The case of Yogi M P Singh vs. PUVVNL serves as a stark reminder of the hurdles citizens face when exercising their democratic rights.

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of this RTI dispute:

1. Systemic Violation of Statutory Timelines

The most glaring issue is the breach of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. While the law mandates a response within 30 days, the PIO (Manish Kumar Srivastava) failed to provide any information or decision from February 23 to April 17, representing a total collapse of the prescribed legal timeframe.

2. Evasion of Accountability in Public Utilities

The information sought was not sensitive or classified; it concerned electricity billing logic, meter data, and refund mechanisms. The PIO’s silence suggests an attempt to shield the department from scrutiny regarding potential billing irregularities or administrative errors.

3. The Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The filing of the First Appeal shifts the responsibility to Ram Das (SE & AA). The takeaway here is that the FAA’s role is not just to provide the information, but to act as a quasi-judicial body that can—and should—recommend disciplinary action against subordinates who willfully obstruct the flow of information.

4. “Deemed Refusal” as a Bureaucratic Tool

By not responding, the public authority forces a “deemed refusal.” This is a common tactic used to exhaust the applicant, hoping they will not have the persistence to pursue the matter through the First Appeal or the State Information Commission.

5. Transparency as a Consumer Right

This case highlights that RTI is a vital tool for consumer protection. Without access to the “grounds of the bill” or the “mechanism for a refund,” the consumer (connection holder) is left powerless against the state-run utility provider.

---

Summary Table: Case Breakdown

Feature	Details
Primary Violation	Non-response within the 30-day limit (Section 7(1))
Key Public Authority	Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PUVVNL)
Information Sought	Billing grounds, Meter #6684377 details, Refund process
Requested Action	Information disclosure + Disciplinary proceedings against PIO

---

Would you like me to help you prepare a set of talking points or a “rejoinder” in case the FAA calls for an in-person or virtual hearing?

The Erosion of Transparency: A Case Study of RTI Non-Compliance in Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was heralded as a milestone in Indian democracy. Designed to dismantle the “culture of secrecy” within government offices, it aimed to empower citizens by making transparency the rule and secrecy the exception. However, two decades later, the implementation of this Act is often met with systemic resistance.

A recent case involving Yogi M P Singh and the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PUVVNL) in Mirzapur highlights a growing and troubling trend: the blatant disregard for statutory timelines by public authorities in Uttar Pradesh.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Simple Quest for Accountability

The issue began on February 23, 2025, when the appellant filed an RTI application (Registration No: PUVNL/R/2025/60112) seeking clarity on electricity billing discrepancies. The queries were straightforward and concerned public service delivery:

1. The grounds and authorization behind specific electricity bills.
2. Details of the personnel responsible for issuing said bills.
3. Information regarding Meter Number: 6684377 used as the basis for billing.
4. Clarification on charges levied when a meter shows “zero reading.”
5. The legal mechanism for consumers to claim refunds for overcharged amounts.

Despite these queries being well within the scope of the Act and the information being under the direct possession of the Executive Engineer (EE) and PIO, Manish Kumar Srivastava, the application was met with absolute silence.

---

Statutory Deadlines vs. Bureaucratic Apathy

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, a Public Information Officer (PIO) is legally mandated to provide the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application. If the PIO fails to give a decision within this period, it is deemed a “refusal” under the law.

In this instance, the 30-day window expired in late March 2025. By the time the First Appeal was filed on April 17, 2025 (Registration No: PUVNL/A/2025/60098), the PIO had exceeded the time limit significantly. This is not merely a procedural delay; it is a violation of a fundamental right. When public authorities “run away” from providing information, they are essentially insulating themselves from accountability.

---

The First Appeal: Seeking Redressal from the FAA

Faced with the PIO’s inaction, the appellant moved to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), overseen by Ram Das (SE & AA EDC Fatha, Mirzapur). The prayer in the appeal is two-fold and critical for the health of the system:

• Direction for Information: An immediate order for the PIO to provide the 5-point information requested.
• Disciplinary Action: A request to initiate proceedings against the PIO for violating Section 7(1).

This second point is crucial. Without punitive consequences for non-compliance, the RTI Act becomes a “toothless tiger.” The law allows for penalties of ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) for unreasonable delays, yet these penalties are rarely invoked at the departmental level, emboldening officers to ignore requests.

---

The Core Issues: Why Does This Matter?

1. The Weaponization of Silence

Silence is often used by public authorities as a strategy to exhaust the applicant. By not responding, the PIO forces the citizen into a cycle of appeals, which requires more time, energy, and sometimes financial resources. This effectively acts as a deterrent against future inquiries.

2. Lack of Internal Oversight

The PUVVNL case suggests a breakdown in the internal monitoring of RTI applications. Nodal officers and heads of departments often fail to audit the pendency of RTI requests, leading to a culture where “no response” is seen as a safe default.

3. Public Service and Consumer Rights

The information sought in this case—details on electricity billing and refund mechanisms—directly affects the livelihood of the common man. When a utility provider like PUVVNL hides the “mechanism to get a refund,” it suggests a lack of consumer-centricity and potential systemic overcharging.

---

The Path Forward: Restoring the Spirit of RTI

For the RTI Act to survive in Uttar Pradesh and across India, several structural shifts are necessary:

• Mandatory Digital Tracking: Every RTI should be tracked on a public dashboard. If a request exceeds 30 days without a response, it should automatically trigger an alert to the higher authorities and the State Information Commission.
• Strict Imposition of Penalties: The First Appellate Authority must stop being “lenient” toward their colleagues. If a PIO has no reasonable cause for delay, a recommendation for a penalty must be made mandatory.
• Sensitization and Training: Many PIOs view RTI as an additional burden rather than a core duty. Periodic training on the democratic importance of transparency is essential.

---

Conclusion

The case of Yogi M P Singh vs. PUVVNL is a microcosm of a larger struggle for transparency in Uttar Pradesh. When an Executive Engineer ignores an inquiry about billing and meter data, it raises a simple but haunting question: What is the department trying to hide?

Transparency is the only antidote to corruption. If the government of Uttar Pradesh wishes to promote “Good Governance,” it must ensure that its public authorities treat the RTI Act not as an annoyance, but as a sacred duty to the citizens they serve.

To assist you in following up on your appeal or for future correspondence, here are the structured contact details for the specific public authorities involved in your RTI case.

1. Primary Public Information Officer (PIO)

This is the officer responsible for the initial response to your RTI application.

• Name: Manish Kumar Srivastava
• Designation: Executive Engineer (EE) & PIO, EDD-2 Fatah Mirzapur
• Mobile Number: 9450963598
• Official Email: ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
• Office Address: Electricity Distribution Division-II, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

2. First Appellate Authority (FAA)

This is the senior officer you have approached via the appeal filed on 17/04/2025.

• Name: Ram Das
• Designation: Superintending Engineer (SE) & AA, EDC Fatha Mirzapur
• Mobile Number: 9415304000 / 9450963764
• Official Email: se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in or se.secworksmirzapur@puvvnl.in
• Office Address: Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Nodal RTI Officer (Headquarters)

The Nodal Officer oversees the RTI portal and administrative flow for the entire Discom.

• Name: Sandeep Kumar Verma
• Mobile Number: 7906260442 / 9453047544
• Official Email: rti@puvvnl.in / rtipuvvnl@gmail.com
• Office Address: PUVVNL Headquarters, DLW Bhikharipur, Varanasi – 221004.

---

Official Web Links & Portals

• Discom Website: puvvnl.in
• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (Used for filing and checking status in Uttar Pradesh).
• UPPCL Official Portal: uppcl.org (Parent body for all electricity distribution in UP).

---

Summary Table for Quick Reference

Authority Level	Contact Person	Email	Phone/Mobile
PIO (Mirzapur)	Manish Kr. Srivastava	ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in	9450963598
FAA (Mirzapur)	Ram Das	se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in	9415304000
Nodal Officer (VNS)	Sandeep Kr. Verma	rti@puvvnl.in	7906260442
HQ Managing Director	Shambhu Kumar, IAS	md@puvvnl.in	0542-2318437

Would you like me to help you draft a formal grievance for the Chief Minister’s Jan Sunwai (IGRS) portal regarding this delay?