This case study reveals exactly how DDO decisions impact your RTI application, and why a single status change on a government portal can quietly derail your right to information. In Mirzapur, the District Development Officer marked a citizen’s RTI request as “Disposed” simply because he transferred it to another authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. Consequently, the applicant lost the ability to track the request, appeal it effectively, or hold anyone accountable for the outcome. The Central Information Commission has repeatedly ruled that transfer does not equal disposal, yet officials continue this practice across Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, understanding how DDO decisions impact your RTI matters today for every citizen seeking transparency, especially when large public projects, like the ₹10 million Lohandi River cleanup, hang in the balance.

How DDO Decisions Impact Your RTI: The Lohandi River RTI Crisis in Mirzapur

This case study shows exactly how DDO decisions impact your RTI application. A single status change on a government portal can derail an entire request for public information. Indeed, the Lohandi River is a vital water body in the Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh. Today, however, it stands as a silent witness to a conflict between public environmental mandates and bureaucratic opacity. For instance, the Government of India channels hundreds of millions of rupees into the Namami Gange Mission 2.0 to rejuvenate the Ganga and its tributaries. On the ground, though, the local reality of the Lohandi River cleanliness drive tells a different story — one of administrative evasion.

Overall, the case of Yogi M P Singh, an RTI activist, highlights a systemic failure. Here, in particular, officials treat the Right to Information (RTI) Act as a procedural hurdle to sidestep, rather than as a legislative tool for transparency.

---

How DDO Decisions Impact Your RTI: The Core Conflict

To begin with, the District Development Officer (DDO) of Mirzapur, Shrawan Kumar Rai, sits at the heart of this dispute. Specifically, he received an RTI application (Registration No: COMRD/R/2025/60052) concerning the cleaning and renovation of the Lohandi River. In response, he took a step that is legally permissible on its own, but that officials have repeatedly used as a tool to dispose of requests entirely.

In general, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, a Public Information Officer (PIO) may transfer an application to another authority when the information more closely concerns that authority’s functions. Accordingly, the DDO transferred the request to the Block Development Officer (BDO) of City Mirzapur.

The real problem, though, lies in what the DDO did next: he closed the RTI request and marked it “Disposed” on the RTI portal simply because he had transferred it. This single move is a clear example of how DDO decisions impact your RTI application long after you have filed it — the case is not decided by the law alone, but by how an officer chooses to record it on the portal.

Why “Transfer” is not “Disposal”

Notably, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has repeatedly ruled that a transfer under Section 6(3) does not discharge a PIO from ultimate responsibility. Yet by marking the status “Disposed,” the DDO effectively killed the application’s lifecycle on the portal. As a result, the applicant could not track progress or receive a cohesive response. In other words, this “cryptic role,” played by the public authority, blocks the citizen from accessing the final data. In effect, it “encroaches upon the right of the first appeal.”

---

The ₹10 Million Question: Where is the Transparency?

Indeed, the scale of the Lohandi River project is not insignificant. In fact, under the broader Namami Gange Mission 2.0, Mirzapur has received a sanctioned investment of approximately ₹129 crores.

Specifically, the information sought regarding the Lohandi River involves a renovation and cleanliness drive with an estimated budget near ₹10 million. The public, therefore, has a right to know:

1. The Decision Makers: the names and designations of officials who sanctioned the allocation.
2. The Executioners: details of the tendering process and the contractors hired for the cleaning drive.
3. The Outcome: monitoring reports that verify whether the “cleanliness drive” actually produced a cleaner river.

In addition, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) confirms that the mission includes Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) at Pakka Pokhra and Bisunderpur, with a combined capacity of 17 MLD. Yet when a citizen asks for the specific administrative trail of a local river project, the bureaucracy retreats into a shell of procedural transfers.

---

Misuse of Section 6(3): A Tool for Corruption?

Specifically, the applicant argues that the DDO’s decision to close the file upon transfer amounts to a deliberate attempt to “escape from accountability.” After all, if every district-level officer can simply pass an application down to a subordinate and then wash their hands of it, the entire hierarchy of the RTI Act collapses.

Consider what happens when a PIO closes an application prematurely:

• The applicant cannot easily file a First Appeal against the “original” authority.
• The “trail of responsibility” breaks.
• The subordinate authority (BDO) often lacks the resources, or the political will, to disclose high-value financial data tied to district-level sanctions.

Together, these gaps create a “transparency black hole” where public funds vanish into projects that exist on paper — yet no official stands ready to answer for them.

---

The First Appeal: Seeking Relief from the CDO

Consequently, faced with this “misleading and false” disposal, the applicant filed a First Appeal (Registration No: COMRD/A/2025/60058) before the Chief Development Officer (CDO) of Mirzapur, who serves as the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

The Prayer for Relief

This appeal is not merely a request for information; rather, it demands the restoration of the rule of law. Specifically, the appellant seeks:

• A reversal of the “Disposed” status: the RTI must be reopened until officials actually provide the information.
• Direction to Subordinates: the CDO must direct the BDO and DDO to provide the specific names, designations, and mobile numbers of staff involved in the Lohandi project.
• Accountability for Misleading Data: action against the PIO for supplying incomplete and misleading information on the government portal.

---

Conclusion: The Stakes for Mirzapur

Ultimately, the Lohandi River is more than a geographical feature; it is a test case for the efficacy of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. If officials can shield a ₹10 million project from public scrutiny through clever portal status changes and administrative transfers, then the RTI Act’s core goal — promoting transparency and curbing corruption — remains unfulfilled. In short, this case is a clear illustration of how DDO decisions impact your RTI rights, and why every applicant should watch the portal status as closely as the response itself.

Transparency is the best disinfectant. So, for the Lohandi River to become truly “clean,” the administrative processes governing its restoration must first clear away the “mud” of bureaucratic opacity.

Actionable Next Steps for Citizens:

Therefore, if you face similar RTI transfer issues in Mirzapur, or elsewhere, make sure your First Appeal specifically states that “transfer is not disposal.” In addition, cite the CIC guidelines, and demand that the Nodal Officer provide the specific contact details of the transferee PIO.

Below, you’ll find the key identifiers, contact details for the authorities involved, and relevant web links for tracking your case.

1. Case Identifiers (How DDO Decisions Impact Your RTI)

Type	Registration Number	Date of Filing	Status
Initial RTI Application	COMRD/R/2025/60052	03/02/2025	Disposed (Transfer)
First Appeal	COMRD/A/2025/60058	22/02/2025	Appeal Received

---

2. Authority Contact Details (How DDO Decisions Impact Your RTI)

Specifically, these officials are responsible for providing the information or hearing your appeal.

Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Name: Shrawan Kumar Rai
• Designation: District Development Officer (DDO), Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9454465108
• Email: ddomirzapur123@gmail.com

First Appellate Authority

• Name: Vishal Kumar (I.A.S.) / Mirzapur-CDO
• Designation: Chief Development Officer (CDO), Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9454465106
• Email: drda-mir@nic.in or cdo-mir@up.gov.in

Nodal Officer (Department of Rural Development)

• Name: Mahendra Kumar
• Email: crd-up@nic.in

---

3. Essential Web Links (How DDO Decisions Impact Your RTI)

Use these links to track status, file further appeals, or check government records.

• Track RTI Status (UP Online): rtionline.up.gov.in/request/status.php
• State Information Commission (UP): upsic.up.nic.in (For Second Appeals)
• Mirzapur District Official Directory: mirzapur.nic.in/whoswho
• Namami Gange Project Dashboard: nmcg.nic.in (For cross-referencing Mirzapur project data)

---

Summary of the Issue

The DDO’s decision to “dispose” the RTI simply because he transferred it to the BDO (under Section 6(3)) amounts to a procedural error. As the FAA, the CDO holds the power to direct the DDO to reopen the application. This will ensure a final, consolidated response reaches the portal. Additionally, it is important to note that the CDO (FAA) must hear your appeal within the statutory 30-day window.