Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur involves addressing the withholding of information and official misconduct in an RTI appeal. Consequently, this process often requires navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Furthermore, it confronts a lack of transparency that hinders access to vital information. Therefore, citizens seeking to challenge these responses must gather substantial evidence to support their claims, including documentation, witness statements, and explicit references to the Right to Information Act. Engaging with legal experts and RTI activists not only strengthens their case but also helps assert their rights effectively. Moreover, raising public awareness about these issues fosters a culture of accountability among public officials. Ultimately, ensuring that information is not unjustly withheld promotes democratic values and empowers citizens to actively participate in governance.

🚨Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur: Withholding Information and Official Misconduct in an RTI Appeal

The core issue presented in this Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is the persistent and alleged deliberate failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur; specifically, this failure pertains to their obligation to provide the legally mandated information. Consequently, the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, has not received this information. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

This failure stems from the appellant’s attempt to obtain specific documents and details related to the public disclosure practices. Specifically, the uploading of illegible public information board images of the Gram Panchayat Lohandi Kala on the GPDP (Gram Panchayat Development Plan) portal has led to allegations of official misconduct, corruption, and misuse of public funds.

---

1. 🛑 Denial of Information and Procedural Lapses (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

The appellant’s fundamental grievance is that, despite his efforts, he has not received the information sought under his initial RTI application (DIRPR/R/2024/60814, dated 25.11.2024).

• PIO’s Failure: The PIO, District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO) Santosh Kumar, notably failed to directly provide the information by the reply date of 30.01.2025. Instead, the PIO merely chose to forward the matter to the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayati Raj), Development Block-CT, Mirzapur, instructing him to provide the information by 28.01.2025. Ultimately, the PIO stated that the answer was “incomplete/unsatisfactory/false/misleading,” which further confirmed his own failure to deliver. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)
• FAA’s Failure: The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Deputy Director Satish Kumar, acknowledged the appeal. He directed the PIO to immediately provide the information to the appellant, even warning of potential penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Nevertheless, the FAA’s order dated 01.02.2025 did not result in the appellant receiving the information. Consequently, this made the FAA’s action ineffective. As a result, the answer is “unsatisfactory/false/misleading.”
• Subordinate’s Non-Compliance: The primary source of the failure appears to be the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayati Raj). Despite receiving direction from the PIO, he allegedly “did not provide information to the information seeker.” This action effectively paralyzed the RTI process at the subordinate level. Learn more about filing an RTI appeal effectively.

---

2. 📝 The Specific Information Sought (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

The information sought by the appellant directly pertains to transparency and accountability in local governance. It specifically focuses on the public information boards of Village Panchayat Lohandi Kala.

• Legible Copies: The appellant requested legible copies of two specific public information board images. Specifically, “Rajesh Saini” uploaded these images on 06.01.2023, whereas “Anup Dube” uploaded them on 26.01.2024. Consequently, they uploaded the images to the GPDP portal in an illegible format.
• Personnel Details: Consequently, the details (name, designation, post, outsourced status, and charges) of Rajesh Saini and Anup Dube are provided. Indeed, they are the individuals who uploaded the documents. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)
• Monitoring Staff: The public staff responsible for monitoring the uploading of these public information board images includes their identity and designation. This essential responsibility, therefore, encompasses both the block/city level and the district level.

The appellant argues that the illegible uploading of these official documents is a sign of fraud and corruption. This indicates a “rampant misuse of the public fund.” It also necessitates an inquiry.

---

3. ⚖️ The Relief Sought

The Second Appeal is a plea to the State Information Commission to step in and enforce the law. This is due to the breakdown of the RTI process at the departmental level. The Prayer section clearly summarizes the procedural failure: (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

“First appellate authority requested public information officer to provide information and public information officer requested ADO Panchayat city to provide information but ADO Panchayat city did not provide information to the information seeker. Consequently public information officer district panchayat raj officer Mirzapur did not provide any information to the information seeker.”

The appellant is seeking:

• Provision of Sought Information: A directive to the DPRO Mirzapur to immediately provide the sought information (legible documents and personnel details). Therefore, it is imperative that this request is fulfilled promptly and efficiently.
• Appropriate Inquiry: Therefore, an order for an appropriate inquiry into the matter of alleged fraud and the consistent procrastination/non-compliance by the Block Development Officer (City) and ADO Panchayat is essential. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)
• Action Against Wrongdoers: An order to take harsh steps against the wrongdoers to strengthen public confidence and democratic values.

The entire issue hinges on the violation of the fundamental right to information, compounded by what the appellant believes is an intentional cover-up of alleged corruption by officers who have actively disregarded their legal obligations under the RTI Act.

Yes, the State Information Commission (SIC) has significant penal powers under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Since the appellant is making a Second Appeal under Section 19(3), he is directly petitioning the SIC to exercise these powers against the non-compliant officials.

⚖️ Penal Provisions under RTI Act, Section 20 (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

Section 20 of the RTI Act empowers the SIC to impose penalties on the Public Information Officer (PIO) if it is of the opinion that the officer acted without any reasonable cause.

1. Monetary Penalty (Section 20(1)) (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

The SIC can impose a direct monetary penalty on the PIO for various defaults:

Grounds for Penalty (Without Reasonable Cause)	Penalty Details
Refused to receive an application.	₹250 per day
Failed to furnish the information within the specified time limit (30 days).	₹250 per day
Malafidely denied the request.	₹250 per day
Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.	₹250 per day
Destroyed information that was the subject of the request.	₹250 per day
Obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information.	₹250 per day

• Maximum Limit: The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
• Personal Liability: The penalty is recovered from the salary of the erring PIO. It is not borne by the Public Authority.
• Burden of Proof: The PIO bears the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently.

2. Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2)) (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

In addition to imposing a monetary penalty, the SIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

This is typically done if the Commission finds that the PIO has persistently and without reasonable cause done any of the acts listed above.

---

🎯 Application to the Appellant’s Case

In the current appeal by Yogi M. P. Singh, the SIC would investigate the following facts to determine if a penalty is warranted: (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

1. Failure to Furnish Information in Time: The PIO failed to provide the information by the initial deadline (stated in the appeal as 30-01-2025). The delay until the date of the second appeal (17/03/2025) is a direct violation of Section 7(1), attracting the daily penalty.
2. Knowingly Giving Incomplete/Misleading Information: The PIO’s response on 30.01.2025 was marked by the appellant as “incomplete/unsatisfactory/false/misleading,” which is a specific ground for penalty under Section 20(1).
3. Obstruction/Non-Compliance: The PIO (DPRO) and the FAA (Deputy Director) both directed a subordinate officer, the ADO Panchayat City, to provide the information. Since the ADO Panchayat allegedly “did not provide information,” the SIC may use the “Deemed PIO” provision (Section 5(5)). (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

Deemed PIO: The officer whose assistance was sought by the PIO (the ADO Panchayat) is considered a Deemed PIO under Section 5(5) and is equally liable for non-compliance, allowing the SIC to potentially impose the penalty on the ADO Panchayat, who is cited as the source of the final delay.

---

🏛️ Other Powers of the State Information Commission

Beyond penalties, the SIC has broad powers to ensure compliance with the RTI Act (Section 19(8)): (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

• Order Access: Direct the Public Authority to provide the requested information in a specific form (e.g., providing legible copies of the public information boards, as requested by the appellant).
• Compensation: Require the Public Authority requires compensation for the complainant. This compensation is for any loss or other detriment suffered. This was specifically requested by the appellant in his prayer for relief. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)
• Systemic Changes: Direct the public authority to make necessary changes to its practices. These changes should relate to the maintenance, management, and destruction of records. This would address the core issue of illegible documents being uploaded and monitored.
• Inquiry: Initiate an inquiry into the matter. Exercise the powers of a Civil Court to summon witnesses, such as the ADO Panchayat, Rajesh Saini, and Anup Dube. Requisition public records. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

By filing the Second Appeal, the appellant is asking the SIC to leverage all these powers. The appellant seeks to penalize the PIO/Deemed PIO for non-compliance. They also request to compensate him for the detriment. Furthermore, they want to direct the release of the information to expose the alleged corruption.

The user is requesting web links relevant to the Second Appeal they provided, which concerns the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This appeal relates to the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur. It also pertains to the GPDP portal. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

Here are the most relevant web links based on the context and the search results:

1. 🏛️ Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

These links are crucial for tracking the Second Appeal and checking the UPIC’s proceedings. (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

• UPIC Official Website (General): (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)
  • https://upsic.up.gov.in/
  • (Use this for general information, rules, and circulars.)
• UPIC Cause List (Hearing Status):
  • https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/view_weekly_cause_list
  • (The appellant can use this to check when their case, UPICR20240000149 / A-20250300946, is scheduled for online hearing.)
• RTI Online Portal (UP Government) – Status Check:
  • https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/status.php
  • (Use this to check the status of the original RTI application: DIRPR/R/2024/60814, and the First Appeal: DIRPR/A/2025/60041, if they were filed through this portal.)

2. 🏘️ Panchayati Raj Department & GPDP (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

These links pertain to the department involved and the portal where the alleged “illegible public information board images” were uploaded.

• Panchayati Raj Department, UP Official Website:
  • https://panchayatiraj.up.nic.in/
  • (This is the main portal for the department in Uttar Pradesh, under which the DPRO Mirzapur operates.)
• GPDP (Gram Panchayat Development Plan) Portal – Public Information Board (PIB) Images:
  • https://gpdp.nic.in/PIBImagesReport.html
  • (The appellant can check the overall status of PIB image uploads here, which relates directly to the information they are seeking.)
• Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur District Contact/Information (General Mirzapur Portal):
  • https://mirzapur.nic.in/divisions/district-contact-no/
  • (This provides official contact details for various district administration officers in Mirzapur.)

3. 📜 Legal Reference (RTI Act) (Challenging RTI Responses in Mirzapur)

• RTI Act, 2005 – Section 20 (Penalties):
  • (This is the statutory source for the penalties the appellant is asking the SIC to impose.)