This is a serious matter concerning the alleged misuse of public land and a lack of transparency in the response to an RTI application.

Here is a structured blog post based on the details provided:

---

🦁 Alleged Land Scam and RTI Blockade in Mirzapur: The Lions Club School Controversy

The saga involving the Lions Club, the Mirzapur Municipality, and a prime piece of land leased for a pittance has raised serious questions about public accountability, official complicity, and the sanctity of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

📍 The Core Issue: Public Land Misappropriation

The crux of the matter revolves around a valuable parcel of municipality land located in the heart of Mirzapur City.

• Original Purpose: The land was leased to the Lions Club at a nominal rate of Rs. 50 per annum. The stated purpose was for gardening intended for the development of children belonging to low-income families.
• Alleged Misuse: The Lions Club is now accused of constructing the ‘Lions School’ on this same land and using it for commercial activities, a clear deviation from the non-profit, social purpose for which the land was originally sanctioned.
• Financial Gravity: The appellant asserts that the land’s current market value is in the “billions of rupees,” making the annual lease amount of Rs. 50 grossly inadequate and suggesting deep-rooted corruption.
• Official Overlook: It is further noted that the sanction for the lease was allegedly granted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, overlooking the viewpoints of the Mirzapur City Municipality board, which had reportedly decided to reclaim the land.

🚫 The RTI Roadblock: Escaping Accountability

A citizen, Yogi M. P. Singh, filed an RTI application to uncover the details, but the response has been met with significant delay, prompting a First Appeal.

1. The Initial RTI Application

Detail	Information
Registration Number	DOUDV/R/2025/60046
Date of Filing	02/02/2025
Public Authority	Urban Development Department
PIO Name	Ambrish Kumar Srivastava (Section Officer, NV-6)
Status (as of Appeal Date)	RTI REQUEST RECEIVED (No action taken)

2. Grounds for the First Appeal

The appellant filed a First Appeal on 20/03/2025 (Registration Number: DOUDV/A/2025/60053) stating:

• Violation of RTI Act, Section 7(1): The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to entertain the RTI application for over one and a half months, violating the stipulated timeline for providing information.
• Suspected Corruption: The appellant believes the PIO is deliberately withholding information because “whatever is committed by the senior rank officers in extending the lease of the municipality land is corruption oriented.
• DIOS Complicity: The District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) is also mentioned as “escaping from this matter,” implying official unwillingness to intervene in the school’s commercial operation on public land.

📢 Call for Action and Relief Sought

The First Appeal is a humble request to the Appellate Authority, Mr. Sajeevan NV-6 (Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department), to take immediate and decisive action.

• Direct Information Disclosure: Direct the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant at the earliest.
• Disciplinary Proceedings: Initiate disciplinary proceedings against the PIO, Ambrish Kumar Srivastava, for a blatant violation of subsection one of section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which undermines the core principles of transparency and accountability.

---

This incident highlights the urgent need for robust checks and balances in the allotment and use of public assets, and firm enforcement of the RTI Act to curb corruption that is “growing like jungle fire.” The public awaits a transparent and accountable resolution to this critical issue.

---

Based on the details provided in your appeal form, here are the contact and application details for both the original RTI request and the First Appeal concerning the Lions Club land matter.

📝 RTI Application & Appeal Details

Detail Type	Original RTI Request (U/S 6(1))	First Appeal (U/S 19(1))
Registration Number	DOUDV/R/2025/60046	DOUDV/A/2025/60053
Date of Filing	02/02/2025	20/03/2025
Applicant Name	Yogi M P Singh	Yogi M P Singh
Applicant Mobile	+91-7379105911	+91-7379105911 (Provided in the source search)
Applicant Email	yogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com	yogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

---

📞 Public Authority & Appellate Contacts

Authority	PIO (for RTI Request DOUDV/R/2025/60046)	FAA (for First Appeal DOUDV/A/2025/60053)
Name	Ambrish Kumar Srivastava	Sajeevan NV-6
Designation	Section Officer (NV-6)	Deputy Secretary (NV-6)
Phone No.	9454419927	9454413781
Email ID	sonagarvikas6@gmail.com	nagarvikassection6@gmail.com
Concerned Department	Urban Development Department, Uttar Pradesh	Urban Development Department, Uttar Pradesh

The Nodal Officer for the department is also listed as SAJIVAN with the email so.nagarvikas8@gmail.com.

---

🌐 Web Link for Status Tracking

You can track the status of your RTI Appeal (DOUDV/A/2025/60053) on the official RTI Online Portal of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

• RTI Online (UP Govt.) Status Link: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/status.php

To track the status, you will typically need to enter:

1. Your Registration Number (e.g., DOUDV/A/2025/60053).
2. Your Email ID (yogimpsingh@gmail.com).
3. The Captcha code.

Since your First Appeal was filed on March 20, 2025, and no response was mentioned, you may be approaching or may have already filed a Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

The mechanism for taking action against the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) or an Information Commissioner (IC) is detailed in the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.^{1 The process is designed to ensure their independence, similar to the removal process for judges of the Supreme Court.2}

The key authority for removal is the President of India (for Central Information Commission) or the Governor (for State Information Commission).³

---

1. ⚖️ Removal on Grounds of Proved Misbehaviour or Incapacity

This is the most stringent mechanism, requiring a judicial inquiry.⁴

Mechanism

1. Reference to Supreme Court: The President (for CIC) or the Governor (for SIC) refers the matter of proved misbehaviour or incapacity to the Supreme Court of India for an inquiry.⁵
2. Suspension During Inquiry: The President/Governor may suspend the Commissioner from office or prohibit them from attending the office until final orders are passed.⁶
3. Supreme Court Inquiry: The Supreme Court conducts an inquiry into the allegations.⁷
4. Final Removal Order: If the Supreme Court, after the inquiry, upholds the cause of removal and advises so, the President/Governor must then issue an order for the removal of the Commissioner.⁸

---

2. ⚡️ Removal for Specific Statutory Conditions

The President or Governor can remove a Commissioner by order without the Supreme Court inquiry if the Commissioner:9

1. Is adjudged an insolvent (bankrupt).¹⁰
2. Has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the President/Governor, involves moral turpitude.¹¹
3. Engages during their term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of their office.¹²
4. Is, in the opinion of the President/Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body.¹³
5. Has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially their functions as a Commissioner (Conflict of Interest).¹⁴

Note: An Information Commissioner is also deemed guilty of misbehaviour if they are concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government, or participate in the profit thereof, other than as a member and in common with other members of an incorporated company.¹⁵

---

3. 🎯 Who Initiates Action (Complaint Mechanism)

While the removal process is handled by the executive head (President/Governor) and the judiciary (Supreme Court), a citizen who is aggrieved by the functioning of the Commission may file a complaint.

• A formal complaint against an Information Commissioner’s general conduct or failure to act (like persistent non-disposal of cases) can be addressed to the President of India (for the CIC) or the Governor (for the SIC), depending on the Commission involved.
• This complaint would form the basis for the government to initiate the formal removal process, if the allegations meet the statutory grounds for removal.