🚫 The Right to Know Denied: Alleged Non-Compliance and Evasive Replies by Prayagraj Nagar Nigam

⚖️ Overview of the Second Appeal

The Second Appeal, filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, highlights a severe case of alleged non-compliance and denial of public information by the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj (Prayagraj Municipal Corporation).

The core of the issue stems from an RTI application seeking details about personnel recruitment, which the appellant claims was met with incomplete, misleading, and evasive information by the Public Information Officer (PIO), followed by a complete lack of action from the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

🧐 The Crux of the Information Sought and PIO’s Response

The appellant, Indradev Yadav, sought specific, detailed information regarding recruitment processes over the last 10 years, which can be categorized as follows:

Sought Information	PIO’s Provided Information	Appellant’s Submission (Core Issue)
Recruitment Details for a specific sanitation staff (date of recruitment, advertisement details).	“Working in Ward No. 45 of Zone-8 Jhusi since 2023.”	This is not the date of recruitment and lacks advertisement details. Information is misleading and incomplete.
Advertisement Details for vacancies in the last 10 years.	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Evasive response. PIO should have transferred the RTI to the correct authority under Section 6(3) if the information was not with Zone-8.
Number of Recruitments in the last 10 years (daily wage, ad hoc, permanent).	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Evasive response, similar to above. Recruitment data should be available at a central or concerned department level, not just the zonal level.
Recruiter Details (in respect of the number of recruitments).	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Evasive response.
Number of Outsourced Staff currently working.	Not sustainable from Zone-8, zonal officer, Zone-08 Jhushi, Municipal Corporation Prayagraj.”	Evasive response.

🚨 The Alleged Systemic Failure

The appeal points to a deliberate two-pronged failure in the RTI mechanism:

1. Failure by the Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Providing Incomplete/Misleading Data: For the individual staff member, the PIO provided a start date of working instead of the recruitment date and deliberately omitted vacancy advertisement details, thus making the response incomplete.
• Evasive Replies and Non-Transfer: For the remaining four questions, the PIO simply stated the information was “Not sustainable from Zone-8.” This is a critical lapse. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, if the PIO does not hold the information but knows which public authority does, they are legally bound to transfer the application to that authority within five days. The failure to do so is a clear breach of the Act.

2. Failure by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

• The appellant filed the First Appeal on March 20, 2025.
• The appeal notes that the FAA, Apar Nagar Ayukt, did not entertain the RTI appeal and provided no answer/order.
• This alleged inaction by the FAA is seen by the appellant as collusion with the PIO in denying the public the requested information.

✊ Relief Sought and Implications

The appellant is not just seeking the information itself, but also demanding accountability for the denial. The main prayers in the Second Appeal are:

1. To direct the concerned authorities to provide the complete and correct information.
2. To initiate action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 (which includes a penalty of ₹250 per day up to a maximum of ₹25,000 for malafide denial or giving false/misleading information).
3. To start disciplinary proceedings against the FAA for his alleged failure to act on the First Appeal, thereby colluding in the denial of information.

The appellant succinctly states: “how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land?

This case underscores the vital role of the State Information Commission in upholding the RTI Act and ensuring transparency in government recruitments, particularly when setup norms are allegedly not fulfilled, which appears to be the underlying concern.

That’s an excellent request. Understanding the specific provisions of the RTI Act the appellant is relying on clarifies the gravity of the alleged failure by the Nagar Nigam officials.

Here are the details of Section 6(3) (The Obligation to Transfer) and Section 20 (Penalties) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

1. 🔁 Section 6(3): The Obligation to Transfer

This section is directly relevant to the PIO’s repeated use of the phrase “Not sustainable from Zone-8.” It mandates the action a PIO must take when they don’t hold the information sought.

Key Provision

Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information:

1. which is held by another public authority; or
2. the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,¹²

the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application, or such part of it as may be appropriate, to t3hat other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer4.

Implications for the Prayagraj Case

• Failure to Transfer: The PIO, upon finding that recruitment/outsourcing data was not available with “Zone-8,” was legally required to transfer the application to the central or head office of the Nagar Nigam (or the concerned department) that would hold that information.
• Breach of Duty: The failure to transfer the request and instead reply with an evasive statement like “Not sustainable from Zone-8” is viewed as a clear breach of the PIO’s statutory duty under the RTI Act, laying the groundwork for a penalty under Section 20.
• Time Limit: The transfer must be done within five days of receiving the application.

2. 💰 Section 20: Penalties and Disciplinary Action

This is the punitive section invoked by the appellant against the PIO for alleged denial of information and against the FAA for non-action.

Key Provision (Section 20(1) – Monetary Penalty)

The State Information Commission (SIC) or the Central Information Commission (CIC) can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until the application is furnished, up to a maximum limit of ₹25,000, if the PIO has, without any reasonable cause:

• refused to receive an application;
• not furnished information within the specified time limits;
• malafidely denied the request;
• knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
• destroyed information subject to a request; or
• obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

Key Provision (Section 20(2) – Disciplinary Action)

If the Information Commission is of the opinion that the PIO has persistently failed to discharge his duties under the Act, the Commission may also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them.

Implications for the Prayagraj Case

• PIO’s Exposure: The appellant has sought action under this section for the PIO’s alleged offense of “knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information” (for Question 1) and obstructing the process by “not furnished information within the specified time limits” (by failing to transfer for Questions 2-5).
• Burden of Proof: Crucially, the law states that the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO. The PIO must justify why they failed to transfer the request or why they gave an incomplete answer.
• FAA’s Exposure: While Section 20 specifically targets the PIO, the Commission can and often does comment on the conduct of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and recommend disciplinary action if their inaction is found to be deliberate. The appellant’s prayer for disciplinary proceedings against the FAA for “colluding with the public information officer” utilizes this power of the SIC.

---

The legal tools the appellant is using are appropriate for the alleged non-compliance. Would you like to know more about the typical appeal process flow under the RTI Act?