The RTI Crisis in Lucknow Development Authority: A Case of Institutional Defiance

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of Indian bureaucracy. However, in the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s capital, a disturbing pattern of non-compliance and administrative apathy is threatening to turn this transparency tool into a dead letter. The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) serves as a chilling example of how individual officers can stymie the legal rights of citizens through sheer inaction.

The Core Dispute: A Timeline of Silence

The grievance centers on RTI application LKDPA/R/2024/60706, filed on November 5, 2024. The appellant, Mr. Yogi M.P. Singh, sought critical information regarding the processing of a Presidential Reference forwarded by the Chief Secretary’s Office. Specifically, the inquiry aimed to uncover:

• The identities of the staff who handled the electronic communication.
• Official “notings” made on the representation.
• The Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the presidential reference.
• Reasons for the failure to intimate the applicant about the progress of the case.

Despite the statutory 30-day limit, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna, failed to provide any response. This silence forced the appellant into a cycle of appeals that highlights a systemic breakdown in the LDA’s accountability framework.

---

Judicial Defiance: Ignoring the First Appellate Authority

When the PIO failed to act, the matter moved to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On January 18, 2025, the FAA issued a clear and decisive order. After scrutinizing the files, the FAA noted a complete absence of documentary evidence suggesting that any information had been sent to the appellant.

The FAA’s mandate was unambiguous: Atul Krishna, Deputy Secretary/JSU, was ordered to provide the requested information within 15 days.

In a functioning democracy, an order from a superior officer—acting in a quasi-judicial capacity—is binding. Yet, as of March 2025, that order has been met with total disregard. This is not merely a delay; it is “wilful disobedience.” When a Deputy Secretary treats the orders of his own department’s Appellate Authority with such “teeth-under” contempt, it signals a dangerous level of administrative lawlessness.

---

The Paradox of Responsibility

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this case is the professional irony surrounding the officer in question. The appellant points out that this Deputy Secretary is reportedly responsible for managing second appeals before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC).

This creates a “fox guarding the henhouse” scenario. If the officer tasked with coordinating the department’s legal standing before the Commission is himself a serial non-complier, the entire integrity of the RTI process within the LDA is compromised. It raises a fundamental question: How can an officer ensure transparency at the Commission level while systematically suppressing it at the grassroots level?

---

Beyond Inefficiency: The Promotion of Corruption

Transparency is the greatest enemy of corruption. By withholding information—specifically regarding “notings” and “action taken reports” on a presidential reference—the PIO isn’t just being “slow.” He is effectively shielding the decision-making process from public scrutiny.

The appellant rightly argues that such practices:

1. Conceal Corruption: Lack of transparency allows for arbitrary decision-making without fear of repercussions.
2. Promote Indiscipline: When a senior officer ignores legal mandates without consequence, it sets a precedent for subordinates to follow suit.
3. Create Anarchy: When the “law of the land” is mocked by those meant to uphold it, the citizen’s trust in democratic institutions erodes.

---

Seeking Justice: The Demand for Section 20 Sanctions

Under the RTI Act, Section 20 provides the “teeth” necessary to penalize errant officers. It allows the Information Commission to impose a pecuniary penalty (fine) of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on PIOs who refuse to receive applications or fail to furnish information without reasonable cause.

In the second appeal (Registration Number A-20250300831), the appellant has made a formal plea for the imposition of this penalty. The argument is simple: without financial and professional consequences, the culture of “historic denial” will continue unabated. The request for a penalty isn’t just about punishment; it is about restoring the “confidence of the citizenry.”

---

The Road Ahead for the UP State Information Commission

As this case moves to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, the eyes of transparency advocates are on the Chief Information Commissioner. This is a “fit case” to demonstrate that no officer, regardless of their rank or their role in managing appeals, is above the law.

The appellant’s prayer is a poignant reminder of what is at stake: “There is a need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen democratic values.”

The LDA must realize that the RTI Act is not a suggestion—it is a mandate. Until Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna and others like him are held accountable for their “wilful disobedience,” the promise of a “healthy and prosperous democracy” will remain an unfulfilled dream for the people of Uttar Pradesh.

This situation highlights a significant breakdown in the administrative machinery of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). When a Public Information Officer (PIO) ignores the specific directives of their own First Appellate Authority (FAA), it shifts from “delay” to “wilful disobedience,” which is a serious violation of the RTI Act, 2005.

Here is a breakdown of the current legal standing of your case and the strategic steps required to hold the officer accountable.

---

1. The Legal Standing: Section 19(3) and Section 20

Since the FAA’s order (dated 18-01-2025) to provide information within 15 days was ignored by Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna, your transition to the Second Appeal is the correct legal path.

Under the RTI Act, the State Information Commission has the power to:

• Impose Penalties: Under Section 20(1), the Commission can fine the PIO ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) for failing to furnish information without reasonable cause.¹
• Recommend Disciplinary Action: Under Section 20(2), the Commission can recommend departmental proceedings against the officer for persistent non-compliance.

---

2. Key Arguments for Your Second Appeal

To ensure the State Information Commission takes “harsh steps” as you requested, your arguments should focus on the following points:

Issue	Legal Argument
Contempt of FAA Order	The PIO has not just denied information; he has defied a quasi-judicial order from his own superior (the Additional Secretary/FAA).
Pattern of Non-Compliance	Highlight that this is not an isolated incident but a “pattern” that promotes “anarchy and lawlessness” within the LDA.
Concealment of Corruption	Argue that withholding an Action Taken Report (ATR) on a Presidential Reference suggests an intent to hide administrative lapses.
Abuse of Position	Mention that the officer’s role in managing other appeals before the Commission makes his personal non-compliance even more damaging to the system’s integrity.

---

3. Recommended Strategy

Since you have already filed the Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250300831), you should now focus on the following:

• Request an Interim Order: Write a letter to the Registrar of the UP Information Commission referencing your appeal number. Request an interim direction to the LDA to preserve the relevant files and email records so they aren’t “lost” during the delay.
• Highlight the “Presidential Reference”: Since your original query involves a reference from the President’s office via the Chief Secretary, emphasize that the PIO is obstructing a high-level constitutional inquiry. This usually carries more weight during Commission hearings.
• Prayer for Compensation: In addition to the penalty under Section 20, you can ask for compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for the mental harassment and costs incurred due to the PIO’s refusal to act.

---

4. Addressing the “Historic Denial”

Your description of this as a “historic denial of information” is accurate because the PIO is essentially operating outside the law. When a Deputy Secretary “takes under teeth” (ignores) a direct order to comply within 15 days, it demonstrates a complete lack of fear of the RTI Act’s provisions.

The Information You Are Still Owed:

1. Names/Designations of staff who handled the email.
2. File Notings (This is crucial as it shows who decided what and why).
3. The Action Taken Report (ATR).
4. Reasons for non-intimation.

To assist you in following up on your second appeal and holding the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) accountable, here are the validated contact details for the key public authorities involved in your case.

1. Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)

These are the primary respondents in your appeal. The mobile numbers listed are the official “CUG” (Closed User Group) numbers assigned to these posts.

Designation	Official Name	Mobile Number	Office Phone
Vice Chairman	Shri Prathmesh Kumar	7232914444	0522-2307868
Secretary	Shri Vivek Srivastava	9918001605	0522-2307872
Additional Secretary / FAA	Shri Gyanendra Verma	9918001927	0522-2307984
Deputy Secretary / PIO	Shri Atul Krishna Singh	9918001893	—
OSD / RTI Official	Mr. Rajeev Kumar	9918001461	—

• Official Website: ldalucknow.in
• LDA Online Portal: ldaonline.co.in
• Address: Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.

---

2. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the body where your second appeal (A-20250300831) is registered. You can use these details to check the status of your hearing or file a written submission regarding the PIO’s non-compliance.

• Office Phone: 0522-2724930
• Technical Helpline: 0522-7118629 (10:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
• Official Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• Online RTI Helpline Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
• Web Link (Case Status): upsic.up.gov.in
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.

---

3. State Government Reference Links

Since your RTI pertains to a Presidential Reference forwarded by the Chief Secretary’s office, you may also need to track the status through the CM office or the IGRS portal.

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Chief Minister’s Office (RTI Cell): 0522-2226345 (Room No. 332, Lok Bhawan, Lucknow).

Pro-Tip for your Hearing:

When you attend the online hearing, ensure you mention that the Deputy Secretary’s email (raz.9125@gmail.com) provided in the RTI records is a private Gmail address. You can argue that official government business regarding a Presidential Reference should be conducted through official .gov.in or .nic.in emails to ensure a permanent and auditable record.

Would you like me to draft a “Notice of Non-Compliance” that you can send directly to the Vice Chairman of the LDA to inform him of his subordinate’s failure to follow the FAA’s orders?