Key takeaways from the blog post

Here are the key takeaways from the administrative and legal battle regarding RTI Case A-20241000147:

• Evidence of Illegal Practice: An official investigation by the CMO Bhadohi confirmed that Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav (a government doctor) was engaging in private practice at Chhote Lal Bind Hospital in Prayagraj. Evidence included his nameplate on-site and staff testimony.
• The “Jurisdictional Gap”: Despite clear evidence, the CMO Bhadohi could not take direct action because the private hospital falls under the geographical jurisdiction of the CMO Prayagraj, who has allegedly failed to act on the findings.
• Bureaucratic Red Tape: The RTI application was subjected to multiple “misdirected” transfers. Instead of reaching the CMO Prayagraj, it was sent to the Additional Director of Mirzapur, which the appellant argues is a deliberate tactic to delay accountability.
• PIO Evasiveness: Even after the Information Commission’s involvement, the CMO Prayagraj claimed a “lack of clarity” regarding the information sought, despite the appellant providing specific investigation reports and file numbers.
• Core Demands for Transparency: The appellant is demanding three specific points of information:
  1. The legal basis for allowing a government doctor to practice privately.
  2. The official reason for the lack of action against the hospital.
  3. A formal Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the initial 2024 investigation.
• Systemic Failure: The case highlights a breakdown in the RTI process where senior officials (Joint Directors and CMOs) are accused of “promoting anarchy” by ignoring internal communications and statutory timelines.

The RTI Stalemate: How Bureaucratic Apathy is Shielding Illegal Private Practice in Uttar Pradesh

In the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s administrative machinery, a battle for transparency is unfolding—one that highlights the persistent friction between citizens seeking accountability and a bureaucracy seemingly intent on circular paper trails. The case of Yogi M P Singh vs. The Medical and Health Directorate is not just a legal dispute under the Right to Information (RTI) Act; it is a glaring example of how “systemic negligence” can be used as a shield to protect illegal activities.

At the center of this controversy is a government doctor, a private hospital in Baraut, and a trail of RTI applications that have been bounced from one office to another for over a year.

---

The Core Issue: Illegal Private Practice and Evidence Ignored

The saga began with a complaint against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, a physician at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital in Bhadohi. It is a well-established legal principle in Uttar Pradesh that government doctors are prohibited from engaging in private practice, especially in private clinics or hospitals.

An investigation conducted by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Bhadohi, Dr. S.K. Chak, revealed startling evidence:

• Physical Evidence: A nameplate of Dr. P.K. Yadav was found at the Chhote Lal Bind Hospital in Baraut, Prayagraj.
• Witness Testimony: Staff at the private hospital admitted that Dr. Yadav would be summoned via telephone whenever patients arrived to see him.
• Official Findings: The CMO Bhadohi explicitly stated in a letter (dated 31.01.2024) to the Director General of Medical and Health Services that Dr. Yadav was indeed practicing privately.

Despite these clear findings, the investigation hit a wall. Because the private hospital falls under the jurisdiction of the CMO Prayagraj, the Bhadohi authorities lacked the power to shut it down. Instead of a swift crackdown, the matter entered the “black hole” of administrative transfers.

---

A Comedy of Errors: The RTI Runaround

When Yogi M P Singh filed an RTI application (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/61103) to track the action taken on this investigation, he was met with what can only be described as “procedural anarchy.

1. The Wrongful Transfer

The RTI was initially filed with the Directorate of Medical and Health in Lucknow. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if an application is filed with the wrong public authority, it must be transferred to the correct one within five days. However, the Directorate transferred the request to the Additional Director of Mirzapur instead of the CMO Prayagraj, where the hospital in question is actually located.

2. The “Loss of Information” Tactic

By June 2025, the CMO Prayagraj claimed they could not provide information because it was “not clear” what information was being sought. This is a classic stall tactic used by Public Information Officers (PIOs) to frustrate appellants. The details were clearly mentioned in the original investigation report by the CMO Bhadohi, yet the Prayagraj office acted as though they were starting from zero.

---

The Information Commission Steps In

The matter has now reached the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), specifically Court S-2, under Appeal Number A-20241000147. The appellant’s submissions to the Commission are a scathing indictment of the Medical and Health Directorate.

The appellant has raised three critical points that the CMO Prayagraj must answer:

1. Legal Provisions: Under what law is a government doctor allowed to practice at Chhote Lal Bind Hospital? (The answer is: none).
2. Right to Reason: Why was no action taken against the private hospital despite a formal communication from the CMO Bhadohi?
3. Action Taken Report: What specific steps, if any, have been taken to penalize the hospital or the doctor since the investigation in 2024?

---

The Impact of Bureaucratic Corruption

The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, has been vocal in his criticism, stating that the Joint Director (Karmik) and the Directorate of Medical and Health have made a “mockery of the RTI Act.

When PIOs deliberately transfer applications to the wrong districts or claim “lack of clarity” despite having the files in their possession, it suggests more than just incompetence. It points toward a deliberate attempt to protect Dr. P.K. Yadav and the owners of Chhote Lal Bind Hospital.

The right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system,” the appellant noted in his submission. Without a reason for inaction, the administration ceases to be a public service and becomes a tool for private interests.

---

Why This Matters for the Public

This case is a microcosm of the challenges facing the RTI Act in India today.

• Public Health at Stake: When government doctors spend their time at private clinics, the poorest citizens—who rely on district hospitals—suffer from a lack of care.
• Accountability: If a CMO’s own investigation report can be ignored by another CMO, the entire chain of command in the Health Department is compromised.
• Paperless Promises vs. Reality: Despite the UP Government’s push for “paperless work” and digital transparency, this case shows that files are still being “lost” or “misdirected” in the digital age.

---

The Path Forward

The next hearing is scheduled at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The Commission has the power to:

• Impose Penalties: Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the PIO can be fined ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) for failing to provide information.
• Recommend Disciplinary Action: The Commission can recommend action against the Joint Director and CMO for their failure to uphold the law.

For the citizens of Mirzapur and Prayagraj, this is not just about one doctor. It is about whether the “Right to Information” is a functional tool for justice or merely a decorative piece of legislation.

To ensure your follow-up is as precise as possible, here is a structured directory of the application identifiers and the contact details for the specific authorities involved in your case.

1. Case Identifiers & References

Keep these numbers handy for all future correspondence with the Commission or the Health Department.

Reference Type	Identification Number
UPIC Diary Number	D-130620250078
Appeal Registration No.	A-20241000147
Appeal File Number	S02/A/1339/2024
Original RTI Reg. No.	DIRMH/R/2024/61103
UPIC Unique Welcome ID	UPICR20240000149

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities (Contact Directory)

Based on the official records and departmental hierarchy, these are the key offices responsible for your information.

A. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

• Court: S-2 (Hon’ble State Information Commissioner)
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
• Official Email: hearingcourts2.upic@up.gov.in / webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• Phone: 0522-2724930
• Web Link: upsic.up.gov.in

B. Medical and Health Directorate (Lucknow)

• Designated PIO: Joint Director A.K. Shrivastava
• Karmik Section Email: add.karmik@gmail.com
• Director Admin Email: diradmncamp@gmail.com
• Address: Swasthya Bhawan, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow, UP – 226001
• Phone (DG Health): 0522-2622625

C. Chief Medical Officer (CMO) – Prayagraj

• Official Email: cmoald@up.nic.in / cmoald@gmail.com
• Mobile (CMO): 9454455138
• Address: Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, UP – 211001
• Web Link: prayagraj.nic.in/health

D. Additional Director – Mirzapur Division

• Email: admhmzp1@gmail.com
• Mobile: 9415840539
• District Manager Contact: 7408080380 (Amitesh Lal Srivastava)

---

3. Key Missing Information Tracking

The following “data gaps” were identified in your representation. You should specifically mention these in your next hearing:

• Jurisdictional Transfer Gap: Note that while the PIO details mention admhmzp1@gmail.com (Mirzapur), the actual incident and hospital are under cmoald@up.nic.in (Prayagraj).
• Action Taken Report (ATR): Request the specific dispatch number of any letter sent from CMO Prayagraj to Chhote Lal Bind Hospital following the 31.01.2024 investigation.

Would you like me to draft a “Brief Note of Arguments” that you can present in person or via email before the next hearing on 23/10/2024?