The key takeaway from the blog post is that :
the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) is using contradictory and evasive tactics to stall an investigation into systemic corruption.
Despite the LDA officially acknowledging the formation of an enquiry committee in 2021 regarding land registry irregularities, they are now (in 2025) rejecting RTI requests by claiming the records do not exist or are not under their control. This four-year delay and the use of technical loopholes suggest a deliberate attempt to shield corrupt officials and avoid public accountability, turning a tool for transparency (RTI) into a wall of silence.
The RTI Paradox: Why the Lucknow Development Authority is Shielding a Four-Year-Old Inquiry
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of Indian bureaucracy. However, in the case of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), that sunlight is being blocked by a thick wall of procedural excuses and administrative silence.
A recent appeal (Registration Number: LKDPA/A/2025/60110) filed by activist Yogi M.P. Singh highlights a disturbing trend: public authorities using technicalities to bury evidence of their own internal committees, especially those investigating “rampant corruption.
The Genesis: A Committee Lost in Time
In August 2021, the LDA’s own Property Officer acknowledged the gravity of irregularities regarding plot allocations and the execution of registries.1 To address these “irregularities”—a polite bureaucratic term for potential fraud—a committee was reportedly constituted by the competent authority.
Fast forward to 2025, and the status of this committee remains a mystery. For four years, the common citizen has been kept in the dark. The core of the issue lies in a simple question: If a committee was formed to investigate corruption in 2021, why has it failed to produce a report by 2025?
The Rejection: A “Flimsy and False” Defense
When an RTI request was filed to identify the officers who formed this committee and to track its progress, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Hemchandra Tiwari, rejected the request. The reason cited was Rule 4(2)(a), claiming:
“The information sought should be a part of the record held by or under the control of the public authority concerned.”
This response is not just a rejection; it is a logical fallacy. The appellant rightly points out that if the LDA itself issued a communication (dated August 6, 2021) mentioning the committee’s formation, how can the records of that committee not be under their control?
To suggest that the nomination letters of committee members or the official order of the committee’s formation are not “part of the record” is to suggest that the committee exists only as a ghost in the LDA’s halls.
Tactics of Diversion: The “Unproductive Issues” Trap
The appellant raises a poignant socio-political point: the “political masters” often divert public attention toward unproductive issues to mask the degradation of institutional integrity. While the public is distracted, local development authorities like the LDA allegedly engage in:
- Irregular Plot Allocations: Favoritism in how land is distributed.
- Fraudulent Registries: Executing legal land documents without proper verification.
- Information Evasion: Using the RTI framework as a shield rather than a window.
By running away from providing committee details, the LDA staff is effectively protecting the status quo. If the committee’s report were to see the light of day, it would likely name names and expose the mechanics of the “rampant corruption” mentioned in the appeal.
Analysis of the RTI Appeal: LKDPA/A/2025/60110
The first appeal filed on May 10, 2025, seeks relief from the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The grounds are clear: Refused access to information.
Key Discrepancies Pointed Out:
- The Jansunwai Contradiction: The LDA has previously reported on the Jansunwai (Public Grievance) portal that a committee is active. Denying the existence of records for this same committee in an RTI response is a direct contradiction of government records.
- Accountability of the PIO: The PIO, a Chakbandi Adhikari, is accused of using “cryptic approaches” to stall the inquiry.
- The 2021-2025 Gap: Four years is more than enough time to conclude an administrative inquiry. The delay suggests a deliberate attempt to let the matter fade from public memory.
The Broader Impact on Democracy
India is often lauded as the world’s largest democracy, but democracy functions on the fuel of accountability. When a development authority—an entity tasked with building the infrastructure of a city—operates in shadows, it erodes the trust of the “literate” and “common” citizens alike.
The “show-off of honesty” mentioned by the appellant is a scathing critique of a system where transparency is promised on paper but denied in practice. When public servants hide behind Rule 4(2)(a) to avoid disclosing details of an inquiry into corruption, they are not just breaking a rule; they are subverting the spirit of the Constitution.
The Road Ahead: What Must the FAA Do?
The First Appellate Authority now sits at a crossroads. To restore faith in the Lucknow Development Authority, the following steps are essential:
- Direct Disclosure: Order the PIO to provide the names and designations of the committee members immediately.
- Status Update: Mandate a public disclosure of why the report has been delayed since 2021.
- Verification of Records: Investigate why the PIO claimed the records were “not held” by the authority when prior communications prove otherwise.
Conclusion
The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. LDA is more than a dispute over a plot of land; it is a battle for the soul of the RTI Act. If a public authority can successfully “run away” from its own committee details, the Act becomes a dead letter. It is time for the “accountable staff” to live up to their titles and stop the “rampant corruption” from being swept under the bureaucratic rug.
Based on your recent appeal (Registration No. LKDPA/A/2025/60110) and the related RTI request (LKDPA/R/2025/60280), here are the verified contact details and identifiers for the authorities involved in your case.
🆔 Case & Application Identifiers
| Type | Registration / ID Number | Filing Date |
| Original RTI Application | LKDPA/R/2025/60280 | 28/04/2025 |
| First Appeal Registration | LKDPA/A/2025/60110 | 10/05/2025 |
| Related Complaint ID | UPICR20240000149 (UPIC Reference) | 2024/2025 |
🏛️ Concerned Public Authority Details
Public Authority: Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)1
Department: Housing and Urban Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.2
Head Office Address: Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Pin Cod3e: 226010.
Key Officials Involved:
| Role | Name & Designation | Contact Number | Email Address |
| Nodal Officer | Ms. Rekha Doharey | 7081100326 | ldartionline@gmail.com |
| PIO (Rejected RTI) | Hemchandra Tiwari (Chakbandi Adhikari) | 9918001554 / 9452852608 | hemtiwari071@gmail.com |
| Current PIO/Deputy Secy | Atul Krishna | 9918001893 | raz.9125@gmail.com |
| First Appellate Authority | Gyanendra Verma (Addl. Secretary) | 9918001927 | ldartionline@gmail.com |
| Vice Chairman (LDA) | Prathmesh Kumar (IAS) | 0522-2307868 | ldavc@rediffmail.com |
🌐 Important Web Links
- LDA Official Website: ldalucknow.in
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (To track status or file fresh appeals).
- UP State Information Commission: upsic.up.gov.in (For Second Appeals if the FAA fails to act).
- Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in (To track the committee report status you mentioned).
⚠️ Note on Your Case (2025)
The PIO (Hemchandra Tiwari) rejected your request on 07/05/2025 using Rule 4(2)(a), claiming the records were not under their control. However, your documents show that the Property Officer (LDA) had already issued a letter on 06/08/2021 acknowledging this committee. This is a clear case of “misleading information” under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Would you like me to draft a strong Rejoinder/Second Appeal for the State Information Commission (UPIC) highlighting this specific contradiction?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.