This Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview provides important context: The Uttar Pradesh RTI (Right to Information) case serves as a significant example of the challenges and implications surrounding transparency and accountability in governance. The case concerns the application of the RTI Act, which empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, thereby promoting openness in government operations. In Uttar Pradesh, various controversies have emerged regarding delayed responses, incomplete information, and even retaliatory actions against applicants. This situation highlights the ongoing struggle for citizens’ rights to access information and the need for stronger protections for those seeking transparency in government processes, ensuring the spirit of the RTI Act is upheld.

Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview: Key Takeaways

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

• The CMO Bhadohi investigated and confirmed that Dr Pradeep Kumar Yadav, a government doctor, practiced privately at Chhote Lal Bind Hospital in Prayagraj. On-site observations and staff testimony supported this finding.
• Clarify the jurisdictional gap: Although the CMO Bhadohi gathered clear evidence against Dr Pradeep Kumar Yadav, it could not take action because the alleged private hospital was under the administrative area of the CMO Prayagraj. However, the CMO Prayagraj did not act on the findings communicated by the CMO Bhadohi, resulting in a stalemate in which each office deferred responsibility, leaving the case unresolved.
• Delays by Officials: Instead of sending the RTI request directly to the CMO, Prayagraj, officials sent it to the Additional Director in Mirzapur. The appellant claims this was done deliberately to cause delays.
• Dodging by Information Officer: Even after the Information Commission intervened, CMO Prayagraj said they couldn’t understand the request, despite the appellant providing clear reports and file numbers.
• The appellant seeks: 1) the legal grounds for government doctors to practice privately; 2) the official rationale for inaction against the hospital; 3) a formal action taken report from the 2024 investigation.
  1. The official reason for the lack of action against the hospital is.
  2. A formal Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the initial 2024 investigation.
• System Failure: The case shows a breakdown in the RTI process, with senior officials accused of ignoring rules and deadlines.

Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview: How Bureaucratic Apathy is Shielding Illegal Private Practice

The Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview reveals a battle for transparency unfolding in the heart of the state’s administrative machinery. This persistent friction arises between citizens seeking accountability and a bureaucracy intent on creating circular paper trails, as exemplified by the case of Yogi M P Singh vs The Medical and Health Directorate. This legal dispute under the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly illustrates how individuals use “systemic negligence” as a shield to protect illegal activities.

The central dispute centers on a government doctor who allegedly engaged in illegal private practice at a hospital in Baraut. Meanwhile, officials have repeatedly passed unresolved RTI requests among themselves, prolonging the issue.

---

The Core Issue: Illegal Private Practice and Evidence Ignored

The saga began with a complaint against Dr Pradeep KumarYadav, a physician at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital in Bhadohi. In Uttar Pradesh, government doctors cannot engage in private practice, particularly 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 team found a nameplate bearing the name Dr. P.K. Yadav at the Chhote Lal Bind Hospital in Baraut, Prayagraj.
• Witness Testimony: Staff at the private hospital admitted that they summoned Dr Yadav 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 practiced privately.

Despite clear findings, Bhadohi authorities did not act because the hospital falls under the CMO Prayagraj’s jurisdiction, which caused administrative delays.

After Yogi M P Singh filed an RTI application (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/61103) to check what action authorities took following the investigation, he encountered what he calls a ‘mess of procedures.’

1. The Wrongful Transfer

The RTI was first sent to the Directorate of Medical and Health in Lucknow. By law, if sent to the wrong office, it should be moved to the correct one within five days. But instead of sending it to the CMO in Prayagraj, they sent it to the Additional Director in Mirzapur, even though the hospital is actually in Prayagraj.

2. The “Loss of Information” Tactic

By June 2025, CMO Prayagraj claimed they couldn’t share the information because they didn’t understand the request. This tactic is a common way Public Information Officers (PIOs) avoid answering. Although CMO Bhadohi’s investigation included all request details, Prayagraj deliberately acted as if they were unaware.

---

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 penalise 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” even though they have the files in their possession, it suggests more than mere 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

The Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview serves as 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: When one CMO ignores another’s investigation report, the entire chain of command in the Health Department suffers. Consequently, public trust in the system erodes.
• Paperless Promises vs Reality: Although the UP Government promotes “paperless work” and digital transparency, officials still misplace or misdirect files 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 disciplinary action against the Joint Director and the CMO for failing to comply with the law.

The authorities must be held to account. Demand the enforcement of the RTI Act and insist on transparent responses at the upcoming hearing. Use your application details when contacting the designated officials, and explicitly request answers to your concerns. Your active participation is crucial—take action now to drive meaningful change in the Uttar Pradesh RTI Case.

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.

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) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview)

• 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) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview)

• 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 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview)

• 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 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview)

• 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: The team contacted admhmzp1@gmail.com (Mirzapur) even though the incident and the hospital fall under cmoald@up.nic.in (Prayagraj). This misalignment created confusion about accountability for enforcement and information provision, as the office was responsible for responding to the complaint. Unfortunately, they did not contact the complainant.
• 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. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Case Overview)

Take decisive action: Prepare a clear, forceful “Brief Note of Arguments” to present in person or by email at the hearing on 23/10/2024. Proactively coordinate with supporters and consistently share case updates to keep pressure on authorities. Now is the time to assert your demands—let your voice drive accountability and reform. 23/10/2024. Proactively coordinate with supporters and consistently share case updates to keep pressure on authorities. Now is the time to assert your demands—let your voice drive accountability and reform.