🚨 Anarchy in Administration: A Citizen’s Fight for Information and Justice in Mirzapur

The Second Appeal That Exposes Systemic Failure in RTI Implementation

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold the government accountable. However, the recent ordeal faced by Shri Yogi M P Singh of Mirzapur casts a long shadow on the on-ground implementation of this vital law within the Revenue Department. His Second Appeal (Registration Number: A-20250401292) before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) is not merely a request for data; it is a profound indictment of the alleged “insolence” and “mockery” of the law by public servants who, according to the appellant, have chosen silence over accountability.

---

Chronology of Negligence: A Timeline of Denial

The appellant’s case lays bare a disturbing sequence of events where both the initial Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to uphold their statutory duties, resulting in a complete stonewalling of the information request.

Action	Date	Authority	Status/Outcome
Section 6(1) RTI Application	06/01/2025	PIO (Tehsildar Hemant Kumar)	Status: RTI REQUEST RECEIVED. No information provided in the stipulated time.
Section 19(1) First Appeal	06/03/2025	FAA (SDM Sadar Asharam Varma)	Status: RTI APPEAL RECEIVED. No answer or order issued by the FAA.
Section 19(3) Second Appeal	23/04/2025	UP Information Commission (UPIC)	Instituted due to complete non-compliance from both PIO and FAA.

The gap between filing the RTI application (January 6, 2025) and instituting the Second Appeal (April 23, 2025) is 107 days, a duration during which the appellant was left without the requested information, despite two attempts under the statutory framework. The status updates “RTI REQUEST RECEIVED” and “RTI APPEAL RECEIVED” serve as stark evidence, suggesting a bureaucratic inertia where applications are logged but no meaningful action is taken. As the appellant points out, this non-entertainment of statutory applications is a “mockery of the provisions of right to information act 2005.”

---

The Crux of the Matter: Information Sought vs. Administrative Arbitrariness

The five-point information request pertains directly to the cancellation of an online application for the Prime Minister Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme, a welfare program crucial for farmers. The information sought aims to uncover the decision-making process and the legal basis behind the rejection.

The Five-Point Request:

1. Staff Details: Name, designation, and posting details of the Revenue Department staff who cancelled the PM-KISAN application.
2. Legal Basis for Upload: The government order, office memo, or advisory mandating the upload of certified revenue records for PM-KISAN on the portal.
3. Verification Steps: The specific steps taken by Tehsil Sadar to verify the revenue records uploaded by the applicant, Keshav Pratap Singh.
4. Processing Staff Details: Name and designation of the staff at Tehsil Sadar who process online PM-KISAN applications, and their date of joining the district.
5. Official Guidelines: Any guidelines passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar or District Magistrate Mirzapur concerning the online processing of PM-KISAN applications.

---

The Deeper Grievance: Arbitrary Cancellation and Promoting Anarchy

The appellant’s submission extends beyond the failure to provide information; it challenges the very legality and rationale of the three objections raised by the Revenue Department staff that led to the application’s cancellation. This section highlights a significant operational concern regarding the implementation of the PM-KISAN scheme itself.

Analysis of Allegedly Arbitrary Objections:

Objection Raised by Revenue Staff	Appellant’s Counter-Argument	Implication of the Objection
Upload Aadhar Card.	Aadhar verification is already done online via One Time Password (OTP) sent to the registered mobile number during the application process.	Superfluous demand, potentially overlooking the built-in online verification mechanism.
Upload Bank Passbook.	The government mandates opening an Indian Post Payment Bank (IPPB) account, which is linked to the Aadhar card. The Aadhar-Bank link should suffice.	Imposing an unnecessary documentation requirement when digital linking is already established by government policy.
Certified Copy of Revenue Records.	Only revenue records are uploaded, which are subsequently verified by the concerned Lekhpal of the area.	Raising an objection that seems to negate or disregard the official ground-level verification process already in place.

The appellant forcefully argues that these objections are “arbitrary and illegal,” suggesting that the cancellation of the application is a result of “rampant corruption” and an effort to “withhold public services arbitrarily.” The core issue, according to Shri Yogi M P Singh, is the resultant “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos” caused by making a “mockery of law of land.

---

The Imperative for the Information Commission

The Second Appeal puts the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in a critical position. The non-action of the PIO, Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, and the FAA, SDM Sadar Asharam Varma, has potentially violated Section 7(1) of the RTI Act (prescribed time limit for providing information) and Section 19(1) (duty of the First Appellate Authority to dispose of an appeal).

The relief sought by the appellant is not just the information, but decisive action against the wrongdoers. Under the RTI Act, the Commission has the power to:

• Order the supply of information: Immediately direct the PIO to furnish the requested information.
• Impose Penalty: Impose a penalty of ₹250 per day up to a maximum of ₹25,000 on the PIO if the Commission finds that the PIO malafide refused the request or gave incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Recommend Disciplinary Action: Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules.
• Compliance with Section 4: Direct the public authority to comply with the mandate of proactive disclosure under Section 4, which could include publishing the guidelines and processes related to PM-KISAN.

The case of Yogi M P Singh highlights a common yet dangerous administrative practice: using silence and procedural non-compliance to bypass accountability. The success of his Second Appeal and the resultant action taken by the UPIC will be a significant test of the Commission’s resolve to curb such administrative high-handedness and re-affirm the sanctity of the RTI Act. As the appellant aptly concludes, taking “harsh steps against the wrongdoer” is essential to “win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy.” The future of transparency and accountability in the Mirzapur Revenue Department now rests in the hands of the Chief Information Commissioner.

---

Would you like me to find out the current status of the Second Appeal using the provided registration number, or search for other related cases filed by the appellant?

To

Chief Information Commissioner/ Companion Information Commissioners

7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226010

Details of the appellant-Yogi M P Singh, Mohalla Surekapuram colony, Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office, Districts     Mirzapur, Pin code   231001, State     Uttar Pradesh, Mobile number 7379105911

Details of the respondents-

1-PIO of Public Authority approached- Hemant Kumar

Designation Tehsildar

Phone No  9454416823, Email Id   teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in,

District-Mirzapur, PIN Code-231001

2-Concerned Appellate Authority    Asha Ram Verma

Phone No  9454416810, Email Id- sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in,

District-Mirzapur, PIN Code-231001

Prayer- Both public information officer and the first appellate authority did not entertain RTI application and the first appeal respectively reflecting the insolence to the provisions of the right to information act 2005. The act is tantamount to anarchy in the working of the public authority so must be curbed at the early stages.