Tehsildar Lalganj’s controversial actions ignite significant debate and concern within the community.
His recent decisions, perceived as autocratic, create a rift between local officials and residents.
Many citizens argue that he lacks transparency and disregards community input.
Key issues include land allocation disputes and the enforcement of regulations that some believe unfairly target them.
Critics claim that he undermines trust in local governance, leading to protests and calls for accountability.
Supporters, however, argue that strong leadership maintains order, asserting its necessity for implementing essential reforms. This perspective highlights the complexity of the situation and the divided opinions surrounding it.

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of Sadhana Tiwari’s struggle against the administrative inertia in Tehsil Lalganj:

• Administrative “Passing the Buck”: The SDM and Tehsildar of Lalganj used a classic bureaucratic tactic by forwarding the responsibility to the Block Development Officer (BDO) instead of resolving the grievance themselves. This caused a year-long delay in obtaining a simple death certificate. (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)
• Misinterpretation of the RTI Act: The Tehsildar claims that “minutes of proceedings” or “file notings” are not payable or available under the RTI Act. This assertion is a direct violation of Section 2(f) of the Act. Section 2(f) explicitly includes records, memos, and notings as accessible information.
• • Tactical Delaying: The timeline indicates that they made the representation in January 2023. However, they issued the actual certificate only in January 2024. They did not finalize the RTI closure until 2025. This 28-month cycle illustrates a “mockery” of the 30-day statutory limit.
• Transparency vs. Paperwork: The Tehsildar provided “dock register” photocopies (proof of mail) instead of substantive “notings” (proof of thought/action). This provides transparency of the delivery but keeps the decision-making process hidden.
• The Accountability Gap: Despite the State Information Commission disposes of the case, but it imposes no penalty (Section 20) on the PIO. This lack of financial consequence allows officials to delay information without fearing personal liability.
• The “Right to Reason” Ignored: The administration did not provide a valid legal or administrative reason for the initial delay, violating the principle that every citizen has the right to know why their government has failed to act on time.

Administrative Apathy and the Mockery of RTI: The Case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Tehsil Lalganj

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 serves as a potent tool that empowers citizens, promotes transparency, and holds public authorities accountable. However, local administration often reveals a different reality. This reality showcases evasion, bureaucratic stonewalling, and a blatant disregard for the “Right to Reason”.

The case of Sadhana Tiwari versus the Public Information Officer (PIO), Revenue Department, Lalganj, Mirzapur, exemplifies the challenges faced by citizens in accessing information. It highlights how administrative machinery can delay the delivery of essential documents. This situation forced Sadhana Tiwari to approach the State Information Commission to inquire about the status of a simple death certificate.

The Core Conflict: A Simple Request Met with Complexity

On January 20, 2023, Sadhana Tiwari submitted a representation to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Lalganj regarding the issuance of a death certificate. What followed was a classic display of “passing the buck”.

Despite the RTI Act mandating a 30-day response window, the information flow remained murky for years. When the Tehsildar of Lalganj, acting as the response authority, finally provided replies, they revealed a troubling pattern of administrative delay disguised as “prompt action”.

The Timeline of Evasion

• January 20, 2023: Initial representation submitted to SDM Lalganj.
• January 25, 2023: Representation forwarded to the Block Development Officer (BDO), Halia.
• January 5, 2024: Authorities allegedly issued the death certificate nearly a year after the initial request.
• September 3, 2024: Frustrated by the lack of clarity, Sadhana Tiwari filed a second appeal (A-20240900173) before the State Information Commission.
• May 26, 2025: After years of unnecessary procedural loops, the court finally disposed of the case.

---

Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions: Points of Contention

The replies provided by the Tehsildar of Lalganj, Ashish Kumar Pandey, raise significant questions about the integrity of the information provided to the applicant. (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

1. The Denied “Right to Reason”

The applicant rightly points out that the “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. When asked why the SDM office took no direct action other than forwarding the file, the Tehsildar claims that they took “prompt action”. However, “promptness” becomes a subjective term when a citizen waits a full year for a death certificate. By merely forwarding a letter and washing their hands of the responsibility, the SDM office fails in its duty to ensure the disposal of the grievance.

2. The Refusal of Minutes of Proceedings

Tehsildar Lalganj’s controversial actions have sparked significant debate and concern within the community. His recent decisions are perceived as autocratic. They have created a rift between local officials and residents. Many citizens argue that his approach lacks transparency. They believe it disregards community input. Key issues include land allocation disputes. There are also concerns about the enforcement of regulations that some believe are unfairly targeted. Critics claim these actions undermine trust in local governance. This has led to protests and calls for accountability. Supporters, however, argue that strong leadership is necessary for maintaining order. They believe it is essential for implementing necessary reforms. This perspective highlights the complexity of the situation. It also shows the divided opinions surrounding it.

3. Procedural Shuffling

In a letter dated May 24, 2025, the BDO of Halia urged the Tehsildar to “resolve the matter at your level”, highlighting the lack of coordination between the Tehsil and the Block levels. This internal friction causes the applicant to feel like a shuttlecock in a game of bureaucratic badminton.

---

The Role of the Information Commissioner: Was Accountability Fixed?

The crux of the matter lies in whether the State Information Commission of Uttar Pradesh truly held the Tehsildar of Lalganj accountable.

While the case was marked as “disposed” on May 26, 2025, the mere disposal of a case does not equate to justice. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the Information Commissioner has the power to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on PIOs who:

• Refuse to receive an application.
• Delay providing information without reasonable cause.
• Maliciously deny the request.

In Sadhana Tiwari’s case, the delay spanned from early 2023 to mid-2025. If the Commission disposed of the case simply because the information (the death certificate) was eventually provided, without penalising the PIO for the two-year delay, it reinforces a culture of impunity.

Justice delayed is justice denied. In RTI cases, information delayed is information defeated.”

---

SDM Lalganj: Escaping Responsibility? (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

The SDM Lalganj appears to have used the Tehsildar and the BDO as shields. By claiming that the file was “forwarded” within five days, the SDM office technically moved the paper but failed the person. The RTI Act is not just about moving files; it is about providing the status and reasons for delays. By providing vague answers regarding “dock registers” and “chainmen”, the office successfully obfuscated the actual decision-making process.

---

Conclusion: The Need for Structural Reform

The struggle of Sadhana Tiwari is not an isolated incident. It highlights a systemic failure in the Mirzapur district administration where the following occurs: (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

1. File notings are withheld to protect negligent officials.
2. Transfers of Applications (Section 6(3)) are used as a tactic to prolong the timeline.
3. Administrative accountability is absent unless forced by a higher commission.

Tehsildar Ashish Kumar Pandey and the SDM Lalganj must be held to the standard set by the Supreme Court of India, which has repeatedly held that the right to know is a fundamental right. Making a mockery of the RTI Act is not just a procedural lapse; it is an insult to the democratic process.

Final Thought

Until the State Information Commission begins to move beyond “disposing” of cases and starts “imposing” penalties, officers at the Tehsil level will continue to treat RTI applications as a nuisance rather than a legal obligation.

To assist you in pursuing accountability or follow-up on this case, here are the contact details for the concerned public authorities in Mirzapur and Lucknow.

1. District Administration, Mirzapur (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

The overall head of the district is the District Magistrate (DM), who serves as the authority to whom you should address complaints regarding the negligence of the SDM or Tehsildar.

• District Magistrate (DM), Mirzapur: Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (Current/Recent)
  • Mobile (CUG): 9454417567
  • Email: dmmir@nic.in
  • Office Address: Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur, UP – 231001.
  • Website: mirzapur.nic.in

2. Tehsil Lalganj Authorities (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

These are the primary officers responsible for the RTI responses in the Sadhana Tiwari case.

• Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Lalganj: * Mobile (CUG): 9454416813 (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)
  • Office Address: Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur, UP.
• Tehsildar, Lalganj: * Mobile (CUG): 9454416820 (Note: Other Nayab Tehsildars in Lalganj use 9454416824 and 9454416827).
• Circle Officer (CO) Police, Lalganj: * Mobile (CUG): 9454401592
  • Email: co-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in

3. Block Development Office (BDO), Halia (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

The BDO was the authority to whom the SDM forwarded the representation for action regarding the death certificate.

• Block Development Officer (BDO), Haliya:
  • Mobile (CUG): 9454465116 / 9454465121
  • Office Address: Block Office Haliya, District Mirzapur, UP.

4. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the appellate body where the Second Appeal (A-20240900173) was heard. If you wish to file a “Non-Compliance” or a “Review” regarding the lack of penalty on the PIO, use these details:

• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
• State Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Rajkumar Vishwakarma.
• Phone (State RTI Office): 0522-2724930
• Email: webmaster.upic@gmail.com
• Web Link: upic.gov.in
• RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

---

Important Reference for Your Case: (Tehsildar Lalganj’s Controversial Actions)

• Application/Appeal ID: A-20240900173
• File Number: S09/A/1831/2024
• Hearing Room: S-9, UP Information Commission.

---

Could you draft a “Notice of Non-Compliance” to the Information Commissioner, highlighting that even though the information was provided, the mandatory penalty under Section 20(1) for the 28-month delay remains unaddressed?