A Second Appeal Under RTI Act often becomes a citizen’s last resort after officials meet an RTI request with silence at every earlier stage. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 promises transparency, yet the case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Revenue Department (Mirzapur) shows just how difficult that promise can be to enforce when a Public Information Officer (PIO) and a First Appellate Authority (FAA) both ignore their statutory duties. This post walks through Ms. Tiwari’s Second Appeal Under RTI Act, the timeline of official silence that led to it, and the legal remedies now available to her at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

Second Appeal Under RTI Act: When Transparency Meets Bureaucratic Resistance

A Second Appeal Under RTI Act often becomes a citizen’s last resort after silence at every earlier stage of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 — a law many hail as the “sunlight that disinfects” government functioning. However, the case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Revenue Department (Mirzapur) shows the hurdles citizens face when they must invoke this remedy. The law offers a robust framework for accountability. Yet implementation often stutters once it meets the very machinery it seeks to oversee.

This blog post therefore examines the recent Second Appeal Under RTI Act that Ms. Tiwari filed. It also highlights the systemic challenges citizens encounter when government officials choose silence over transparency.

---

The Case Background: A Quest for Accountability

This legal battle centres on a grievance over ancestral property inheritance and alleged forgery. Specifically, Ms. Sadhana Tiwari, a resident of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, raised concerns through the Jansunwai (Public Grievance) portal. Officials omitted her name from the inheritance records following her grandfather’s death.

Under the UP Revenue Code 2006, Ms. Tiwari claims status as a Class-1 heir. However, she alleges that local officials—including the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar—colluded with relatives to usurp her rights. This backdrop is what ultimately made a Second Appeal Under RTI Act necessary.

---

The Procedural Timeline: A Cycle of Silence Leading to the Second Appeal

The RTI Act rests on a time-bound structure. Specifically, once a citizen asks a question, the government must respond within 30 days. In this case, however, officials ignored that timeline at every level. This has left a Second Appeal Under RTI Act as the only remaining option.

1. The Initial Request (Section 6(1))

• Date: October 14, 2024
• Target: PIO Tarun Pratap Singh (Tehsildar, Lalganj)
• The Ask: Who authorized the Tehsil to handle a police-related grievance, and, in addition, what legal basis supported their conclusions.
• Result: The PIO did not respond within the 30-day stipulated period.

2. The First Appeal (Section 19(1))

• Date: December 11, 2024
• Target: First Appellate Authority (FAA) Gulab Chandra (SDM, Lalganj)
• The Ask: Intervention, since the PIO had failed to provide information.
• Result: Once again, silence followed. As a result, the FAA never conducted a hearing or passed an order.

3. The Second Appeal (Section 19(3))

• Date: February 19, 2025
• Current Status: Consequently, Ms. Tiwari filed the Second Appeal Under RTI Act with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow).

---

The Core Arguments Behind This Second Appeal Under RTI Act

Overall, Ms. Tiwari’s appeal raises three critical failures in the current administrative setup.

A. The “Conflict of Interest” Trap

One of the most profound questions in the RTI application asks this: “Under what provision of law can officials (Lekhpal/Tehsildar) entertain complaints concerning irregularities and corruption against themselves?” Indeed, when a grievance involves the conduct of a specific office, routing that grievance back to the same office for a “report” creates a loop. In other words, the accused effectively becomes the judge. The appellant therefore calls this a “mockery of the law.”

B. Insolence Toward the RTI Act

Fundamentally, the RTI Act is not a suggestion; rather, it is a mandate. Nevertheless, the PIO and the FAA refused to even acknowledge the applications — conduct the appeal describes as “insolence” and “tantamount to anarchy.” Consequently, when officials ignore the law without fear of repercussions, they weaken the democratic fabric. This reinforces why a Second Appeal Under RTI Act exists as a safeguard.

C. The Vulnerability of Heirs

The case also exposes how inheritance laws often collapse at the grassroots level. In particular, Ms. Tiwari argues that because her father predeceased her grandfather, she became the direct Class-1 heir. Furthermore, officials omitted her name while she was still a minor. This points to deep-rooted corruption within the local revenue records system.

---

The “Information Blackout” as a Tool of Corruption

Corruption doesn’t always involve an exchange of money; rather, it often takes the form of withheld information. Indeed, by refusing to name the staff who authorised reports, or the legal provisions that justified their actions, the department effectively shields its employees from legal scrutiny. This is a pattern that a well-argued Second Appeal Under RTI Act is specifically designed to break.

---

What This Second Appeal Under RTI Act Seeks

Under Registration Number A-20250200996, the appeal asks the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow to grant:

1. Transparency: Compel the Revenue Department to disclose the documents and logic behind their reports.
2. Accountability: Penalize the PIO and FAA for failing to perform their statutory duties.
3. Justice: Ensure that impartial authorities actually investigate grievances, rather than simply marking them “closed” on a portal.

---

Conclusion: The Road Ahead for This Second Appeal Under RTI Act

Ultimately, the Sadhana Tiwari case captures the broader struggle for transparency across rural and semi-urban India. The RTI Act of 2005 remains one of the most powerful tools available to the common citizen. Nonetheless, its efficacy depends entirely on the Information Commission’s willingness to punish non-compliance.

If the “gatekeepers” of information — the PIOs and FAAs — continue to ignore applications with impunity, the Act therefore risks becoming a dead letter. For this reason, we look toward the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to uphold the spirit of the law. We also hope they curb “anarchy in the working of public authority.”

---

Key Takeaways for Anyone Filing a Second Appeal Under RTI Act:

• Keep Records: Always keep copies of your original application and postal receipts.
• Monitor Deadlines: If you don’t hear back within 30 days, move to the First Appeal immediately.
• Use the Commission: Should the First Appeal fail, you can exercise your legal right to file a Second Appeal at the state level.

What do you think? Should officials who ignore RTI requests face stricter penalties? Let us know in the comments below.

To help you further, the section below outlines the specific legal provisions relevant to any Second Appeal Under RTI Act so that you can demand accountability. Since both the PIO and the FAA stayed silent, this case has, as a result, moved from a simple “request for information” to a “complaint against negligence.

---

Strategic Legal Paths for Your Second Appeal Under RTI Act

While the Second Appeal is already in progress, understanding the penal provisions will nonetheless help you argue your case more effectively during the hearing (whether online or offline).

1. Invoking Section 20(1) – Financial Penalty

The Information Commission can impose a penalty on the PIO (Tarun Pratap Singh) if it finds that he:

• Refused the application without reasonable cause; or
• Failed to respond within the 30-day time limit; or
• Denied the request in bad faith.

The Penalty: As a result, the Commission can fine the PIO ₹250 per day from the date the information was due until he actually provides it, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

2. Invoking Section 20(2) – Disciplinary Action

If the Commission believes the PIO has persistently neglected his duties without valid reason, it can, in addition, recommend disciplinary action against him under the applicable service rules.

3. Seeking Compensation (Section 19(8)(b))

As the appellant, you have endured mental agony and, perhaps, financial costs while pursuing this matter because the officers failed to do their job. Accordingly, you can ask the Commission to order the Public Authority (Revenue Department) to pay you monetary compensation for the loss or detriment you suffered.

---

How to Prepare for a Second Appeal Under RTI Act Hearing

Once the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission schedules your hearing, keep the following points ready for your submission:

• The “Deemed Refusal” Argument: Under Section 7(2) of the Act, the law treats a PIO’s failure to decide within 30 days as a “deemed refusal.” Notably, this is your strongest point.
• Highlight the Conflict of Interest: Emphasise to the Commissioner that you are seeking information about a grievance in which the PIO himself stands accused (as the 5th offender). This, in turn, explains why he is intentionally withholding information.
• The FAA’s Negligence: Similarly, point out that the SDM (Gulab Chandra) never fulfilled his statutory duty to hear your first appeal. This ultimately forced you to take the matter to Lucknow.

A Second Appeal Under RTI Act often becomes a citizen’s last resort after officials meet an RTI request with silence at every earlier stage. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 promises transparency, yet the case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Revenue Department (Mirzapur) shows just how difficult that promise can be to enforce… Ms. Tiwari’s Second Appeal Under RTI Act now sits before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

---

Suggested Next Step

Would you like a formal “Rejoinder” or Written Submission? You can send this document to the Information Commission in Lucknow to supplement your Second Appeal Under RTI Act. Doing so will formally highlight the specific sections (such as Section 20) mentioned above. This will ensure that the Commission considers imposing a penalty on the officers.