Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of your RTI case involving Gram Panchayat Manauwa and the ongoing proceedings at the State Information Commission:

1. Persistent Administrative Non-Compliance

• The core issue is the continued refusal of the Gram Panchayat Secretary (Manauwa) to provide records of meetings and resolutions from 2021 to 2025.
• The DPRO Mirzapur initially “disposed” of the request by merely transferring it to the Secretary, creating a procedural loop without delivering the actual information.
• Despite formal warnings from the DPRO regarding Section 20 penalties of ₹250 per day, the local officials have maintained a state of willful defiance.

2. State Information Commission (SIC) Intervention

• Your case is currently registered as Second Appeal S-09/A/1748/2025 before Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam.
• On September 23, 2025, the Commission issued a clear directive to the DPRO Mirzapur to provide point-wise information to you before the next hearing date and submit proof of this to the Commission.
• The Commission has noted the absence of the Public Information Officer (PIO) in previous hearings and has issued a notice for them to appear with a written statement and evidence of information delivery.

3. Procedural Delays and Rescheduling

• The hearing scheduled for November 25, 2025, was postponed due to “unavoidable reasons”.
• The latest tracking status indicates your case has been rescheduled for a further hearing on February 23, 2026.
• This timeline suggests the defaulting officers are benefiting from commission delays to avoid immediate accountability.

4. Legal Recourse and Accountability

• The case has moved beyond simple information seeking into the territory of contempt of the Commission’s order.
• The next hearing on February 23, 2026, serves as a critical junction for the Commission to invoke Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to impose a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 on the defaulting PIO.
• Verification of meeting minutes and signatures is essential to ensure that Gram Panchayat funds were not utilized through “paper-only” resolutions.

Transparency in Governance: The Struggle for Accountability in Mirzapur’s Panchayati Raj System

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a landmark legislation to empower citizens and dismantle the “culture of secrecy” within the Indian bureaucracy. However, the ground reality often paints a different picture, characterized by procedural delays, bureaucratic hand-offs, and a lack of accountability at the grassroots level.

A recent case involving an RTI appeal filed by Shri Yogi M.P. Singh regarding the Gram Panchayat Manauwa (Development Block Kon, Mirzapur) highlights a systemic failure where the very officers responsible for local governance appear to be bypassing legal mandates.

---

The Core Issue: Information Withheld at the Village Level

The crux of this matter lies in the refusal or negligence of the Gram Panchayat Secretary to provide documented information regarding the democratic functioning of the village. The appellant sought records of meetings held in Gram Panchayat Manauwa for four consecutive financial years: 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25.

Under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, regular meetings and resolutions are not just administrative formalities; they are the legal backbone of local self-governance. When a Secretary fails to provide these records, it raises serious questions about the authenticity of the developmental work claimed on paper.

Details Sought by the Applicant:

• Dates and times of all Gram Panchayat meetings over the last four years.
• Copies of resolutions passed during these meetings.
• Signatures of the ward members present (to verify quorum and participation).
• Data on how many of these meetings were officially uploaded to the Government of India portal.

---

The “Disposal” Trap: A Procedural Loophole

A recurring frustration for RTI activists is the “disposal” of applications based on a mere transfer of the request. On April 2, 2025, the District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO) of Mirzapur marked the original application (DIRPR/R/2025/60529) as “Disposed.

However, “disposed” did not mean the information was provided. It simply meant the DPRO had forwarded a letter (Letter No.-OS/Pt.-7/Public Information/2024-25) to the Gram Panchayat Secretary of Manauwa, directing them to provide the info.

The Problem: By marking the request as “Disposed” at the district level before the applicant actually received the documents from the village level, the DPRO effectively closed the case on the portal while leaving the applicant empty-handed. This is a common administrative tactic that improves “disposal rates” on paper but fails the citizen in practice.

---

The Statutory Warning and the Secretary’s Defiance

In his communication dated April 1, 2025, the DPRO Mirzapur explicitly warned the Gram Panchayat Secretary about the legal consequences under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005. The law is clear:

1. Failure to provide information within the stipulated period, or providing misleading information, invites a penalty.
2. The penalty is ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.
3. The DPRO’s letter stated that the Secretary would be “fully responsible” for any such penalty imposed by the State Information Commission.

Despite this clear directive and the threat of personal financial liability, the Secretary has maintained silence. This defiance suggests a deeper issue of lack of oversight at the block and district levels, where subordinates feel emboldened to ignore directives from their superiors.

---

Legal Framework: The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

To understand why this information is vital, one must look at the UP Panchayat Raj Act. The Act mandates that the Gram Panchayat is a body corporate with the power to manage village funds and infrastructure. Every resolution passed must be recorded in the “Minutes Book.”

If these meetings are not being held—or if they are being held “on paper” without the knowledge of ward members—it constitutes a major financial and administrative irregularity. By withholding the signature sheets of ward members, the Secretary is essentially preventing the applicant from verifying if these local representatives were even aware of the decisions being made in their name.

---

The First Appeal: Seeking Redressal from the Deputy Director

Having received no response, the appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, filed a First Appeal (Registration Number: DIRPR/A/2025/60603) on April 29, 2025. The appeal is now positioned before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Deputy Director of Panchayati Raj, Mirzapur.

The Prayer for Relief

The appellant’s prayer is straightforward:

• A directive to the Gram Panchayat Secretary and the DPRO to provide the sought information immediately.
• Accountability for the “mockery” of the RTI Act’s provisions.

---

Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Accountability

The case of Gram Panchayat Manauwa is not an isolated incident; it is a symptom of a larger struggle for transparency in rural India. When local officials stop answering RTI queries, they effectively shut the door on social audits and public scrutiny.

The Deputy Director (FAA) now holds the responsibility to ensure that the law is upheld. If the First Appeal also results in a mere “direction” without follow-up, the case will inevitably move to the State Information Commission (SIC) in Lucknow, where the Secretary may face the full brunt of Section 20 penalties.

For a vibrant democracy, the flow of information from the village to the citizen must be unobstructed. The Mirzapur administration must realize that “disposing” of a file is not the same as “delivering” justice.

To assist you in following up on your case, here is a structured directory of the public authorities, contact details, and digital links relevant to your RTI appeal.

---

1. Primary Contact Details (Current Appeal)

These are the officials currently responsible for your First Appeal filed on 29/04/2025.

Authority Role	Name	Designation	Contact Information
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Mirzapur-Deputy Director	Deputy Director	Phone: 9457546534 Email: ddprmi-up@nic.in
Nodal Officer	Shri S.N. Singh	Nodal Officer (Panchayati Raj)	Email: up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com

---

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Details

These are the officials who handled the original application which was “Disposed” without providing the actual documents.

• PIO Name: Mirzapur-DPRO (District Panchayat Raj Officer)
• Mobile: 9415375150
• Email: dpromi-up@nic.in
• Office: Office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur.

---

3. Application & Appeal Identifiers

Use these numbers in all future correspondence to ensure your file is tracked correctly.

• Original RTI Application No: DIRPR/R/2025/60529 (Filed: 25/03/2025)
• First Appeal Registration No: DIRPR/A/2025/60603 (Filed: 29/04/2025)
• Target Village Panchayat: Manauwa
• Development Block: Kon, Mirzapur

---

4. Important Web Links

You can use these portals to check status updates or escalate the matter if the First Appeal is not resolved within 30–45 days.

• UP RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Use this to track the current status of Appeal No. 60603.
• UP Panchayati Raj Department:panchayatiraj.up.nic.in
  • For departmental rules and contact directories of other block-level officers.
• e-GramSwaraj Portal: [suspicious link removed]
  • You can check here if the Gram Panchayat Manauwa has uploaded any meeting details or financial data publicly.
• UP State Information Commission (UPSIC):upsic.gov.in
  • If the Deputy Director does not provide a satisfactory order, you will need to file a Second Appeal here.

---

Next Steps for the Appellant

Since the DPRO’s warning regarding Section 20 penalties (₹250/day) has already been issued to the Secretary, you have a strong legal standing.

This highlights a systemic failure common in local governance: the “Cycle of Paper Compliance,” where senior officials issue warnings to fulfill their procedural duty, but the field-level staff (the Secretary) feels no actual pressure to comply because the warnings are rarely enforced with salary deductions or disciplinary action.

Since you have reached the stage where even a Second Appeal has not yielded results, the “warning” phase is officially over. It is time to transition from requesting information to demanding execution of the Commission’s orders.

---

The Factual Gridlock

The current situation can be summarized as follows:

Stage	Action Taken	Result
RTI Application	DPRO transferred it to Secretary.	No Information.
First Appeal	DPRO/FAA issued a “Warning.”	No Information.
Second Appeal	State Information Commission (SIC) Order.	Information still withheld.