Activists and the general public express significant concerns over the denial of the RTI (Right to Information) application concerning Kanhaiya Lal. Many argue that refusing to grant access to information undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that the RTI was established to uphold. Kanhaiya Lal, a prominent figure advocating for citizens’ rights, finds this denial particularly troubling, as it restricts access to essential information that could inform discussions and decision-making. The situation sparks widespread debate about the effectiveness of the RTI Act in current governance and the need for reforms to ensure citizens can exercise their rights without hindrance.

Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the RTI dispute in Mirzapur:

• Systemic Delay as Denial: The primary issue is the 18-month failure of the Tehsildar Sadar to comply with a court order to correct revenue records, followed by an 8-month delay in even responding to the RTI application.
• Misapplication of Section 11: The Public Information Officer (PIO) used “Third Party Information” (Section 11) as a pretext for rejection. This is legally flawed because the applicant provided an affidavit of authorisation, thereby making them the legal representative of the aggrieved party rather than an unrelated third party.
• Protection of Public Servants: By refusing to name the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector involved in the “missing” record entry, the administration is effectively shielding officials from accountability for potential forgery or negligence.
• Violation of Statutory Timelines: The RTI Act mandates a 30-day response window. The PIO’s decision taking over 240 days is a clear violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, making the PIO liable for penalties.
• The “Accountability Gap”: The case highlights a breakdown in the administrative hierarchy in which a Tehsildar can ignore both a Revenue Court order and a Statutory RTI request without immediate consequences.
• Next Legal Step: Since they rejected the request arbitrarily, you should file a First Appeal to challenge the “Third Party” claim and highlight the gross violation of the 30-day time limit.

RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal: The RTI Struggle Against Administrative Inertia in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the dark corridors of Indian bureaucracy. However, a recent case involving Kanhaiya Lal S/O Todai from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, highlights a troubling trend: the use of legal technicalities to shield administrative inaction and potential misconduct, particularly in instances of RTI Application Denial.

When a citizen’s fundamental right to property and identity is compromised by “missing” names in revenue records, and the machinery meant to fix it ignores the issue, the democratic fabric begins to fray.

---

The Core Dispute: A Disappearing Legacy (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

At the heart of this matter is a discrepancy in the revenue records of Bathua, Mirzapur. Kanhaiya Lal found that officials omitted his father Todai’s name from the records—a “clerical error” that often paves the way for land grabbing and legal disputes.

Under Sections 32 and 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, provisions exist specifically to correct such omissions. Kanhaiya Lal filed a representation on 17 March 2023. By 18 March 2023, the competent court had already ordered the Tehsildar Sadar to submit a report.

Yet, as of late 2024, the order remained unfulfilled. The “disappearance” of a name from a record is rarely an accident; in the context of Uttar Pradesh’s land administration, it often signals a deeper issue of systemic forgery or negligence.

---

The RTI Request: Seeking Accountability

Frustrated by an eighteen-month delay, authorised representative Yogi M. P. Singh filed an RTI application (Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60097) on 12 September 2024, seeking five critical pieces of information: (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

1. Evidence of action taken by the Tehsildar Sadar to comply with the court order.
2. The total time elapsed during this non-compliance.
3. The names and designations of the staff members who handled (or sat on) the file.
4. A copy of the report (if any) submitted to the court.
5. The identities of the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector responsible for the initial omission/forgery.

---

The Rejection: A “Mockery” of the Law

On 16 May 2025—eight months after the filing—the Public Information Officer (PIO), Hemant Kumar (Tehsildar), rejected the request. The reason cited? Section 11 of the RTI Act.

Section 11 addresses “Third Party” information. The PIO reasoned that since a representative (Yogi M. P. Singh) filed the application, the information regarding Kanhaiya Lal qualifies as “third-party” data. This rejection is legally tenuous for two reasons:

• The Affidavit: An affidavit from Kanhaiya Lal was attached, explicitly authorising the representative. In legal parlance, the seeker and the aggrieved were the same.
• The Timeline: Section 7(1) of the RTI Act mandates a response within 30 days. Taking 246 days to issue a rejection based on a procedural technicality is not just a delay; it is a blatant violation of the Act’s statutory limits.

---

The Procedural Shield: Misusing Section 11

The PIO’s detailed citation of Section 11 in the rejection remarks appears to be a diversionary tactic. Section 11 is intended to protect the privacy or trade secrets of a third party. Here, the information sought—compliance with a court order and the names of public servants—is public business. (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

According to various High Court rulings, the names and actions of public officials performing their duties cannot be shielded under the guise of“third-party” privacy, especially when the seeker is the person directly affected by those duties.

---

The Implications of Administrative Silence

When a Tehsildar fails to explain why a court order hasn’t been followed, it raises a “Red Flag.” The questions posed in the RTI were simple: Who has the file? Why is it not done? Who made the original mistake? (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

By refusing to answer, the office of the Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur, effectively:

• Shields Potential Forgery: If a Lekhpal or Revenue Inspector intentionally deleted a name, the PIO’s silence protects them from departmental inquiry.
• Undermines the Judiciary: Ignoring a court order for over a year and then blocking an RTI about that non-compliance creates a cycle of unaccountability.
• Harasses the Older People: For a citizen like Kanhaiya Lal, the revenue record is his only proof of heritage. Forcing him to run from pillar to post for a simple correction is a form of administrative “slow-violence.”

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The rejection dated 16 May 2025 should not be the end of the road. Under the RTI Act, the applicant has the right to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) to the First Appellate Authority (likely the District Magistrate or a Senior Revenue Officer). (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

If the administration in Mirzapur continues to treat the RTI Act as a suggestion rather than a mandate, the matter must be escalated to the State Information Commission (SIC), where penalties can be imposed on the PIO for “mala fide” denial of information.

The case of Kanhaiya Lal is a litmus test for the District Magistrate’s office in Mirzapur. Will they uphold the transparency promised by the law, or will they allow the “Babu Culture” to bury the truth under a mountain of misapplied sections?

To ensure that the appropriate authorities handle your case and to facilitate your next legal steps (such as filing a First Appeal), here is a structured directory of the Public Authorities and their contact details involved in your specific RTI case (DMOMR/R/2024/60097).

---

1. Concerned Public Authority & PIO (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

The primary office responsible for your information is the Tehsil Sadar, which operates as the Magistrate’s District Magistrate’s Office, Mirzapur.

Detail	Information
Public Authority	District Magistrate Office, Mirzapur
PIO Name	Hemant Kumar
Designation	Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur
Mobile Number	9454416823
Email Address	teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
Office Address	Tehsildar Office, Wellesly Ganj, Mirzapur, UP – 231001

---

2. Nodal Officer (Administrative Oversight) (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

The Nodal Officer is responsible for tracking the flow of RTI applications within the District Magistrate’s establishment.

• Name: Shiv Pratap Shukla
• Mobile Number: 739293489 (Note: Some records suggest a missing digit; commonly associated with administrative extensions).
• Email Address: shakti.3916@up.gov.in

---

3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

If you are dissatisfied with the PIO’s rejection (which you are), you must direct your First Appeal to this officer. Usually, for a Tehsildar, the FAA is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) or an Additional District Magistrate.

• Appellate Authority: Asha Ram Verma (SDM Sadar)
• Mobile Number: 9454416810
• Email Address: sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
• Alternative (District Level): Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (District Magistrate)
  • Phone: 9454417567
  • Email: dmmir@nic.in

---

4. Official Web Links for Action

Use these links to track status or file your next appeal:

• UP RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Action: Use this to file your First Appeal online using your Registration Number DMOMR/R/2024/60097.
• Mirzapur District Official Website:mirzapur. nic. in
  • Action: Check the “Who’s Who” section for any updates in oWho’sr postings.
• UP Revenue Court Computerised Management System:vaad.up.nic.in
  • Action: Track the original case status under Sections 32/38.

---

Suggested Next Step (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

Since the PIO rejected your application on 16/05/2025 using an invalid “Third Party” excuse, you should immediately file a First Appeal.

This highlights the most common “defensive tactic” used by public authorities: using the RTI Act as a shield rather than a window. By labelling the request as “Third Party” under Section 11, the PIO is intentionally ignoring the legal principle of Agency, where an authorised representative stands in the shoes of the victim. This is a strategic move to suppress evidence of administrative failure and potential corruption in the revenue records.

---

Why Section 11 Misuses Here (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

In your case, the rejection is legally unsustainable for three reasons:

• Public Interest Overrides Privacy: Section 11(1) specifically states that disclosure is allowed if the “public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.” Exposing the forgery of land records and defying a court order constitute matters of high public interest.
• The “Victim” is the Seeker: Since Kanhaiya Lal (the victim) provided an affidavit, the information belongs to him. One cannot be a “third party” to their own grievance.
• Accountability for Public Duty: The RTI seeks information on the actions of the Tehsildar and Lekhpal. Carrying out a court order is a statutory duty, not a private affair.

---

Strategic Points for Your First Appeal (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

When you file the appeal against PIO Hemant Kumar, you should emphasise these points to ensure the Higher Authority cannot ignore the corruption angle:

1. Mala Fide Intent: Argue that the PIO delayed the response for 8 months (violating the 30-day rule) specifically to protect the Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector from being identified for their role in the record forgery.
2. Violation of Section 4: Under Section 4 of the RTI Act, public authorities must proactively disclose their performance. Withholding “Action Taken” reports on court orders violates this proactive disclosure requirement.
3. The Representative Capacity: Explicitly state that the affidavit attached to the application nullifies the “Third Party” argument, as the consent of the person whose information is being provided (Kanhaiya Lal) was already provided at the time of filing.

---

Recommended Action: Escalation to the District Magistrate (RTI Application Denial & Kanhaiya Lal)

Since the Nodal Officer (Shiv Pratap Shukla) and the PIO are from the same department, the internal pressure to protect one another is high.

Would you like me to draft a “Formal Complaint of Corruption and Maladministration” that you can send directly to the District Magistrate (DM) and the Divisional Commissioner of Mirzapur, alongside the RTI Appeal?