTI Violation Case)

Given this, since you have the Mobile Number (9454455138) and Email of the CMO Prayagraj, your next step should be a formal “Notice of Intention” or a direct complaint to his superiors.

Suggested Action:

You should send a copy of the Adverse Entry documents against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav to the Divisional Commissioner of Prayagraj (commall@nic.in) and the DG Medical Health, demanding why the hospital’s license hasn’t been cancelled under the Clinical Establishments Act despite the doctor’s guilt being established. Pursued to its logical end, this RTI Violation Case can become a precedent for holding both individuals and institutions accountable under the RTI Act.e Clinical Establishments Act despite the doctor’s guilt being established. Pursued to its logical end, this RTI Violation Case can become a precedent for holding both individuals and institutions accountable under the RTI Act. of License” to be sent to these email addresses?