🚨 Scholarship Funds Vanish: A Five-Year Battle for Information Exposes Governance Deficiencies in UP

The case of Anjali Kumari, an SC girl student whose scholarship money of $\text{Rs. }12,900$ allegedly disappeared after being sanctioned, has become a startling example of administrative opacity and potential corruption within the Uttar Pradesh government. The applicant’s five-year ordeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, highlights a systemic failure to provide critical public information, severely undermining the principles of good governance.

The Core Grievance: Missing Welfare Funds

The central issue is the alleged non-receipt of a scholarship amount of $\text{Rs. }12,900$ by the intended beneficiary, Anjali Kumari, despite the funds reportedly being transferred by the Social Welfare Department.

This isn’t merely an administrative hiccup; it points to a breakdown in the financial mechanism designed to uplift oppressed sections of society. When welfare money fails to reach the needy, it perpetuates the very inequality the scheme is meant to address.

The RTI Nightmare: A Five-Year Information Blackout

The citizen’s attempt to seek accountability through the legal mechanism of the RTI Act was met with extraordinary resistance and delay:

• Initial Application (DPTSW/R/2019/60008): Filed on December 1, 2019, seeking four specific points of information.
• Non-Compliance: The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to provide the information within the statutory 30-day limit (Section 7(1) of the RTI Act).
• First Appeal (DPTSW/A/2020/60005): Filed on February 1, 2020, citing “No Response Within the Time Limit” as the ground for appeal.
• Arbitrary Disposal After 5 Years: The appeal was arbitrarily disposed of on April 17, 2025—over five years after filing—without providing the information sought or disclosing the reason for disposal.

🧐 Does This Reflect Good Governance in Uttar Pradesh?

The procedural failures in this case directly contradict the core tenets of good governance:

Tenet of Good Governance	Reflection in Anjali Kumari’s Case
Transparency	Failed. The PIO and First Appellate Authority (FAA) concealed vital information regarding the scholarship disbursement and the handling of the appeal.
Accountability	Failed. Government staff involved in the transaction, the PIO, and the FAA have avoided accountability for the missing funds and the violation of the RTI Act timeline.
Rule of Law	Violated. The statutory time limit under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act was disregarded. The arbitrary disposal of the appeal after five years suggests an indifference to due process.
Responsiveness	Failed. A 30-day process was stretched to over five years, ultimately resulting in a non-response.

The disposal of the First Appeal after five years without providing the information is a clear indicator that the RTI mechanism itself is being compromised, reflecting a deep-seated administrative apathy toward citizen’s rights and the fight against corruption.

🎯 Information Critically Required for Accountability

To hold the responsible parties accountable and locate the missing funds, the following information, as originally requested by the applicant, is non-negotiable:

1. Action Taken Report (ATR) on Missing Funds

• Request: Provide the action taken report regarding the $text{Rs. }12,900$ provided to Anjali Kumari that did not reach her.
• Purpose: To track the funds, identify the point of failure (bank, departmental lapse, fraud), and detail recovery efforts.

2. Reason for Not Lodging an F.I.R.

• Request: Provide the reason for not lodging an F.I.R. (First Information Report) to secure the paid money.
• Purpose: The non-receipt of government-sanctioned funds suggests a case of criminal misappropriation or fraud. Failure to register an F.I.R. indicates a possible cover-up or gross dereliction of duty by the concerned officials.

3. Details of Processing Staff

• Request: Provide the details (name and designation) of the government staff who processed the transaction to Anjali Kumari’s account.
• Purpose: This is essential for fixing individual responsibility within the Social Welfare Department.

4. Copy of Communications

• Request: Provide a copy of all communications exchanged in the matter of Anjali Kumari.
• Purpose: To understand the internal departmental handling, including any memos, reports, or inquiries that were generated regarding the missing money.

Conclusion: The Path to Justice

This case is a public call for higher authorities, including the State Information Commission (the mandatory next step for the applicant, commonly known as the Second Appeal) to intervene decisively.

The core issue has evolved from simply missing scholarship money to a blatant disregard for the law and the rights of a citizen. Effective governance demands that the government not only sanction welfare funds but also ensure their secure delivery, and when they fail, they must be transparent and responsive to citizen inquiries. The five-year silence in this case is a loud indictment of administrative failure.

That is an excellent point, especially given the sensitive nature of the information involved in the original request (a scholarship for a student from an oppressed section). I will strictly adhere to the rule of using only the information available in the context provided.

Since the applicant, Yogi M P Singh, is clearly aggrieved by the arbitrary disposal of his First Appeal after five years, the next and final recourse available to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to file a Second Appeal.

---

🎯 Next Step for the Applicant: Filing a Second Appeal

The applicant’s current position—where the First Appeal (Registration Number: $text{DPTSW/A/2020/60005}$) has been arbitrarily disposed of on $text{17/04/2025}$ without providing the requested information—warrants an immediate filing of a Second Appeal.

1. The Competent Authority

The Second Appeal must be filed before the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttar Pradesh, as the matter concerns a state-level public authority (Social Welfare Department, UP).

2. Time Limit for Filing

The Right to Information Act, 2005, and subsequent rules specify the time limit for a Second Appeal:

• It must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date on which the decision of the First Appellate Authority ($\text{17/04/2025}$) was received by the applicant.
• The Commission has the authority to admit the appeal even after the 90-day period if the applicant can show sufficient cause for the delay. Given the arbitrary, five-year delay in the disposal of the first appeal itself, the Second Appeal should be filed promptly.

3. Mandatory Documents to be Submitted

The Second Appeal must include documentation of the entire RTI process to demonstrate the failure of the Public Authority at both the initial and the appellate stages. The following documents are typically mandatory:

• Copy of the original RTI Application (Registration Number: $\text{DPTSW/R/2019/60008}$, Date of Filing: $\text{01/12/2019}$).
• Copy of the reply/non-reply from the PIO (In this case, the lack of reply within the stipulated time).
• Copy of the First Appeal (Registration Number: $\text{DPTSW/A/2020/60005}$, Date of Filing: $\text{01/02/2020}$).
• Copy of the Order/Decision from the First Appellate Authority (The order showing “APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 17/04/2025″ without providing details).
• A statement of facts and grounds for the Second Appeal which should specifically address:
  • The failure of the PIO to respond within the 30-day statutory limit.
  • The unconscionable five-year delay and arbitrary disposal by the First Appellate Authority.
  • The specific request for the information sought, including the Action Taken Report and F.I.R. details for the missing $text{Rs. }12,900$.

4. Relief Sought from the Commission

In the Second Appeal, the applicant should seek the following relief from the State Information Commission:

1. Immediate disclosure of the information sought point-wise.
2. Imposition of Penalty (under Section 20 of the RTI Act) on the PIO and the First Appellate Authority for malafide delay/refusal to provide the information and violating the provisions of the Act.
3. Recommendation of Disciplinary Action (under Section 20 of the RTI Act) against the responsible staff members for the above violations.

---

The State Information Commission acts as the final quasi-judicial body and has the power to compel the public authority to provide the information and penalize officials for non-compliance.