RTI Appeal Status Update: Yogi M P Singh’s Battle Against Administrative Silence at PuVVNL

This RTI Appeal Status Update covers a growing concern in Uttar Pradesh’s public sector. Public officials are blatantly disregarding Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. In a functioning democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 serves as the “sunlight” that disinfects the corridors of power. However, when public authorities ignore RTI requests, that light begins to dim. A recent First Appeal by activist Yogi M P Singh shows exactly how that silence unfolds. The appeal targets the Electricity Distribution Circle (EDC) Fataha, Mirzapur. It is a pattern this site has also examined in Uttar Pradesh Tehsildar’s Failure to Provide Information.

RTI Appeal Status Update: The Core of the Dispute

The grievance began on March 31, 2025. That day, Yogi M P Singh filed an RTI application (Registration No: PUVNL/R/2025/60181). He addressed it to Manish Kumar Srivastava, the Executive Engineer and PIO of EDD-2 Fataha, Mirzapur.

Under the law, the PIO must provide a response within 30 days. However, as of May 25, 2025 — nearly 55 days later — the application still remained unaddressed. As a result, this silence prompted Mr. Singh to act. He filed First Appeal PUVNL/A/2025/60144 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Ram Das. This latest RTI Appeal Status Update, therefore, tracks the case from that filing through to its current stage. It follows the same strategies for successful RTI appeals outlined elsewhere on this site.

Key Details of the Appeal

Attribute	Information
Appellant	Yogi M P Singh
Public Authority	Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PuVVNL)
First Appellate Authority	Ram Das (SE, EDC Fataha, Mirzapur)
Registration Number	PUVNL/A/2025/60144
Date of Filing	May 25, 2025
Ground for Appeal	No Response Within the Time Limit

---

The Legal Infringement: Section 7(1) and 19(1)

Fundamentally, the crux of Mr. Singh’s appeal lies in the violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. This section forms the heartbeat of the Act. It states that the PIO must either provide the information or reject the request with valid reasons, all within 30 days.

Consequently, by failing to respond, the PIO has triggered what the law calls a “Deemed Refusal.” Furthermore, Mr. Singh argues that this is not merely a procedural lapse. He calls it a deliberate attempt to shield corruption within the Electricity Department, echoing concerns raised in Right Delayed Means Denied: RTI Act Issues. In particular, he emphasizes that this negligence comes 19 years after the RTI Act took effect. Such negligence, he says, reflects a “deteriorating condition” of transparency in Uttar Pradesh. Anyone following this RTI Appeal Status Update closely will notice how central this single missed deadline has become to the entire case.

Allegations of Collusion and Corruption

Beyond a simple request for data, the appellant’s narrative goes further. He alleges that the Executive Engineer of EDD-2 Mirzapur is “running away” from providing information. The matter, he says, concerns arbitrary actions and corruption involving department staff and external offenders.

Specifically, Singh posits that the refusal to share point-wise information suggests collusion. That collusion, he argues, protects those who have bypassed departmental rules — a concern this site also raised in Corruption in Smart Electric Meter Installations Explained. This, therefore, raises a critical question for the public: if a utility provider cannot show transparency in its operations, how can it earn trust with public funds and service delivery?

---

Relief Sought: More Than Just Information

Notably, Yogi M P Singh’s appeal is unique. It doesn’t just ask for the missing data; instead, it demands accountability. Specifically, the “Prayer for Relief” includes two requests to the First Appellate Authority:

1. Immediate Disclosure: An order directing the PIO to provide the sought information point-wise and without further delay.
2. Disciplinary Action: The initiation of disciplinary proceedings against PIO Manish Kumar Srivastava for violating the statutory limits the Government of India has set.

The Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Now, the ball sits in the court of Mr. Ram Das (Superintending Engineer). As the FAA, he holds a quasi-judicial role. Accordingly, he can:

• Summon the PIO to explain the delay.
• Direct the immediate release of information free of cost, since the 30-day limit has passed.
• Recommend departmental action if he finds the delay mala fide.

Ultimately, the outcome of this appeal will serve as a litmus test. It will show PuVVNL’s real commitment to the “Zero Tolerance” policy against corruption that the state government often touts. That question echoes the accountability concerns raised in Right to Information Act: Insights from Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam. As the case develops, this page will remain the go-to RTI Appeal Status Update for anyone tracking the outcome.

---

RTI Appeal Status Update: Why This Case Matters Beyond Mirzapur

Although this dispute centers on one PIO and one electricity circle, its implications reach far wider. After all, PuVVNL serves millions of consumers across eastern Uttar Pradesh. Each unanswered RTI application chips away at public confidence in the utility’s governance. For instance, when a citizen cannot learn about staff conduct or departmental decisions, that citizen also loses a key tool. Without it, they cannot hold officials accountable for service failures, billing disputes, or infrastructure lapses.

Moreover, the RTI Act was never meant to function as a mere formality. Instead, lawmakers designed it as a genuine check on bureaucratic power. They built strict timelines into the statute precisely so officials could not indefinitely delay disclosure. Therefore, when a PIO lets 55 days pass without a response, he does more than break a technical rule. In effect, he undermines the very architecture of transparency that Parliament established in 2005.

Additionally, the case highlights a pattern that transparency advocates across India have long documented. In many instances, RTI applicants report similar experiences. Applications vanish into administrative silence, appeals drag past their statutory deadlines, and PIOs face little real consequence for noncompliance. Consequently, activists like Yogi M P Singh increasingly demand more than information. They also want disciplinary accountability, since fines and warnings alone rarely change entrenched habits.

What Citizens Can Learn From This RTI Appeal Status Update

For readers who are also pursuing RTI applications, this case offers several practical lessons. First, always keep your registration number and filing date on record. That documentation becomes essential if you need to escalate a stalled request. Second, track the 30-day window closely. Once it lapses, you can immediately treat the silence as a “Deemed Refusal” and move to a First Appeal without waiting further.

Third, frame your appeal around specific statutory violations rather than vague complaints. Mr. Singh’s appeal, for example, explicitly cites Section 7(1). It also requests concrete remedies, namely disclosure and disciplinary action. As a result, the FAA has a clear, legally grounded basis on which to act, rather than an open-ended grievance that is easy to set aside. For a closer look at how PIO and FAA responsibilities work together, see Understanding PIO and FAA Roles in RTI Appeals.

---

RTI Appeal Status Update: Conclusion and Path Forward

In short, the case of Yogi M P Singh vs. PuVVNL reminds us of something important. The RTI Act is only as strong as the citizens who use it and the officers who respect it. When a PIO ignores a request, it isn’t just a snub to an individual. It is an affront to the legislative intent of Parliament.

As this appeal moves forward, all eyes will therefore turn to the office of the SE at Fataha, Mirzapur. Will transparency prevail? Or will the “jungle fire” of corruption continue to spread behind a veil of administrative silence?

To help you pursue the transparency you are seeking, below you’ll find the official contact details for the public authorities involved in your appeal.

Authority Contact & Identification Directory

The following table summarizes the key personnel and portals for your ongoing RTI and First Appeal cases.

Authority Level	Office / Unit	Official Name	Mobile Number	Official Email Address
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	EDC Fataha, Mirzapur	Ram Das	9415304000	se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in
Public Information Officer (PIO)	EDD-2 Fataha, Mirzapur	Manish Kumar Srivastava	9450963598	ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
Nodal Officer (RTI)	PuVVNL Headquarters	Sandeep Kumar Verma	7906260442	rti@puvvnl.in
Corporate Office	PuVVNL Varanasi	Managing Director	0542-2318348	mdpurvanchalvvnl@gmail.com

---

Digital Access & Web Links

Meanwhile, if you need to track your appeal or file further complaints, you can use the following official portals:

• Official Website of PuVVNL: https://puvvnl.in/
• Uttar Pradesh RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/ Note: Use this link to view the status of your appeal PUVNL/A/2025/60144.
• UPPCL RTI Transparency Page: https://uppcl.org/uppcl/en/page/rti
• Consumer Helpline: 1912 (Toll-Free) or 1800-180-5025

Application & Appeal Tracking Summary

• RTI Application ID: PUVNL/R/2025/60181 (Filed: 31/03/2025)
• First Appeal ID: PUVNL/A/2025/60144 (Filed: 25/05/2025)

---

RTI Appeal Status Update: Next Step for You

Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Authority must dispose of the appeal within 30 days. The law can extend that window to 45 days if he records his reasons. Since you filed your appeal on May 25, 2025, the deadline for a decision is fast approaching. Check back here for the next RTI Appeal Status Update as the FAA’s decision develops.