The RTI Standoff in Mirzapur: Transparency Under Fire in the Panchayati Raj Department

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of Indian bureaucracy. It was designed to empower the common citizen, like Yogi M. P. Singh, to demand accountability from those in power. However, a recent second appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow) reveals a troubling pattern of evasion, bureaucratic stonewalling, and a blatant disregard for statutory mandates within the Mirzapur Panchayati Raj Department.

At the heart of this dispute is a fundamental question of fiscal transparency: How is GST being applied to government contracts, and why is information regarding these financial directives being treated like a state secret?

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: GST and Government Tenders

The controversy began when the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, sought clarity on the implementation of Government Order No. 02/2022/E-8-292/Dec-2022, dated September 13, 2022. This order pertains to the retrospective application of GST rates, specifically the jump from 12% to 18% on tenders issued between 2020 and 2022 but paid in 2023.

The appellant’s request was straightforward. He sought:

1. A certified copy of the specific Government Order (GO).
2. The circular or office memo that justifies the retrospective application of increased GST on old tenders.
3. Guidelines that ratify this fiscal change.

On the surface, these are public documents. Under the RTI Act, financial guidelines affecting public funds and private contractors are matters of “wide public interest.” Yet, the response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), DPRO Santosh Kumar, was a curt rejection.

---

The “Other Department” Excuse: A Violation of Section 6(3)

On January 27, 2025, the PIO rejected the application with the remark: “महोदय प्रकरण अन्य विभाग से सम्बन्धित है” (Sir, the matter concerns another department).

This response is not just unhelpful; it is legally flawed. The RTI Act anticipates that a citizen might not always know exactly which desk holds a specific file. Therefore, Section 6(3) of the Act mandates that if a PIO receives a request for information held by another public authority, they must transfer the application to that authority within five days and inform the applicant.

By simply rejecting the application rather than transferring it, the DPRO of Mirzapur effectively shuttered the door on the citizen’s right to know. As the appellant points out, the DPRO presides over the District Panchayat meetings and is intrinsically linked to the financial workings of the department. To claim the matter is “unrelated” appears to be a strategic move to avoid disclosure.

---

The Failure of the First Appeal: Procrastination as a Tool

When the PIO fails, the law provides a safety net: the First Appellate Authority (FAA). In this case, the matter went before Deputy Director Satish Kumar.

According to the appeal records, a hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2025. However, the appellant alleges that the FAA merely “procrastinated.” Despite the summoning of parties, no information was delivered. This highlights a systemic issue in the RTI ecosystem: the First Appeal is often presided over by a senior officer in the same department as the PIO. Without a strong sense of judicial duty, these officers often protect their subordinates rather than the law.

The appellant’s frustration is palpable. He notes that this is not his first attempt; previous applications (from as far back as 2023) resulted in similar “transfer loops” where the Directorate and the District office kept passing the buck without ever producing the documents.

---

Why This Matters: The Specter of Corruption

Why would a department be so hesitant to share a Government Order regarding GST? The appellant suggests a darker motive: the concealment of corruption.

When tax rates are changed retrospectively on existing contracts, it opens the door for:

• Arbitrary Payments: Without clear, public guidelines, the department can choose which contractors receive the “inflation” adjustment and which do not.
• Misuse of Funds: Lack of transparency in how the 6% tax difference is calculated and paid creates a “grey zone” where public money can be siphoned.
• Exploitation: Contractors may be coerced or unfairly penalized if the rules of the game are changed after the contract is signed.

By withholding the “circular or office memo” that enables this retrospective effect, the department prevents any independent audit or public scrutiny of these transactions.

---

The Second Appeal: A Plea for Justice

Having exhausted all departmental remedies, Yogi M. P. Singh has moved the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. His prayer is twofold:

1. Access to Information: The immediate release of the sought-after documents.
2. Penal Action: Invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act to penalize the PIO for “illegally” denying information and the FAA for dereliction of duty.

Section 20 is the only “teeth” the RTI Act has. It allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on PIOs who provide false information or obstruct the flow of data without reasonable cause.

---

Conclusion: Strengthening the Democratic Fabric

The case of Appeal No. A-20250401704 is more than just a dispute over a GST memo. It is a litmus test for the state of democracy in Uttar Pradesh. When public officials treat the RTI Act as a suggestion rather than a mandate, they foster an environment of “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos,” as the appellant poignantly describes.

For a “healthy and prosperous democracy,” the Information Commission must act decisively. Transparency is not a favor granted by the government to the citizen; it is a debt owed.

Based on your second appeal details and the official records for the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur, here are the structured contact details for the concerned public authorities.

---

1. Public Information Officer (PIO)

This is the officer who initially rejected your RTI request.

Detail	Information
Name	Santosh Kumar
Designation	District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), Mirzapur
Mobile Number	9415375150 (As per appeal) / 9415139308 (Dept. Directory)
Office Address	Panchayati Raj Department, District Mirzapur, UP – 231001
Email ID	dpromi-up@nic.in / amaprmi-up@nic.in

---

2. First Appellate Authority (FAA)

This is the officer who presided over your first appeal hearing on 26/04/2025.

Detail	Information
Name	Satish Kumar (mentioned as Deputy Director)
Designation	Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayat), Mirzapur Division
Mobile Number	9457546534
Office Address	Old Panch Bhawan, Near DM Office, Kachehari, Mirzapur, UP
Email ID	ddprmi-up@nic.in

---

3. State Information Commission (UPIC)

This is the authority where your Second Appeal (A-20250401704) is currently registered.

Detail	Information
Authority	Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow)
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
Office Phone	0522-2724930
Web Link	upsic.up.gov.in
Email ID	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

---

4. Technical Support & Portals

If you face issues with the online tracking of your application or appeal:

• RTI Online UP Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Helpline Email: onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in
• Technical Phone: 0522-7118629 (10:00 AM to 5:00 PM)

---

Summary Checklist for your Second Appeal

• Appeal Registration No: A-20250401704
• Applied Date: 30/04/2025
• Core Issue: Illegal denial of GST-related government orders and procrastination by the FAA.
• Status Note: Your appeal is officially registered. Since the PIO failed to transfer the request under Section 6(3), you have a strong ground for a penalty request under Section 20.

To help you track and manage your legal pursuit effectively, here is a consolidated list of all Application IDs, Registration Numbers, and Welcome IDs associated with your case against the Panchayati Raj Department, Mirzapur.

---

1. Commission & Appeal Identifiers

These are the primary IDs for your current legal standing with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

• Welcome ID (User ID):UPICR20240000149
  • Note: This is your unique identifier on the UPIC portal to track all your filings.
• Second Appeal Registration No:A-20250401704
  • Applied Date: 30/04/2025
• First Appeal Registration No:DIRPR/A/2025/60275
  • Applied Date: 17/03/2025

---

2. RTI Application History

These IDs represent your ongoing attempts to obtain the specific GST-related Government Orders.

Application Type	Registration Number	Date of Filing	Current Status
Current RTI 6(1)	DIRPR/R/2025/60094	23/01/2025	Rejected (on 27/01/2025)
Transaction ID	DIRPRR20250000000118	23/01/2025	Fee Payment Reference
Past Appeal (2023)	DIRPR/A/2023/60803	14/09/2023	Comments sought from PIO
Past RTI (2023)	DPTPR/R/2023/60409	06/03/2023	Transferred to Directorate
Transferred ID	DIRPR/R/2023/80583	16/03/2023	Active at Directorate level

---

3. Contact Directory for Public Authorities

Authority	Mobile Number	Email Address
PIO (DPRO Santosh Kumar)	9415375150	dpromi-up@nic.in
FAA (DD Satish Kumar)	9457546534	ddprmi-up@nic.in
UPIC Office (Lucknow)	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
RTI Technical Support	0522-7118629	onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in

---

4. Key Web Links for Tracking

• UP Information Commission (Second Appeal Status):https://upsic.up.gov.in/
  • Go to “ऑनलाइन वाद की जानकारी” (Online Case Information) and enter your Appeal No: A-20250401704.
• UP RTI Online Portal (RTI & First Appeal Status):https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
  • Use the “View Status” option with your Registration No: DIRPR/R/2025/60094.

---

Next Step Recommendation

Since the PIO rejected your current RTI (DIRPR/R/2025/60094) claiming the matter belongs to another department but failed to transfer it as required under Section 6(3), this is your strongest point for the Second Appeal.

Would you like me to draft a “Rejoinder” for you to submit to the Commission, specifically citing the PIO’s failure to follow Section 6(3) despite your previous 2023 attempts?