Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals: The Case of Ashok Kumar Maurya vs. DDO Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 heralded a “second independence” for Indian citizens. In fact, it promised to dismantle the colonial shroud of secrecy and replace it with a culture of transparency and accountability. However, issues like Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals can undermine the law’s implementation in practice. The case of Ashok Kumar Maurya vs. the District Development Officer (DDO) of Mirzapur illustrates that, unfortunately, obstacles often hinder the law’s effectiveness. Specifically, a persistent and deliberate wall of administrative apathy obstructs its success.

When government staff fail to forward RTI applications or provide information on developmental works, they are not merely “delaying paperwork.” They are obstructing a fundamental right that is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy.

---

The Core Conflict: Procedural Violations in Mirzapur

The grievance of Mr. Ashok Kumar Maurya centers on a classic bureaucratic tactic: the “endless loop” of transfers without results.

On October 11, 2024, Mr. Maurya submitted an RTI application (COMRD/R/2024/60265). He specifically wanted details about developmental expenditures in the Bihasara Khurd and Bagedha Khurd areas. According to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if someone files an application with the wrong authority, the incorrect authority must transfer it. This transfer should be to the correct one. This transfer should happen promptly. The incorrect authority must transfer the application if someone files it with the wrong authority. The incorrect authority must ensure the transfer reaches the correct public authority. Notably, the authority must complete this action within five days. However, if the authority does not respond adequately, the application may be transferred improperly. This can result in incomplete responses. Further appeals from the applicant may then be necessary.

In this instance, they flagrantly ignored the timeline. On January 17, 2025, they “disposed of” the application over three months later than expected. This action included a note that they transferred it to the Block Development Officer (BDO) of Chhanbey. By the time they acknowledged the transfer, the statutory limit for providing the information had already expired.

---

Development on Paper vs. Reality on the Ground (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

The information requested by Mr. Maurya is not sensitive or classified; in fact, it concerns basic village infrastructure funded by the Central and Fifth Finance Commissions. Moreover, his nine-point inquiry includes:

• Hand pump repairs and reboring: Budgeted at Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 100,000 respectively.
• Drainage and Interlocking: Construction projects ranging from Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 190,000.
• Social Infrastructure: Painting of the Panchayat Bhawan and construction of soak pits.
• The “Second Page” Mystery: A specific query asks why they uploaded the public information board for one village (Bagedha Khurd). They recorded it as the record for another village (Bihasada Khurd).

The BDO Chhanbey’s reluctance to provide these details is telling. Mr. Maurya points out that if the administration genuinely completed these works, they would not hide the dates. They would openly share the locations. Their refusal to disclose shows fear. It suggests that the “development” exists only in the department’s ledger books. Meanwhile, the ground reality remains unchanged.

---

The Legal Implications: Violating Section 7(1)

The Public Information Officer (PIO), Mr. Shravan Kumar Rai (DDO Mirzapur), eventually closed the application with a “warning” to the BDO Chhanbey. However, a warning is not a remedy for the applicant.

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, information must be provided within 30 days. Failure to do so constitutes a deemed refusal. The law provides for a penalty of Rs. 250 per day (up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000) for officials who cause such delays without reasonable cause. In this case, the BDO Chhanbey’s total silence is a direct violation of this mandate. Incomplete responses to RTI appeals further exacerbate the issue, leaving applicants without crucial information needed for their inquiries.

---

The Second Appeal: A Cry for Systemic Reform (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

Faced with an unsatisfactory response from the First Appellate Authority (CDO Mirzapur, Mr. Vishal Kumar, IAS), Mr. Maurya has consequently elevated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow). Moreover, his second appeal (A-20250200829) is more than just a request for documents; it is, in fact, a demand for accountability.

The “mockery of the law of the land” described in the appeal highlights a broader systemic failure. When senior officials like the CDO and DDO allow subordinates like the BDO to ignore legal mandates, they create a culture of lawlessness. This action sends a message to the public that the government is not answerable to the people who fund it.

---

Conclusion: Strengthening Democratic Values

The case of the Mirzapur DDO and BDO Chhanbey is significant. It is a crucial test for the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. This situation, consequently, evaluates how the Commission handles such matters. If the Commission fails to impose the maximum penalty on the erring officers, it sends a message of leniency. This, in turn, affects perceptions of the Commission. Furthermore, it reinforces the “administrative apathy” that prevents citizens from engaging with their government.

Transparency is the essence of democracy. For the residents of Bihasara Khurd, knowing whether the authorities repaired their hand pumps is a matter of basic dignity. The construction of their drainage systems is crucial for their survival.

The Demand for Action:

1. Immediate Disclosure: The Commission must order the BDO Chhanbey to provide all 9 points of information within 48 hours.
2. Financial Penalties: Consequently, the organization should deduct a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 from the salary of the responsible PIO/officer.
3. Departmental Inquiry: An investigation into the “mis-uploading” of information boards to check for potential financial fraud.

We can win back the confidence of the citizenry only by taking harsh steps against wrongdoers. This is essential to ensure a healthy and prosperous democracy.

The excuse that certain works are merely a “proposed plan” is, in fact, common in bureaucracy. Furthermore, it is used to explain away discrepancies between public information boards and actual ground reality. Additionally, in the context of the RTI Act, this excuse is often legally unsustainable. Moreover, it is also factually unsustainable within the financial regulations for Gram Panchayats.

The Disconnect: “Proposed” vs. “Processed”

A village erects an information board to actively disclose information. This is generally done under Section 4 of the RTI Act (Proactive Disclosure). Alternatively, the village may follow the guidelines of the Finance Commission. These boards aim to inform the public about the works for which authorities have sanctioned and allocated funds.

Why the “Proposed Plan” Excuse Fails: (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

1. Fund Allocation: Under the 15th Finance Commission and State Finance Commissions, the authorities actively release funds. They do this based on specific Action Plans. When a board displays an amount (e.g., Rs. 1,00,000 for reboring), it usually shows that the administrative and financial sanction has been granted.
2. Publicity Guidelines: Government orders typically mandate that boards be installed when work commences or after completion. Installing a board for a “proposed” plan that never starts wastes public funds. It misrepresents the facts.
3. The “Second Page” Discrepancy: In your specific case, the secretary is Shashikant Singh Yadav. He uploaded a board from one village, Bagedha Khurd. He used it as a record for another village (Bihasda Khurd). This action is not a “proposal.” Instead, it is a clerical or deliberate misreporting of data.

---

Legal Counter-Arguments for Your Appeal

In your second appeal, you can challenge the “proposed plan” excuse using these points:

1. Transparency in Budgetary Expenditure

Under Section 4(1)(b)(xi) of the RTI Act, every public authority must disclose the budget allocated to each of its agencies. This includes indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures, and reports on disbursements made. If the work is only proposed, the PIO must provide the specific date the proposal was made. They must also provide the current status of the file. Additionally, they should explain why the “disbursement” has not yet occurred despite the public display.

2. The Right to Know the “Current Status” (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

Even if a project is “proposed,” the citizen has a right to see the Project Estimate. They are also entitled to view the Technical Sanction and the Site Selection Report. If the BDO claims it is a “proposal,” ask for the copy of the Gram Sabha resolution. This resolution should indicate where this proposal was passed. If they cannot provide the resolution, the “proposed” excuse is likely a cover-up.

3. Misleading the Public (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

Displaying information on a board that does not match the records is a violation of the Code of Conduct for government servants. Displaying incorrect information is against the rules. Such an act violates the established guidelines. It is also a breach of Section 4(2) of the RTI Act. This section requires authorities to provide “as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals… so that the public have minimum resort to use the Act.

---

Strategic Comparison Table

Feature	The “Block’s” Claim (Proposed)	The Legal Requirement (Actual)
Information Board	Just a “vision” or draft plan.	Must reflect sanctioned/active works.
Finance Record	Funds are “available” but not used.	Must show “Utilization Certificates” (UCs).
Data Discrepancy	Clerrical error/wrong image upload.	Potential fraud under IPC/UP Panchayat Act.
RTI Response	“Information not available yet.”	PIO must state the exact stage of the file.

---

Your Next Steps in the Commission

When you appear for your hearing (Online or Offline), emphasize this:

“Honorable Commissioner, the respondent’s claim that this is a ‘proposed plan’ is a tactical delay. If it is a proposal, why has a public information board been prepared and images uploaded? Under Section 4, the public has a right to the actual expenditure reports. If no work was done, the uploaded images are fraudulent and misleading.”

Based on your second appeal details, here is the structured contact directory for the public authorities involved. This information is vital for your upcoming hearing. It is also crucial for sending follow-up reminders. This ensures they do not continue to use the “proposed plan” excuse.

1. Primary Case Identifiers

Welcome ID: UPICR20240009954

• UP Information Commission (UPIC) Registration No: A-20250200829
• Original RTI Application No: COMRD/R/2024/60265
• First Appeal Registration No: COMRD/A/2024/60348

---

2. Contact Directory of Concerned Authorities

Office	Name of Officer	Designation	Mobile Number	Official Email
District Development Office (PIO)	Shravan Kumar Rai	DDO Mirzapur	9454465108	ddomirzapur123@gmail.com
Chief Development Office (FAA)	Vishal Kumar (IAS)	CDO Mirzapur	9454465106	drda-mir@nic.in / cdo-mir@up.gov.in
Block Development Office (Deemed PIO)	Sharad Kumar Singh	BDO Chhanbey	9140746246	bdochhanbey-mzp@nic.in
Project Director (DRDA)	Ajay Pratap Singh	PD DRDA	9454465107	drda-mir@nic.in

---

3. Essential Web Links for Tracking & Submission

• UP State Information Commission (UPSIC):upsic.up.gov.in
  • Use this to check your second appeal status and view the daily cause list (वाद सूची) for your hearing date.
• RTI Online Uttar Pradesh:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Technical Support Helpline: 0522-7118629
  • Technical Support Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
• Mirzapur District Official Directory:mirzapur.nic.in/whoswho
  • Use this to cross-verify if any officer has been transferred before your hearing.
• Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP) Portal:planningonline.gov.in
  • Use this to download the “Approved” vs “Proposed” plans for Bihasada Khurd to prove the BDO’s excuse is false.

---

4. Strategic Note for your Second Appeal (Incomplete Responses RTI Appeals)

When you communicate with these offices via email, ensure you Cc: the State Information Commission (upic@nic.in) and the Chief Minister’s Helpline (cmhelpline-up@gov.in).

The BDO Chhanbey is calling sanctioned, board-displayed work “proposed.” Meanwhile, the DDO has already issued a “warning.” This suggests a serious internal contradiction. You should highlight that the BDO is in contempt of the DDO’s own order dated 17-01-2025.

Would you like me to draft a strong email for you? You can send it to the BDO Chhanbey. Demand the “Work Order” and “Sanction Letter” to debunk their “Proposed Plan” excuse.