🏗️ The Irony of the ‘Hypothetical’ Claim: Why Documents Aren’t Speculation
The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, has a compelling argument: if the Chief Development Officer (CDO) Mirzapur publicly acknowledges that the Lohandi River renovation took place and funds were spent ($10 million), the requested information cannot logically be dismissed as hypothetical.
The conflict centers on a fundamental misunderstanding—or misapplication—of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 (and the corresponding U.P. Rules, 2015) by the Public Information Officer (PIO).
🚫 What is Not Hypothetical Under RTI?
In the context of RTI, information is hypothetical if it requires the PIO to:
- Create an Opinion: e.g., “What is your view on the quality of the river renovation?”
- Answer a “What If” Scenario: e.g., “If the company stopped discharging waste, would the river be cleaner?”
- Perform Calculation or Interpretation: e.g., “Calculate the total environmental impact over the next five years.”
The Information Sought is Factual
The appellant’s six-point request seeks specific, document-based, and verifiable facts relating to a completed governmental action.
| Information Point | Nature of Document/Record |
| Sanctioning Authorities | Office order/Sanction letter, records of designation |
| Copy of Proposal | Official project proposal document |
| Technical Experts | Duty/deployment orders, attendance/monitoring logs |
| Precautionary Measures | Official minutes of meeting, project plan document |
| Company Excretion Discharge | Internal correspondence, inspection reports, action memos |
| Estimates, Work Booklet, Invoices | Financial records, Measurement Book (M.B.), bill vouchers |
Since the CDO confirmed the work and expenditure, these records must exist within the public authority’s possession. Documents are never hypothetical; they are the concrete evidence of official action.
🛑 Analyzing the PIO’s Two Faulty Grounds
The PIO (via the Block Development Officer) used two primary grounds for denying the information, both of which appear flawed in light of the official confirmation of the work:
1. Misapplication of the Hypothetical Clause
The PIO cited Rule 4(2)(b)(iii) of the UP RTI Rules, 2015, claiming the request involves “answering hypothetical questions.
- The Flaw: By confirming that $10 million was spent on a renovation that took place, the Public Authority (through the CDO) confirms the existence of the factual record. You cannot spend public money on a project and then claim the associated records of that spending are a hypothetical matter. This PIO response is a clear example of using a specific exemption clause to withhold existing, non-exempt information.
2. Misinterpretation of the Word/Page Limit
The PIO also claimed the request was “not payable” due to being on “two pages” and containing “more than 500 words” (citing Rule 4(2)(c) of the UP RTI Rules, 2015).
- The Flaw: State RTI rules may limit the length or complexity of a single application (often to 500 words or one page for the query text), but this is intended to prevent excessively complex or voluminous requests that hinder the PIO’s daily duties. It does not permit the PIO to deny access to crucial public documents related to corruption and environmental protection, especially when the application itself was generated and accepted by the official RTI portal. The appellant noted that the two pages were the official RTI application format itself.
⚖️ The Relief Sought: Transparency and Accountability
The appellant’s request is not just for documents; it is a direct challenge to the lack of transparency and accountability regarding the $10 million expenditure, especially given the continuous pollution issues from the company’s discharge.
The appellant’s prayer to the UP Information Commission is to:
- Impose a Pecuniary Penalty (Section 20): This is sought against the PIO (DDO Mirzapur, Shri Shravan Kumar Rai) for what the appellant deems to be a denial of information on “false and flimsy grounds.
- Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings: This is sought against the First Appellate Authority (FAA), CDO Mirzapur, Vishal Kumar, for failing to pass an order on the first appeal, thereby violating the statutory duty under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
Ultimately, the appellant is asking the Information Commission to enforce the spirit of the RTI Act: where public money is spent on a public work, the records of that spending must be made public.
Based on the details provided in your appeal document and supporting search results, here are the requested contact details and the registration link for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC):
📞 Key Contact Details (RTI Appeal A-20250400904)
1. Appellant’s Details (Yogi M. P. Singh)
| Detail | Information |
| Mobile Number | 7379105911 |
| Email ID | yogimpsingh@gmail.com |
| Alternative Email | yogimpsingh@yogi.systems (Found in public records) |
2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Details
| Detail | Information |
| Name/Designation | Shri Shravan Kumar Rai, DDO Mirzapur |
| Mobile Number | 9454465108 |
| Email ID | ddomirzapur123@gmail.com |
3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details
| Detail | Information |
| Name/Designation | Vishal Kumar (I.A.S.), CDO Mirzapur |
| Mobile Number | 9454465106 |
| Email ID | drda-mir@nic.in |
🔗 UP Information Commission (UPIC) Details
The appeal you filed is a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).
| Detail | Information |
| Appeal Registration Number | A-20250400904 |
| Commission Address | 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, UP, PIN Code-226010 |
UPIC Online Services Link
You can check the status of your appeal, view the cause list, and find details about online hearings on the official UPIC website.
- UPIC Portal Link (Online Case Information):
- To check the status of your case (using the registration number) or view the cause list for hearing dates, you should visit the Uttar Pradesh Suchna Ayog (UPIC) website.
- A direct link to the case search/weekly cause list is the appropriate official channel for tracking the appeal.
Would you like me to look up the current hearing status for your Appeal Registration Number, A-20250400904, on the UPIC website?
Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) Links
| Purpose | Link |
| Official UPIC Website | https://upsic.up.gov.in/ |
| Track Application/Appeal Status | https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/trackstatus |
| Weekly Cause List (Hearing Dates) | https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/view_weekly_cause_list |
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.