RTI Justice Delayed: The Curious Case of U.P. Jal Nigam and the 60-Day Transfer Loophole
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a beacon of transparency, designed to empower citizens to hold public authorities accountable. However, as the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban) demonstrates, procedural delays and administrative “shunting” can often turn a straightforward request for information into a months-long ordeal.
The Core Issue: Information vs. Jurisdiction
At the heart of this matter is a fundamental request regarding the transfer policies and posting details of engineers and staff within the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in Mirzapur. The applicant sought to investigate whether the state government’s new transfer policy—intended to curb corruption and prevent long-term stagnation of officials in a single district—was being strictly implemented.
Instead of receiving data on junior engineers, assistant engineers, and outsourced staff, the applicant was met with a jurisdictional ping-pong match between the Urban and Rural wings of the Jal Nigam.
Anatomy of the RTI Request
Registration Number: DUPJN/R/2024/60142
Date of Filing: 15/12/2024
Target Authority: U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Mirzapur
The applicant requested seven specific points of information, including:
- Posting dates and charges of all Junior and Assistant Engineers in Mirzapur.
- CUG (Closed User Group) mobile numbers of departmental staff.
- Details of outsourced and daily-wage staff.
- Compliance with the new transfer policy formulated by the Yogi Adityanath government.
Section 6(3) and the 5-Day Mandate: A Statutory Failure
The most glaring violation in this timeline concerns Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The law is crystal clear: if a Public Information Officer (PIO) receives a request for information held by another public authority, they must transfer that application to the concerned department within five days.
The Timeline of Delay:
- 15/12/2024: Application filed with Jal Nigam (Urban).
- 18/12/2024: An internal letter (No. 2282) was drafted by the PIO (Urban) to the Executive Engineer (Rural), acknowledging the information belongs to the Rural wing.
- 14/02/2025: The application was officially “Disposed Of” with a reply telling the applicant to “contact the Rural office.”
While the PIO drafted a letter quickly (within 3 days), the actual resolution and the final “disposal” on the portal took nearly two months. Telling an applicant to “go contact another office” at the end of 60 days is a direct contradiction of the PIO’s duty to transfer the file internally and ensure the applicant receives the data.
The First Appeal: Seeking Accountability
When the 30-day statutory limit for providing information passed with no data in hand, the applicant filed a First Appeal (Section 19(1)) on 10th February 2025.
Grounds for Appeal:
- No Response Within Time Limit: The applicant argued that the PIO failed to provide information within the 30 days prescribed under Section 7(1).
- Violation of Statutory Duty: The appeal highlighted that 19 years after the RTI Act’s inception, public authorities are still failing to respect the timelines that make the Act effective.
- Request for Disciplinary Action: The appellant explicitly requested the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the PIO for procedural negligence.
The FAA’s Response:
The First Appellate Authority (Executive Engineer, Urban) disposed of the appeal on 14/02/2025 with the same generic response: The information relates to Jal Nigam (Rural); please contact their office.
Implications of the “Post Office” Approach
The courts in India have repeatedly held that PIOs should not act merely as “post offices.” By simply telling an applicant to go elsewhere after two months of silence, the Jal Nigam (Urban) PIO has effectively denied the right to information.
1. Penalty Provisions
Under the RTI Act, if a PIO fails to receive or transfer an application without reasonable cause, the Information Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. In this case, the gap between December 15 and February 14 represents a significant delay that could warrant such a penalty.
2. Erosion of Transparency
The information sought—details on how long engineers have been posted in one location—is critical for monitoring the New Transfer Policy. By delaying the release of this information, the department inadvertently (or intentionally) shields officials who may be overstaying their tenures in violation of government mandates.
Procedural Roadmap for the Applicant
Since the First Appeal resulted in a “disposal” without the actual delivery of information, the applicant now has a clear path forward:
- File a Second Appeal: Submit a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttar Pradesh.
- Invoke Section 20: Specifically request the Commission to invoke Section 20 of the RTI Act to penalize the PIO for the 60-day delay in providing a definitive direction.
- Highlight Section 6(3) Misuse: Argue that the PIO’s duty was to transfer the application to the Rural wing and ensure they respond, rather than simply telling the applicant to start the process over again.
Conclusion: The Need for Administrative Will
The case of Yogi M. P. Singh is a textbook example of “administrative lethargy.” When a citizen seeks to verify if a government policy is being followed, the response should be data-driven and timely. Using jurisdictional boundaries as a shield only serves to weaken the democratic fabric the RTI Act seeks to strengthen.
For the residents of Mirzapur, the question remains: Are the officials in the Jal Nigam following the transfer policy, or is the delay in information a sign of something deeper?
To ensure you have all the necessary details for your next steps—specifically for the Second Appeal to the State Information Commission or for contacting the correct department directly—here is the consolidated contact directory for both public authorities involved in your case.
1. Primary RTI Record Information
- Application Registration Number:
DUPJN/R/2024/60142 - First Appeal Registration Number:
DUPJN/A/2025/60004
2. Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban)
This is the department where you filed your original application and appeal.
| Office / Officer | Contact Person | Mobile Number | Email / Web Link |
| PIO (CD Mirzapur) | Raj Kumar (Asstt. Engineer) | 7607517410 | gpcumzp@gmail.com |
| FAA (Appellate Authority) | Executive Engineer | 9473942664 | gpcumzp@gmail.com |
| Nodal Officer | Dr. S. Sahai | 9450942304 | rti2005upjn@gmail.com |
| Official Website | — | — | jn.upsdc.gov.in |
3. Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Rural)
This is the department that allegedly holds the information you seek.
| Office / Officer | Contact Person | Mobile Number | Email / Web Link |
| Division Office, Mirzapur | Executive Engineer (Rural) | 9473942500 (HQ Support) | mdupjng@gmail.com |
| Headquarters (Rural) | MD Office (Lucknow) | 0522-4063542 | upjn.co.in |
| Staff Directory Link | — | — | Staff Directory Rural |
4. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (SIC)
You will need these details to file your Second Appeal regarding the 60-day delay and the lack of a proper transfer under Section 6(3).
- Website: upsic.up.nic.in
- Address: 7/7A, Chini Bazar, Near Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226001.
- Online Appeal Portal: RTI Online UP
Pro-Tip: When filing your Second Appeal online, upload the document provided by the Urban wing (dated 18.12.2024) as evidence. This document proves they knew the information belonged elsewhere but failed to officially transfer it within the 5-day legal window.
Would you like me to draft the “Grounds of Appeal” section specifically for your Second Appeal to the Information Commission?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.