Fighting for Farmers’ Rights: The Struggle for Transparency at EDD II Mirzapur
In the heart of Uttar Pradesh, a legal battle is unfolding that highlights the critical intersection of administrative accountability and rural welfare. Yogi M. P. Singh, a persistent advocate for transparency, has taken the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Distribution Division (EDD II) Mirzapur to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
This case, registered under Appeal Number A-20241100094, is not just about a request for documents; it is a quest for the “Right to Reason” for farmers whose livelihoods were incinerated by electrical short circuits.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Unpaid Compensation
The core of this grievance lies in the delay of compensation for farmers whose crops were destroyed by fire caused by faulty electrical infrastructure. Under the guidelines of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL), there is a clear protocol for compensating farmers when short circuits lead to crop loss.
However, in this specific instance, a recommendation for compensation sent by the Revenue Inspector and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) has been caught in a bureaucratic stalemate for over three years. The Executive Engineer (EE) of EDD II, Mirzapur, has reportedly rejected or stalled these approvals, leaving the affected farmers in financial distress.
The RTI Inquiry: Demanding Accountability
Seeking to break this deadlock, an RTI application (Registration No: PUVNL/R/2024/60402) was filed on August 3, 2024. The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, posed five critical questions to the Public Information Officer (PIO), Manish K. Shrivastava:
- The Right to Reason: Why was the approval letter sent by the Revenue Inspector rejected? Administrative law dictates that any rejection must be backed by a valid, written reason.
- Legal Authority: Under what provision of law is a third party (Dayanand Singh) authorized to “sort out defects” in compensation letters sent by the SDM’s office?
- Efficiency and Effort: What proactive steps has the Executive Engineer taken over the last three years to rectify the alleged “defects” in the compensation files with the SDM’s office?
- Standard Operating Procedures: What is the specific UPPCL-approved proforma that the DM or SDM must use to serve compensation notices to the Executive Engineer?
- Official Guidelines: Where are the formal UPPCL guidelines issued to District Magistrates regarding crop fire compensation?
Bureaucratic Silence and the Second Appeal
Despite the filing of the RTI in August 2024, the PIO, Manish Kumar Shrivastava, allegedly failed to provide the requested information. This silence is a direct violation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mandates a response within 30 days.
When the primary channels of communication failed, the appellant escalated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPSIC). The Second Appeal highlights a troubling trend: the PIO did not even acknowledge the application on the portal, let alone provide the data via email or digital means.
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system.” — Excerpt from the Appellant’s Submission.
The Upcoming Hearing: A Digital Stand for Justice
The Information Commission has scheduled a critical online hearing for this case.
- Case Number: A-20241100094
- Hearing Date: 28/05/2025
- Time: 12:30 PM to 02:00 PM
- Venue: Online via the UPSIC portal (Court S-9)
The appellant has specifically requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide information via email. This request aligns with the Supreme Court of India’s push for “paperless work,” which not only speeds up the legal process but also saves the public exchequer from unnecessary printing and mailing costs.
Why This Case Matters
This legal struggle serves as a microcosm of the larger issues facing the Indian administrative landscape:
1. Transparency in Compensation
Farmers are the backbone of the economy. When they lose their yield to the negligence of utility companies (like PuVVNL), the compensation process should be swift and transparent. A three-year delay is not just a “defect” in paperwork; it is a failure of governance.
2. The Power of the RTI
This case demonstrates how the RTI Act remains the most potent tool for a common citizen to challenge the “silence” of powerful departments. By bringing the matter to the Information Commission, the appellant is forcing a public record of the department’s inaction.
3. Digitization of Justice
The insistence on receiving information via email and participating in video-conferencing hearings represents a shift toward a more modern, accessible justice system in Uttar Pradesh.
Conclusion: Waiting for the Verdict
As the hearing date of May 28, 2025, approaches, all eyes are on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Will the Executive Engineer be held accountable for the three-year delay? Will the farmers finally receive the guidelines and reasons they deserve?
This case is a reminder that in a democracy, the “Right to Reason” is not a luxury—it is a fundamental necessity. The outcome will set a precedent for how EDD II Mirzapur and other electricity divisions handle farmer grievances and RTI inquiries in the future.
Are you facing similar delays with government departments? The RTI Act is your strongest ally. Ensure you keep a digital trail of all communications and do not hesitate to escalate non-compliance to the State Information Commission.
To assist you in organizing your records for the upcoming hearing before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, I have extracted and structured all the vital identification details from your correspondence.
🏛️ Official Case Identifiers
| Type of Reference | Identification Number |
| Appeal Registration Number | A-20241100094 |
| RTI Registration Number | PUVNL/R/2024/60402 |
| File Number | S09/A/2151/2024 |
| UPIC Diary Number | D-230520250001 |
| Welcome Number | UPICR20240000149 |
📧 Contact Directory
1. Appellant Details (Yogi M. P. Singh):
- Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
- Mobile: +91-7379105911
2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Details:
- Name: Manish Kumar Shrivastava (EE EDD-II)
- Email: ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
- Mobile/Telephone: +91-9450963598
3. Commission Contact:
- Court S-9 Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
🔗 Digital Links & Access
- Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/f70a8f
- Hearing Date: May 28, 2025
- Hearing Time: 12:30 PM to 02:00 PM
📝 Summary of Key Demands
For your quick reference during the hearing, these are the core points you are contesting:
- Reason for Rejection: Seeking the legal basis for rejecting the Revenue Inspector’s compensation approval.
- Delay Accountability: Why the compensation has been pending for over three years.
- Legal Provisions: Clarification on the authority of third parties (Dayanand Singh) in processing SDM letters.
- Paperless Demand: Requesting all future correspondence be sent via Email/WhatsApp to save the public exchequer costs.
Below is a concise Statement of Facts and a summary of the case objectives, prepared specifically for you to present or read during your online hearing on May 28, 2025.
📄 Statement of Facts: Appeal No. A-20241100094
Subject: Second Appeal against the Public Information Officer (PIO), EDD-II Mirzapur, regarding non-disclosure of farmer compensation protocols and deliberate delay.
1. Chronology of Events
- Original RTI Filing (03/08/2024): Registered under No. PUVNL/R/2024/60402. The application was forwarded to PIO Manish Kumar Shrivastava.
- Administrative Silence: Despite the statutory 30-day limit, the PIO failed to provide any information or reason for the delay.
- Escalation: Due to the total lack of response, a Second Appeal was filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Diary No. D-230520250001).
2. The Core Grievance
The case involves a three-year delay in the disbursement of compensation to farmers whose crops were destroyed by electrical short circuits. While the Revenue Inspector and SDM office moved the files, the Executive Engineer’s office has allegedly stalled the process using “defects” as a pretext without providing written reasons.
3. Questions for the Commission to Address
During the hearing, you may highlight these five specific demands:
- Written Reasons: Why was the Revenue Inspector’s approval letter rejected? (Demand for the “Right to Reason”).
- Authority Check: Under what law is an individual named Dayanand Singh allowed to intervene in official SDM correspondence?
- Proof of Effort: What letters has the EE sent to the SDM in the last 3 years to resolve these “defects”?
- Standard Proforma: A request for the official UPPCL format used for compensation sanctions.
- Guidelines: A request for the official UPPCL manual issued to District Magistrates regarding crop-fire claims.
🛠️ Essential Data Table for the Hearing
| Detail | Information for Reference |
| Appellant | Yogi M. P. Singh (7379105911) |
| Respondent (PIO) | Manish Kumar Shrivastava (EE EDD-II Mirzapur) |
| Hearing Link | Access Link |
| Primary Goal | Directing PIO to provide info via Email to promote paperless governance. |
💡 Tips for Your Online Hearing:
- Test the Link: Click the link 15 minutes before 12:30 PM to ensure your browser supports the UPSIC portal.
- Focus on Section 19(3): Emphasize that the PIO has completely ignored the RTI, which is a violation of the Act.
- Request Penalties: Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, you can request the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO for the delay (₹250 per day up to ₹25,000).
Letter of approval of compensation amount must be submitted by DM/SDM. Executive engineer EDD II is escaping from providing information in matter of corruption
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.