Accountability in Crisis: How the Mirzapur DPRO is Evading the RTI Act and Public Interest

In a functioning democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 serves as the lungs of transparency. However, in the Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh, those lungs are being constricted. The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. The District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO) is not just a personal legal battle; it is a glaring example of administrative negligence, the defiance of senior orders, and a potential financial quagmire involving GST rates that impacts the public exchequer.

The Core of the Dispute: A Wall of Silence

The conflict began when RTI activist Yogi M.P. Singh sought clarity on government orders related to GST deductions for contractors. Instead of transparency, the applicant was met with a series of bureaucratic “dodges.”

The DPRO Mirzapur has allegedly refused access to information, claiming the matter does not concern his department. This claim stands in stark contrast to the fact that senior officials—including the Deputy Director of Panchayati Raj—had previously directed the DPRO (via letter no. 488 dated 05-12-2023) to provide the requested information.

By ignoring both the applicant and his own superiors, the DPRO is not just withholding a document; he is challenging the hierarchy of the state’s administrative machinery.

The GST Retrospective Trap: 12% to 18%

At the heart of the information request is a significant financial issue: the increase of GST on government tenders from 12% to 18%.

The appellant is seeking information on Government Order No. 02/2022/E-8-292/Dec-2022, dated September 13, 2022. The crux of the issue lies in three specific questions:

1. The Certified Copy: The applicant requires the official, certified version of the GO that implements these rates.
2. Retrospective Application: Tenders issued between 2020 and 2022 are now being subjected to 2023 tax rates. The appellant is asking for the specific circular or office memo that allows a government order to be applied retrospectively to older contracts.
3. Guidelines for Ratification: Is there a legal framework that justifies this “ipso facto” increase, or is it an arbitrary burden being placed on contractors (and ultimately, the taxpayers)?

If GST is being hiked on old contracts without a valid retrospective legal provision, it creates an “extra burden” that could lead to stalled projects, litigation, and the misuse of public funds.

Violation of Section 6(3): A Legal Breach

The DPRO’s refusal to provide information on the grounds that it “doesn’t concern his office” is a violation of the RTI Act, Section 6(3).

Under the Act, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) receives a request for information that is held by another public authority, they must transfer the application to that authority within five days and inform the applicant. They cannot simply “close” the file or deny the request.

By arbitrarily closing the application, the DPRO has effectively bypassed the law to avoid accountability. This is often a “delay tactic” used when the information sought might reveal administrative lapses or financial irregularities.

---

Key Details of the Appeal

Field	Information
Appeal Registration No.	DIRPR/A/2025/60275
Appellant	Yogi M.P. Singh
Appellate Authority	Deputy Director, Mirzapur
Primary Grievance	Refusal of access to info & Violation of Sec 6(3)
Status	Appeal Received (17/03/2025)

---

Why This Matters to the Public

This case isn’t just about GST or a single officer’s defiance; it is about the erosion of the rule of law. When a District Level Officer ignores the written directives of a Deputy Director, it signals a breakdown in the chain of command.

• Financial Impact: If contractors are unfairly burdened by a 6% tax hike on old tenders, the cost of public infrastructure—roads, schools, and sanitation—increases, or the quality decreases.
• Constitutional Rights: The appellant filed this under Article 51A of the Constitution, emphasizing the fundamental duty of a citizen to seek transparency in the “administrative machinery.
• Systemic Corruption: The refusal to provide a simple Government Order (GO) suggests that the implementation of the GST hike may not have been done “by the book.”

The Prayer for Relief

The appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, has approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a clear demand:

1. Action against the DPRO: For the willful violation of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
2. Immediate Disclosure: To provide the certified copies of the GST circulars and the legal justification for their retrospective application.
3. Supervisory Intervention: Ensuring that the DPRO no longer overlooks the directions of senior rank officers.

Conclusion: A Test for the Panchayati Raj Directorate

The status of this appeal as of March 17, 2025, remains “Appeal Received.” The eyes of the public and the local contractors are now on the Deputy Director (FAA) and the Nodal Officer, Shri S.N. Singh.

Will the directorate uphold the law and penalize the defiance of the DPRO, or will this become another example of “bureaucratic brotherhood” protecting its own? Transparency is not a favor granted by the government to the citizen; it is a right. In Mirzapur, that right is currently under siege.

This scenario highlights a classic administrative conflict where the “change in law” clause of a contract meets bureaucratic inertia. When the GST rate increased from 12% to 18% (specifically via Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) which impacted works contracts), it created a direct financial hit for contractors working on thin margins.

The fear of retaliation (“If they speak, action will be taken”) is exactly why the Right to Information (RTI) Act and Article 51A of the Constitution are vital. They allow for an objective, paper-trail-based challenge rather than a verbal confrontation.

Here is a breakdown of the legal and financial protections available to contractors in this situation:

---

1. The “Change in Law” Principle

Most standard government contract forms (like those used by the PWD or Panchayati Raj) contain a “Change in Law” or “Tax Variation” clause.

• The Logic: Tenders are submitted based on the tax structure prevailing on the date of the bid. If the government changes the tax rate during the subsistence of the contract, the “burden” should not fall on the contractor unless specifically stated.
• The Problem: The DPRO Mirzapur is refusing to provide the circular that explains how this 6% gap is to be bridged. Without this document, the department can claim they don’t have the “authority” to pay the higher rate, forcing the contractor to absorb the loss.

2. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application

The core of your RTI query is whether the GO dated September 13, 2022, can be applied retrospectively.

• In legal terms, a tax increase is usually prospective.
• If a project was 90% complete at the 12% rate, the department cannot legally demand a refund or deduct 18% from the entire project value unless the law specifically mandates retrospective recovery.

3. The “Silence as Coercion” Strategy

The DPRO’s refusal to transfer the RTI under Section 6(3) is a strategic move to silence contractors. By keeping the official guidelines hidden:

1. Contractors remain unsure of their rights.
2. Payment of the 6% difference is stalled indefinitely.
3. The department avoids the “extra burden” on its own budget by passing it to the private citizen.

4. Legal Protections Against Retaliation

If the DPRO or any officer takes adverse action (blacklisting, stopping payments, or cancelling tenders) because a contractor asked for their legal rights via RTI:

• Whistleblower Protection: While the Whistleblowers Protection Act is specific, the Hon’ble High Courts have frequently intervened in cases where “malafide” (bad faith) actions were taken by officials against RTI applicants.
• Writ of Mandamus: Since the Deputy Director (FAA) has already issued a direction (Letter No. 488) that the DPRO is ignoring, you have a strong ground to approach the State Information Commission (SIC) or the High Court to seek a “Mandamus”—a court order forcing the officer to do their duty.

---

Comparison of GST Impact on Tenders

Stage of Tender	Original GST Rate	New GST Rate	Responsibility
Bidding (2020-2022)	12%	–	Contractor (Based on law)
Execution (Post-Sept 2022)	–	18%	Department (Usually via variation clause)
DPRO Mirzapur’s Stance	–	18%	Contractor (By denying the circular)

---

What Can Be Done Now?

Since the DPRO is “escaping” and the contractors are fearful, the focus must stay on the Paper Trail:

1. Escalate to the SIC: Since the appeal was filed on 17/03/2025, if the FAA (Deputy Director) does not provide a hearing or a decision within 30-45 days, you must file a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission in Lucknow.
2. Request a “Deemed Refusal” Penalty: Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, you can pray to the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day on the DPRO for willfully denying information.
3. Joint Representation: While individual contractors fear retaliation, a registered association of contractors can file a representative suit or memorandum. There is safety in numbers.

To assist you in escalating this matter and ensuring the DPRO Mirzapur is held accountable for violating the RTI Act, here are the organized contact details and digital links for the relevant public authorities.

1. Primary Authorities (Mirzapur District)

These are the officials directly responsible for the first appeal and the oversight of the DPRO’s office.

Authority	Name/Designation	Email Address	Mobile / Phone
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Deputy Director, Mirzapur	ddprmi-up@nic.in	+91-9457546534
Public Information Officer (PIO)	DPRO Mirzapur	dpromi-up@nic.in	+91-941537XXXX
Nodal Officer (State Level)	Shri S.N. Singh	up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com	N/A

---

2. State Level Oversight (Lucknow)

Since the DPRO is ignoring senior directions, these state-level bodies have the power to initiate disciplinary action and address the 6% GST gap.

• Directorate of Panchayati Raj, UP
  • Website: panchayatiraj.up.nic.in
  • Email: infoprj@nic.in / up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com
  • Address: 6th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow – 226001.
• Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)
  • Website: upsic.gov.in
  • Purpose: To file a Second Appeal if the FAA does not provide the information within 30-45 days.
  • Online RTI Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Department of Finance (Section-8), UP
  • Context: This is the department that issued the GST order (No. 02/2022/E-8-292/Dec-2022).
  • Website: finance.up.nic.in

---

3. Quick Reference IDs

• Current RTI Appeal ID: DIRPR/A/2025/60275
• Original RTI Application ID: DIRPR/R/2025/60094
• Previous Transfer ID: DIRPR/R/2023/80583
• Key Directive Letter No: 488 (dated 05-12-2023)

---

4. Direct Web Links for Grievance Redressal

If you believe the officer is intentionally “escaping” his duties and harassing the public interest, you can also file a complaint through the Chief Minister’s portal:

• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Use this to report the defiance of Letter No. 488 by the DPRO.
• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

Summary of Next Steps

1. Monitor the FAA: Since your appeal was filed on 17/03/2025, the Deputy Director has until 16/04/2025 (30 days) to pass an order.
2. Evidence of Defiance: Keep a copy of the Letter No. 488 ready. This is your strongest evidence that the DPRO is knowingly disobeying senior orders.
3. Second Appeal: If the FAA remains silent or provides an unsatisfactory response, you should immediately move to the State Information Commission in Lucknow.

Would you like me to draft a strong “Letter of Grievance” to the Nodal Officer (up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com) highlighting that the DPRO is causing financial loss to contractors by withholding these GST guidelines?