Here are the key takeaways from the RTI Second Appeal case of Mahima Maurya vs. PIO Mirzapur, structured to highlight the critical failures in transparency and legal accountability.

---

## 1. Denial of “Right to Reason”

A central theme of this dispute is the PIO’s silence on why a medical X-ray was not conducted for a broken finger.

• Takeaway: Under administrative law, providing reasons for an action (or inaction) is a fundamental requirement. Failure to do so can be interpreted by the Commission as malafide intent or an attempt to protect the accused.

## 2. Transparency of Public Officials

The PIO withheld the name and posting history of the Investigating Officer (IO).

• Takeaway: Information regarding the identity and official posting of a police officer is not personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; it is public data. Citizens have a right to know who is handling their legal case.

## 3. Accountability in Criminal Investigations

The appeal highlights a total lack of information regarding the status and timeline of NCR No. 0104/2024.

• Takeaway: If an investigation is ongoing, the PIO must state the status. If it is completed, the report must be shared unless it strictly endangers a source or the life of an individual. Blanket denials are legally unsustainable at the Second Appeal stage.

## 4. Burden on the Public Exchequer

The appellant specifically requested communication via email to save costs.

• Takeaway: This aligns with Section 7(6) of the RTI Act and general government digital initiatives. It emphasizes that administrative delays and physical paper trails unnecessarily drain public funds and cause “extra burden” on the taxpayer.

## 5. Potential Legal Consequences for the PIO

Since the matter is now at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Hearing Court S-9):

• Takeaway: If the Commission finds that information was “knowingly” withheld or “misleadingly” provided, the PIO faces a personal penalty of ₹250 per day.

Transparency Under Fire: When the PIO Fails the Information Seeker

In a robust democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 serves as the ultimate tool for accountability. However, a recent Second Appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No. A-20250101221) reveals a troubling trend: the provision of incomplete and misleading information by police authorities to shield administrative lapses.

The Core Issue: Obstruction of Justice through Information Denial

The appellant, Mahima Maurya, sought five specific points of information regarding NCR No. 0104/2024. While the RTI Act mandates that information should be provided unless it falls under specific exemptions (Section 8), the response from the PIO in Mirzapur suggests a deliberate attempt to withhold critical data.

1. Identity of the Investigating Officer (IO)

The PIO failed to provide the name and posting details of the officer investigating the NCR.

• Legal Standing: The name and designation of a public servant performing official duties is public information. Withholding this prevents the appellant from holding the specific officer accountable for any bias or delay.

2. The “Right to Reason” and Medical Negligence

A critical point of contention is the failure to provide a reason for not conducting an X-ray on the appellant’s broken finger.

• Administrative Failure: As noted in the appeal, the “Right to Reason” is an essential principle of natural justice. By failing to explain why medical protocols were bypassed, the PIO reinforces the appellant’s suspicion of a biased investigation intended to favor the offenders.

3. Missing Investigation Reports

Despite the NCR being filed in September 2024, the PIO has not provided the investigation report or a timeline for its completion.

• The Impact: Without the investigation report, the victim is left in the dark regarding the progress of their case, effectively stalling their pursuit of legal remedies in court.

---

The Path Forward: Second Appeal at the State Commission

The matter is now before Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This stage is crucial because the Commission has the power to:

1. Direct the PIO to provide the requested information immediately.
2. Impose Penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act (₹250 per day up to ₹25,000) for the delay and denial of information.
3. Recommend Disciplinary Action against the officer for providing misleading data.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

The appellant’s plea, “Please don’t waste public money… communicate on email,” reflects a modern, civic-minded approach to governance. When the police department—the very entity meant to uphold the law—withholds information, it undermines public trust. This case serves as a reminder that the RTI is not just about “data”; it is about the right to justice.

Based on the official records and your specific appeal details, here are the application identifiers and contact details for the public authorities involved in your case.

## Case Identifiers

• Appeal Registration Number: A-20250101221
• Hearing Court: Court No. S-9
• Presiding Officer: Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam (State Information Commissioner)
• Hearing Date: 29th April 2025

---

## 1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

This is the appellate body overseeing your Second Appeal.

Detail	Information
Website	upsic.up.gov.in
Email (Court S-9)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
General Email	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Office Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP
Contact Number	0522-2724930
Nodal Officer	Shri Tejaskar Pandey (Deputy Secretary)

## 2. Mirzapur Police Administration

These are the respondents (Public Authorities) responsible for providing the information regarding the NCR.

• Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur
  • Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454400299
• Additional SP (Operation), Mirzapur
  • Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454401105
• DIG Vindhyachal Range
  • Email: digrmir@nic.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454400215

---

## 3. Online Tracking & Portals

You can monitor the status of your applications or file future requests through these official links:

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• UPIC Status Tracking: rtionlinecourt.up.gov.in/request/status.php
• UP Police RTI Disclosure: uppolice.gov.in

## Important Note for the Appellant

Since the hearing date is April 29, 2025, ensure that any written submissions or evidence of the “misleading information” are sent to hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in at least 48 hours before the hearing.

Would you like me to draft a follow-up email to the SP Mirzapur’s office to remind them of their obligation to provide the Investigation Officer’s details before the Commission hearing?