Rejection of RTI requests and LDA hinders the transparency and accountability that citizens expect from their government. The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers individuals to seek information, but when authorities reject such requests, they undermine this fundamental right. Moreover, the Local Development Authority (LDA) plays a crucial role in ensuring it conducts development projects ethically and responsibly. When authorities deny RTI requests related to LDA activities, they raise concerns about potential corruption, mismanagement, and lack of oversight. We must establish effective mechanisms to address these rejections, safeguarding the public’s right to know and participate in governance.

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the RTI dispute involving the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA):

1. Systemic Obstruction of Information

The primary issue is a perceived pattern of “Bureaucratic Stonewalling.” Despite five separate communications sent by Shubham and Rita Awasthi over a span of 14 months (2022–2023), the LDA has consistently failed to provide any concrete updates or “Action Taken Reports” (ATR), leading to the rejection of RTI requests submitted concerning this matter.

2. Misuse of Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)

The Public Information Officer (PIO), Hemchandra Tiwari, rejected the application by citing a specific clause of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules 2015.

• The Claim: The PIO argues that providing the information would require “new interpretation or analysis” of data.
• The Counter-Argument: Seeking file notings and action reports is a request for existing records, not a request for an opinion or analysis. This rejection appears to be a tactical misinterpretation of the law to avoid transparency.

3. Failure of Oversight

There is a significant concern regarding the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The blog highlights a “disturbing trend” where Information Commissioners allegedly accept weak justifications for rejection from PIOs, leaving the common citizen without a functional remedy.

4. Erasure of Accountability

By refusing to provide “notings,” the LDA is effectively shielding the decision-making process from public view.

• File Notings reveal which officer handled the file and why a delay occurred.
• By denying these, the LDA prevents the applicant from identifying specific officers responsible for negligence or inaction.

5. Impact on the Citizen

The rejection forces applicants into a gruelling and expensive legal cycle:

1. Original Application (Ignored/Rejected)
2. First Appeal (Often ignored by departmental heads)
3. Second Appeal (Pending for years at the Commission)

6. Transparency vs. Secrecy

The core conflict lies between the Central RTI Act 2005 (which mandates disclosure) and the State Rules of 2015 (which are being used as a shield). The blog argues that the LDA is treating public records as private property, undermining the democratic right to hold public servants accountable.

This structured blog post addresses the systemic failure of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, highlighting the recent rejection of a request by Chakbandi Adhikari Hemchandra Tiwari.

---

Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA: How Lucknow Development Authority is Shielding Accountability Behind Legal Jargon

In a democratic setup, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 stands as the strongest bridge between the citizen and the state.^{1 It is designed to ensure transparency, curb corruption, and make public officials accountable. However, in the corridors of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), this bridge seems to be crumbling under the weight of bureaucratic resistance and the tactical use of state-specific rules to deny legitimate requests.}

The recent case involving applicant Yogi M. P. Singh, acting on behalf of Shubham Awasthi and Rita Awasthi, serves as a grim reminder of how “Public Information Officers” (PIOs) are increasingly becoming “Information Obstruction Officers.

The Core Dispute: A Pattern of Evasion

The grievance arises from a series of communications that Shubham Awasthi and Rita Awasthi sent to the LDA between January 2022 and March 2023, seeking simple clarifications and status updates regarding pending matters. When the LDA took no action on these original letters, they filed an RTI application (Registration No: LKDPA/R/2023/60084) to track the “Action Taken Reports” (ATRs) and official “notings” on these files.

Instead of providing the documents, the PIO, Hemchandra Tiwari (Chakbandi Adhikari), rejected the application in May 2025 by invoking a specific clause from the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015.

Decoding the Rejection: The Shield of Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)

The LDA cited Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) of the UP RTI Rules to justify its silence. The rule states:

“The information sought should not require carrying out new interpretation or analysis of existing data, or drawing of inferences, making of assumptions, or providing advice or opinion based on existing data.”

By using this specific rule, the PIO is essentially claiming that asking for an “Action Taken Report” or “File Notings” constitutes a request for “analysis” or “opinion.” This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the RTI Act.

Why the PIO’s Logic is Flawed (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

1. Fact vs. Opinion: The applicant requests the PIO’s personal opinion on why the work wasn’t done. They seek the record of what happened. If no action was taken, the record states, ‘No action taken.’ “That is a fact, not an interpretation.
2. File Notings are Public Record: Various judgements by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Supreme Court have established that file notings are an integral part of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.²
3. Transparency in Process: Asking for an Action Taken Report (ATR) is a request for a pre-existing record. If a department receives a letter, the administrative process dictates it be logged and processed. The result of that process is a “record”, not a “new analysis”.

The Five Points of Contention

The LDA failed to provide information on five specific communications:

• March 2023 & March 2023 (Shubham Awasthi): Two distinct requests regarding pending administrative actions.
• January 2022, July 2022, & January 2023 (Rita Awasthi): Three communications spanning a year, for which no file notings or progress reports were disclosed.

The persistent refusal by officers like Atul Krishna (Deputy Secretary) and now Hemchandra Tiwari suggests a systemic culture of non-disclosure within the LDA.

---

The Role of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

A significant part of the frustration expressed by citizens lies with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. There is a growing sentiment that the Commission often accepts the flimsy excuses provided by PIOs without rigorous scrutiny. When the oversight body—the “Watchdog of Transparency”—fails to penalise officers for arbitrary rejections, it emboldens the bureaucracy to continue its opaque practices.

The Consequences of Information Denial

When a public authority like the LDA denies information, it leads to:

• Corruption: Lack of transparency is the breeding ground for “under-the-table” dealings. (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)
• Public Distrust: Citizens feel alienated from the government when officials respond to their queries with technical jargon instead of answers.
• Legal Harassment: Applicants are forced into a cycle of First Appeals and Second Appeals, wasting years and resources for information that should be available in 30 days.

A Call for Accountability (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

The case of Registration Number LKDPA/R/2023/60084 is not just about one family; it is about the integrity of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. If a PIO can reject a request for “file notings” by calling it “analysis,” then no information held in government files is safe from being hidden.

The Nodal Officer, Rekha Doharey, and the higher management of the Lucknow Development Authority must intervene. The RTI Act was not enacted to be a “Right to Rejection” Act. It is high time that the Lucknow Development Authority realises that it is a “Public Servant,” and the records it holds belong to the public.

Conclusion

The rejection by Hemchandra Tiwari is a classic example of “Bureaucratic Stonewalling.” By hiding behind the UP RTI Rules of 2015, the LDA is attempting to bypass the overarching mandate of the Central RTI Act of 2005. (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

The LDA does not grant transparency as a favour; it guarantees this right to every citizen of India.

To help you pursue this matter, here are the official contact and portal details for the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC).

1. Primary Public Authority Details (LDA)

These are the officers and contact points currently responsible for handling your RTI and the subsequent appeals. (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

Entity	Detail	Information
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Hemchandra Tiwari	Mobile: 9918005512 / 9918001554 Email: hemtiwari071@gmail.com
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Gyanendra Verma (Additional Secretary)	Mobile: 9918001927 Email: ldartionline@gmail.com
Nodal Officer (Online RTI)	Rekha Doharey	Mobile: 7081100326 Email: ldartionline@gmail.com
General LDA Contact	Vice Chairman’s Office	Toll-Free: 1800-1800-5000 Email: ldavc@rediffmail.com

2. RTI Application & Appeal Tracking (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

Since your request (Registration Number LKDPA/R/2023/60084) was filed online, you should use the following links for status updates and filing the next stage of your appeal.

• Official UP RTI Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Track Status Link: View Status Page
• Submit First Appeal: File First Appeal Online

---

3. Second Appeal Authority (UP Information Commission) (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

If your First Appeal is rejected or ignored, you must file a Second Appeal with the Commission.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010.
• Office Phone: 0522-2724930
• Webmaster Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

---

4. Summary of Application Details (Rejection of RTI Requests & LDA)

Keep this information ready for your appeal documents:

• Registration Number: LKDPA/R/2023/60084
• Date of Filing: 27/03/2023
• Rejection Date: 23/05/2025
• Reason Cited: Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) of UP RTI Rules 2015.

Note on Mobile Numbers: In government records, PIOs occasionally use multiple numbers. If one does not answer, try the alternate listed for the same officer.

Would you like me to generate a draft of the “Grounds for Appeal” to challenge the PIO’s use of Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)?