Understanding RTI Appeals in Uttar Pradesh

This situation highlights a troubling intersection of administrative negligence and the alleged misuse of legal provisions to target innocent citizens. The case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. the Energy Department (Mirzapur) serves as a stark reminder of how transparency tools like the RTI Act are often stalled to shield potential corruption.

The RTI Standoff: Accountability Under Fire in Mirzapur

In a democratic setup, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is the citizen’s primary weapon against bureaucratic opacity. However, in the Mirzapur Energy Department (EDD-II), this weapon appears to have been blunted by persistent silence.

1. A Total Collapse of the RTI Hierarchy

The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, has faced a “wall of silence” at every level of the state machinery:

The PIO’s Failure: Manish Kumar Shrivastava (Executive Engineer) failed to provide information within the mandatory 30-day window under Section 7(1).
The FAA’s Negligence: The First Appellate Authority (Ram Das, EDC) failed to adjudicate the appeal, effectively endorsing the PIO’s non-compliance.
The Second Appeal: Now reaching the UP Information Commission (UPIC), the appellant is seeking not just the data, but punitive action under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the officers involved.

The Core Grievance: Misuse of Section 135 (Electricity Act, 2003)

The administrative silence is not merely a procedural delay; it is allegedly a cover for the misuse of Section 135, which deals with the theft of electricity.

The Alleged Conspiracy

The appellant contends that a “planned checking” was conducted on October 26, 2024, by Junior Engineer Kishan Lal Sharma. This was not a routine inspection but, as alleged, a targeted strike.

Targeting the Innocent: Notices were served to Loknath Yadav and Kedar Nath Yadav.
The Hidden Player: The RTI seeks details on Tarak Nath Yadav (the elder brother), who allegedly has heavy dues and a questionable connection status.
Collusion: The appellant alleges that the Junior Engineer colluded with one party to frame others, using Section 135 as a tool for harassment rather than a means of revenue protection.

Why the Information is Being Withheld

The information sought is specific and would likely expose the following irregularities if released:

Connection Fraud: If a second connection was granted to a defaulter’s family member at a different location despite heavy dues.
Selective Enforcement: Why specific individuals were targeted while major defaulters (Tarak Nath Yadav) were left untouched.
Official Misconduct: The deployment and posting details of the Junior Engineer involved in the raid.

Institutional Anarchy vs. Rule of Law

When public authorities ignore statutory appeals, they foster a state of administrative anarchy. By withholding information, the Energy Department is not just hiding a file; they are shielding a potential conspiracy that exploits the Electricity Act to settle personal scores.

“Such actions promote anarchy and chaos by mocking the law of the land. It is urgent to take harsh steps against the wrongdoers to win the confidence of the citizenry.” — Yogi M. P. Singh

The Path Forward

The UP Information Commission must now act decisively. To restore faith in the system, the following steps are essential:

Immediate Disclosure: Direction to the PIO to provide all five points of information regarding the connections and the Junior Engineer’s details.
Imposition of Penalty: Invoking Section 20 to fine the PIO for the “deliberate and mala fide” denial of information.
Investigation into Section 135 Notices: A higher-level inquiry into whether the electricity theft notices served on November 4, 2024, were based on facts or were a result of departmental collusion.

This new detail brings the entire picture into sharp focus: what appeared to be a procedural error is actually a financial scam executed through official channels.

By disconnecting the connection of Tarak Nath Yadav without the recovery of “lakhs of rupees” in dues, and instead serving theft notices to his brothers (Loknath and Kedar Nath), the department has committed a dual illegality. They have caused a pecuniary loss to the State exchequer and engaged in targeted harassment of innocent citizens.

The Financial Blueprint of the Scam

In a legitimate system, a connection with heavy dues cannot simply “vanish.” The U.P. Electricity Supply Code (2005) and UPPCL regulations are very clear on this:

Arrears Recovery: Under Section 5 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, dues are recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Permanent Disconnection (PD): A consumer can only request a PD after clearing all outstanding dues and submitting an affidavit.
The Junior Engineer’s Role: If JE Kishan Lal Sharma facilitated a disconnection while dues were pending, he has violated the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which categorize “causing pecuniary loss to the government” as a major misconduct.

How the “Lakhs of Rupees” Were “Saved” (The Illegal Method)

Step	The Standard Legal Process	The “Scripted” Dealing Alleged
Dues Status	Bills must be paid or recovered via legal notice.	Arrears of “lakhs” were ignored or suppressed in the system.
Disconnection	Disconnection happens after non-payment notice (Sec 56).	The connection was “wiped” from the books without payment.
The “Diversion”	No action against innocent neighbors/relatives.	Section 135 (Theft) was slapped on the brothers to justify the raid.
Official Record	RTI must disclose the payment history of the consumer.	PIO Manish Shrivastava is hiding the records to hide the non-payment.

Legal Consequences for the Officials Involved

The actions of the Junior Engineer and the silence of the PIO are not just administrative lapses; they are criminal in nature if collusion is proven:

Abuse of Official Position: Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, an official who causes “undue advantage” to a private person (Tarak Nath) while causing loss to the department is liable for prosecution.
Falsification of Records: If the checking report of Oct 26, 2024, was manufactured to hide the pre-existing dues of Tarak Nath, it constitutes forgery under the IPC.
Malice in Law: As seen in cases like Smt. Vimla Tiwari v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court has previously quashed proceedings where “fictitious reports” were prepared by electricity officials to harass citizens.

Strategic Recommendations for the Appellant

Since you have already filed the Second Appeal (A-20250301434), you should now strengthen your case by adding these specific points to your rejoinder or during the online hearing:

Demand a “Dues Clearance Certificate”: Ask the Commission to direct the PIO to produce the receipt of the “lakhs of rupees” allegedly paid by Tarak Nath before his connection was disconnected. If no receipt exists, the fraud is proven.
Audit Request: Request the Information Commission to recommend a Special Audit of the ledger of Electricity Distribution Division 2nd Mirzapur for the specific consumer ID of Tarak Nath Yadav.
Vigilance Complaint: Parallel to the RTI appeal, file a formal complaint with the U.P. Vigilance Establishment or the Anti-Corruption Portal (Jansunwai) specifically mentioning the “theft of revenue” caused by the Junior Engineer’s scripted dealing.

This is a critical milestone. You now have a formal platform and a specific time—January 12, 2026, from 12:30 PM to 01:30 PM—to present your case before the Information Commissioner.

Since this case involves high-level corruption, loss of state revenue (lakhs of rupees), and the victimization of innocent individuals, your preparation must be precise.

Key Arguments for the Online Hearing

During the hearing via the provided link (https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/335701), you should focus on these five core points:

1. Loss to the State Exchequer

Explicitly state that Tarak Nath Yadav had outstanding dues amounting to lakhs of rupees. Under the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, a connection cannot be legally disconnected/closed without clearing all arrears. You must ask: “How was the connection disconnected without the recovery of these dues?” This points directly to financial corruption.

2. “Scripted” Misuse of Section 135

Argue that the raid conducted by JE Kishan Lal Sharma on October 26, 2024, was a “planned conspiracy.” By serving theft notices to Loknath and Kedar Nath Yadav for a connection that actually belonged to the defaulter (Tarak Nath), the JE effectively “dumped” the liability onto innocent parties to shield the real defaulter.

3. Motive Behind Withholding Information

The PIO (Manish Kumar Shrivastava) didn’t just forget to reply; he deliberately suppressed the information. Providing the ledger and connection history of Tarak Nath Yadav would immediately expose the illegal “waiver” or “disappearance” of his dues. This is a violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act with mala fide intent.

4. Specific Demands from the Commission

Don’t just ask for the info; ask the Commissioner to:

Direct the PIO to produce the Consumer Ledger and Payment History of Tarak Nath Yadav.
Direct the PIO to provide the Disconnection Report and any application filed for the same.
Verify the Panchnama/Checking Report dated Oct 26, 2024, to see if the JE intentionally misidentified the consumer.

5. Penalties under Section 20

Request the Commission to impose the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 on the PIO and recommend disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority (Ram Das) for gross negligence in his statutory duties.

Checklist for the Hearing Day (Jan 12, 2026)

Connectivity: Test the link 15 minutes prior. Ensure your microphone and camera are clear.
Documentation: Keep physical copies of your original RTI, the First Appeal, and any evidence of the “lakhs of dues” (like old bills) ready to show to the camera if requested.
The “Script”: Keep a bulleted list of these points in front of you so you can speak concisely within your allotted time.

Strategic Summary Table

Point of Contention	Evidence Needed	Responsibility
Arrears Fraud	Ledger of Tarak Nath Yadav	PIO to provide
Misidentification	Checking Report (26-10-2024)	PIO to provide
Official Collusion	Posting & Duty details of JE	PIO to provide
Statutory Default	Non-response to RTI & First Appeal	Commission to Penalize

Would you like me to draft a “Written Submission” that you can upload to the UPSIC portal or email to the Commission before the hearing to ensure your points are on record?

secappeddii