The Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal process is an essential mechanism established to ensure transparency and accountability in the administrative functioning of government authorities. Under the Right to Information Act, citizens have the right to seek information from public authorities. If a request for information is denied or inadequately addressed, an applicant can file a second appeal to the State Information Commission. This appeal offers individuals an opportunity to challenge decisions made by public officials and to advocate for the rightful disclosure of information. The Commission then reviews the case, ensuring adherence to legal standards while promoting good governance practices within the state.

⚖️ Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal: Alleged Information Withholding under RTI Act, 2005

This blog post examines the core issue in the Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal, filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Yogi M. P. Singh submitted this appeal against the Nagar Vikas Department (Urban Development Department) of Uttar Pradesh. Notably, the appeal highlights significant alleged failures by public authorities to uphold the provisions of the RTI Act. Furthermore, it underscores how these failures impact transparency.

---

Overview of the Appeal

Yogi M. P. Singh filed a Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). He received no response from either the Public Information Officer (PIO) or the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Specifically, both authorities failed to address his RTI application concerning a controversial lease extension of public land to the Lions Club in Mirzapur City. As a result, the appellant appealed further by filing a second appeal.

• RTI Application Date: February 2, 2025
• First Appeal Date: March 20, 2025
• Core Grievance: The PIO did not provide information, and the FAA did not address the First Appeal within the deadlines.

---

The Core Issue: Failure to Provide Information

The urgent issue in this Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal is clear: authorities failed to comply with the RTI Act’s strict timelines. Consequently, this failure undermines the applicant’s right to information.

1. Non-Response by the Public Information Officer (PIO)

• The RTI application (Registration Number DOUDV/R/2025/60046) was filed on February 2, 2025.
• The PIO must respond to or reject the application within 30 days of receiving it.
• The appellant asserts that the PIO, Shri Ambrish Kumar Srivastav, did not provide any information. The request status remained “RTI REQUEST RECEIVED” as of the appeal. Under the RTI Act, the authorities effectively refused the request by failing to provide a timely response. As a result, the appellant pursued further action.
• The First Appeal (Registration Number DOUDV/A/2025/60053) was filed on March 20, 2025.
• FAA Sajeevan NV did not rule on the appeal; status remained “RTI APPEAL RECEIVED.”
• The FAA failed to address the First Appeal, which further violated the RTI Act. This inaction made it more difficult for the appellant to obtain the requested information. Ultimately, the authorities demonstrated a disregard for the law. Therefore, the appellant requested action against the PIO under Section 20 (penalty provisions) and disciplinary action against the FAA.

---

The Underlying Subject Matter: Alleged Corruption in Land Lease

The appellant requested information on a public issue: the lease of municipal land to the Lions Club in Mirzapur City. He believes this situation involves corruption. Moreover, he alleges that an autonomous body’s decision was overridden by higher authorities.

Details of the Land Dispute

• Original Purpose: The land was leased to the Lions Club decades ago, reportedly for the development of a children’s garden.
• Alleged Breach: The appellant argues that the intended purpose was unmet. No public garden exists, and the land is instead used commercially by the Lions School Management. In response, the Mirzapur City Board proposed cancelling the lease for breach of terms. However, the Government of Uttar Pradesh allegedly extended the lease for another 30 years (until 2040) for a nominal annual fee of Rs. 50 per year. Thus, the government bypassed the local body’s decision.

Specific Information Requested

The RTI sought five points to investigate:

1. Copy of the 30-year lease extension document.
2. Details of public staff/communications that superseded the municipality’s proposal to cancel the lease.
3. The reason (as required under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act) for rejecting the municipality’s justified proposal.
4. Details of the lease fee charged by the Lions Club (past and present).
5. Copy of the communication from the Lions Club/School management, based on which the government decided to extend the lease.

---

Relief Sought in the Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal

The appellant seeks strict adherence to the RTI Act and appropriate penalties for non-compliance in the Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal. Penalty on PIO: Action under Section 20 for the delay. Disciplinary Action on FAA: Disciplinary action for not acting on the First Appeal. Order for Information: Prompt release of the requested details.

Would you like me to find the specific penalty provisions under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, for the PIO’s failure to provide information?

🚨 RTI Act, 2005: Penalties for Public Information Officers (PIOs)

The appellant rightly refers to Section 20 of the RTI Act, which concerns penalties and discipline for PIO non-compliance. In the context of a Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal, the Information Commission (in this case, the UP State Commission) can take strict action if the law is ignored without good cause.

Section 20(1): Monetary Penalty

Moreover, Section 20(1) allows the Information Commission to impose a personal monetary penalty on the PIO under specific circumstances.

• A penalty is possible if the PIO:
• Refuses an application. No, does not give the requested information in time (30 days). Malafidely denied the request for information.
  • KnGives knowingly incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.Destroyed information subject to the request.
  • Obstructs information in any way.Penalty Amount: The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until the information is provided or the application is received.Maximum Limit: The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
• Source of Payment: The penalty must be paid by the PIO from their personal salary, not covered or reimbursed by the Public Authority, meaning the individual officer is personally responsible.
• Burden of Proof: The PIO must show they acted responsibly. They must have a hearing before any penalty is imposed. Here, the penalty reason is the PIO’s failure to provide information within 30 days.

Section 20(2): Disciplinary Action (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)

In addition to imposing a monetary penalty under Sec. 20(1), the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under applicable service rules if it finds the PIO’s conduct warrants such action for the same violations. The RTI Act does not allow a direct financial penalty on the FAA. The appellant has asked for disciplinary action against the FAA for acting “illegally without considering the pros and cons of the result.” While hearing a Second Appeal, the Information Commission often observes the FAA’s conduct. If the FAA’s inaction or refusal to hear the appeal is a serious, deliberate obstruction, the Commission may still recommend disciplinary action to the Public Authority, as requested by the appellant, using its general powers to enforce the Act.

Here are the main application IDs, links, emails, and contacts for the parties involved. This information specifically pertains to the Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal process (Application, First Appeal, Second Appeal) and the public authorities involved.

RTI Application and Appeal IDs

RTI Application (Sec. 6(1))	DOUDV/R/2025/60046	DOUDVR20250000000064	02-02-2025
First Appeal (Sec. 19(1))	DOUDV/A/2025/60053	N/A	20-03-2025
Second Appeal (Sec. 19(3))	A-20250600374	UPICR20240000149	08/06/2025

---

📧 Contact and Authority Information (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)

Official Website	https://upsic.up.gov.in/ or https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226010
Office Phone	0522-2724930
General Email	webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
Online RTI Helpline	onlinertihelpline[dot]up[at]gov[dot]in

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Respondent 1 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)

Name	Shri Ambrish Kumar Srivastav
Office	NAGAR VIKAS VIBHAG
Designation	Section Officer
Office Address	838, बापू भवन, लखनऊ, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code- 226001
Mobile Number	9454419927 (From Appeal) or 9454410223 (From Prayer)
Email	nagarvikassection6@gmail.com (From Appeal) or sonagarvikas6@gmail.com (From Prayer)

3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) – Respondent 2

Name	Sajeevan NV-6
Office	NAGAR VIKAS VIBHAG ANUBHAG 6
Designation	Deputy Secretary / Commissioner Municipal Corporation
Office Address	838, बापू भवन, लखनऊ, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code- 226001
Mobile Number	9454413781
Email	nagarvikassection6@gmail.com

---

🌐 Relevant Government Websites (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)

The following links are relevant for tracking the appeal status or finding department details:

• UP State RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
• UP Urban Development Department (Nagar Vikas Vibhag): https://urbandevelopment.up.nic.in/