Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI: Analysing the RTI Deadlock in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was hailed as the “sunlight.” It aimed to disinfect the corridors of Indian bureaucracy. It was designed to empower the common citizen, transforming them from a passive subject into an active stakeholder in governance. Nearly two decades later, experiences related to Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI show challenges remain. One such case is the Yogi M P Singh vs. District Magistrate Office Mirzapur (Appeal No. DMOMR/A/2025/60027). It serves as a stark reminder of the bureaucratic inertia that continues to plague this democratic tool.

The Timeline of Negligence

On January 6, 2025, Hemant Kumar. According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a Public Information Officer (PIO) must legally provide the requested information. They must do so within 30 days of receipt or reject the request. (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

By March 6, 2025—exactly two months later—no response had been provided. This 60-day silence is not merely a delay; it is a statutory violation. Under the law, if a PIO does not provide a decision on the request within the period specified, the law considers it a “deemed refusal.”

The Legal Ground: Section 7(1) and the 30-Day Mandate(Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

The core of the appellant’s grievance lies in the blatant disregard for the stipulated time limit. The RTI Act is one of the few pieces of Indian legislation that carries a “time-bound” guarantee.

• Section 7(1): It explicitly states that the PIO shall provide information as expeditiously as possible. In any case, the information should be provided within thirty days.
• Section 19(1): It provides the right to a First Appeal. This right applies if the requester does not receive a decision within the time specified.

Mr. Singh’s appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Mr. Asha Ram Verma (SDM Sadar), reveals a poignant irony. The very officers tasked with upholding the law seem unfamiliar with its basic provisions. They appear indifferent to following the law.

Corruption, Transparency, and the “Anarchy” of Inaction

The appellant’s prayer for relief goes beyond a simple request for data. It touches upon the philosophical and ethical roots of governance. Mr Singh argues that the failure to provide information is a symptom of a deeper malaise: systemic corruption. (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

Transparency and accountability are the natural enemies of corruption. When a public authority becomes a “black box,” it creates a breeding ground for inefficiency. The appellant highlights that public staff has been too corrupt. This reflects a growing public sentiment. People believe that delays are often intentional. These delays are used as a tactic to shield malpractice from public scrutiny.

Good governance does not mean that public staff may not abide by rules of law... if there will be no rule of law then our society will be governed by complete anarchy.” — Extract from the Appeal.

The Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

The First Appellate Authority, in this case, the SDM Sadar, holds a quasi-judicial role. The FAA is not just a supervisor; they are a bridge to justice. Mr. Singh has requested two specific actions:

1. Immediate Release of Information: The primary relief sought.
2. Disciplinary Proceedings: Invoking the need for accountability for the PIO’s “incompetence” or “mockery” of the Act.

While the FAA does not have the power to impose monetary penalties. That power rests with the State Information Commission. They have the administrative authority to recommend disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to the PIO.

The Broader Impact on “Good Governance” (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

The appeal addresses not just the FAA. It also symbolically calls on the Chief Minister. This invokes the concept of Su-shasan (Good Governance). To claim governance by the “Rule of Law,” a state must ensure its smallest units actively respond. Units such as the Tehsil office in Mirzapur must respect and uphold citizens’ legal rights.

When the administration ignores an RTI application for 60 days, it sends a message that it operates above the law. This erodes trust between citizens and the state, rendering the RTI Act “ineffective” and “diluted,” as the appellant rightfully fears.

Conclusion: A Call for Administrative Reform

The case of DMOMR/A/2025/60027 is a litmus test for the District Magistrate Office in Mirzapur. Will the First Appellate Authority uphold the spirit of the 2005 Act? Or will this appeal become another entry in a long list of ignored grievances? (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

To restore faith in the system, the following steps are essential:

• Strict Adherence to Timelines: Train PIOs to treat the 30-day limit as sacrosanct and ensure strict adherence to timelines.
• Digital Tracking: Implement robust digital tracking. This will ensure that the “RTI Request Received” status automatically triggers alerts. The triggers will activate as the deadline approaches.
• Accountability: Establishing a culture where “Deemed Refusal” leads to mandatory internal explanations.

The Right to Information isn’t a favour that the government grants to the people. It is a fundamental right rooted in the freedom of speech and expression. We must protect it to extinguish the “jungle fire” of corruption once and for all.

We reviewed the records and the specific details of your RTI appeal. Here is the structured contact and identification information for the public authorities involved in your case.

1. Case Identification Details (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

Feature	Information
First Appeal Registration No.	DMOMR/A/2025/60027
Original RTI Registration No.	DMOMR/R/2025/60003
Date of Original Filing	06/01/2025
Date of First Appeal	06/03/2025
Subject Matter	PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi / Land Record Authentication

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities & Contact Details

A. First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur & RTI)

The FAA is responsible for hearing your appeal and directing the PIO to provide the information.¹

• Name: Asha Ram Verma²
• Designation: SDM Sadar, Mirzapur³
• Mobile: 9454416810 / 9453123786⁴
• Email: sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in⁵

B. Public Information Officer (PIO)

The official who failed to respond within the 30-day statutory limit.

• Name: Hemant Kumar⁶
• Designation: Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur⁷
• Mobile: 9454416823⁸
• Email: teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in⁹

C. Nodal Officer (District Level)

Oversees RTI compliance for the District Magistrate’s office.

• Name: Shiv Pratap Shukla (or Ajai Kumar Singh as per recent updates)¹⁰
• Designation: ADM (Finance & Revenue)¹¹
• Mobile: 9454417638¹²
• Email: adm.fr.mi-up@gov.in¹³

---

3. Digital Portals & Web Links

If you need to check status or file a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) later:

• UP RTI Online Portal: rti online.up.gov.in
• Mirzapur District Official RTI Page: mirzapur.nic.in/ rti
• UP Information Commission (UPIC): upsic.gov.in
• IGRS (Jansunwai) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in (For general grievances regarding the delay).

4. Important Technical Note

Records indicate that your inquiry specifically concerns the rejection of a PM-Kisan application (e.g., Aadhar 822435097042).¹⁴ The PIO (Tehsildar) often uses the defense that “digital rejections” are handled via specific portal IDs.¹⁵ Make sure your appeal asks for the name and designation. It should specify the staff member who used the User ID to mark the application as “Rejected.”

Would you like me to draft a formal “Written Submission”? You can send it to the SDM (FAA). This will strengthen your case for the upcoming hearing.