🛑 Mockery of Transparency: Public Information Officers Defy State Information Commission Notices

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, designed to foster transparency and accountability in governance. However, the case of Indradev Yadav versus the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation) illustrates a grave challenge: the apparent defiance of statutory bodies like the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) by Public Information Officers (PIOs).

The situation is escalating, with the appellant claiming that PIOs are not providing information, even after receiving formal notices from the Commission, turning the appeal process into a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information Act 2005.”

---

🏛️ The Information Commission’s Authority and the PIO’s Failure

The Second Appeal, filed under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act with the Registration Number A-20250500801 and File Number S10/A/0501/2025, pertains to a critical area of public administration: recruitment within the Nagar Nigam.

The hearing date was set for June 19, 2025, in Court S-10. The appellant, Indradev Yadav, explicitly pointed out that the non-provision of information even after the notice by the Commission shows a serious disregard for the due process and the Commission’s authority.

---

📝 The Core Dispute: Evasive and Incomplete Responses

The appellant’s submissions clearly detail five points of information sought and the corresponding responses from the PIO, ARVIND KUMAR RAI (of the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam). The PIO’s responses have been consistently classified as “misleading and incomplete” or “Not sustainable from Zone-8.

1. Specific Recruitment Details (Sanitation Staff)

The appellant sought the date of recruitment and advertisement details for a specific employee, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, working as a sanitation staff member.

• PIO’s Response: Stated only that the employee is “Working in Ward No. 45 of Zone-8 Jhusi since 2023.”
• Appellant’s Submission: Correctly pointed out that “since 2023” is not the date of recruitment and that the crucial details concerning the vacancy/advertisement were missing. This is a classic example of providing a tangential fact instead of the substantive information requested.

2. Broad Recruitment Data (Last 10 Years)

The remaining four points of information pertained to general recruitment practices over the last decade within the Municipal Corporation, including:

• Advertisement details for all vacancies.
• Number of recruitments made (daily wage, ad hoc, and permanent).
• Details of the recruiters/appointing authorities.
• Number of outsourced staff.
• PIO’s Repeated Response: For all these queries, the PIO merely stated: “Not sustainable from Zone-8.”

3. Failure to Transfer the RTI Application

The appellant rightfully argued that if the information was not available with the Zone-8 PIO, the PIO was legally bound to take action under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section mandates that if a PIO receives an application related to another public authority, or a different branch of the same authority, they must transfer the application to the correct PIO within five days and inform the applicant.

The PIO’s repeated use of “Not sustainable from Zone-8” without initiating a transfer suggests either an extreme lack of understanding of the Act or, more seriously, a deliberate attempt to evade accountability with an ulterior motive, as alleged by the appellant.

---

🚨 The Gravity of the Situation: What is at Stake?

The reluctance to provide information concerning recruitment and staffing details raises serious red flags. The appellant, Indradev Yadav, explicitly states that the Nagar Nigam “is escaping from providing information concerning recruitment of the personnel in the department because no setup norms were followed.

When PIOs evade providing simple statistical data—like the number of recruitments or advertisement details—they are shielding the process from public scrutiny.

• Erosion of Public Trust: This defiance undermines the public’s faith in the statutory framework and the government machinery’s willingness to be accountable.
• Violation of Law: Non-compliance with the Information Commission’s notice and failure to adhere to Section 6(3) can attract penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act, which includes a fine of up to $25,000$ rupees and disciplinary action.
• Impunity: If PIOs are allowed to ignore notices from the State Information Commission—the highest appellate body in the state for RTI matters—it sets a dangerous precedent of institutional impunity.

---

⚖️ Path Forward: A Call for Strict Action

Given the explicit nature of the complaint and the documented non-compliance, the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, particularly the presiding officer of Court S-10, has a clear responsibility to intervene decisively.

The following steps are imperative to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act:

1. Imposition of Penalty: Initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) to impose a daily penalty on PIO ARVIND KUMAR RAI for malafide denial of information and obstructing the provision of information, especially after the Commission’s notice.
2. Disciplinary Recommendation: Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20(2).
3. Mandatory Provision of Information: Issue a final, strict order directing the PIO or the head of the Municipal Corporation to compile and furnish all the requested information—including transfer or compilation from the relevant sections—to the appellant within a specified, short deadline.

The core issue is no longer just about the recruitment details; it is about the sovereignty of the State Information Commission and the right of citizens to government information. The Commission’s action in this case will be a litmus test for the future of transparency in Uttar Pradesh.

Detail	Entity/Person	Information
Mobile Number	Indradev Yadav (Appellant)	9118208936
Email Address	Indradev Yadav (Appellant)	yadavindramzp9118@gmail.com
PIO Address	ARVIND KUMAR RAI (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam)	Office – Prayagraj Nagar Nigam, पिन कोड : 211001
UPIC Court Email	Court S-10 (For the Hearing)	hearingcourts10.upic@up.gov.in
CC Email	Nagar Nigam Office	osnagarnigam@rediffmail.com
File Number	Second Appeal (UPIC)	S10/A/0501/2025
Registration Number	Second Appeal (UPIC)	A-20250500801
Diary Number	UPIC	D-160620250008

Based on the case documents and a search for the related public bodies, here are the most relevant web links:

🔗 Relevant Web Links

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the authority where the Second Appeal is filed and the hearing is scheduled.

• Official Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in/
• Case Status Tracking: You can likely track the status of the appeal (File Number: S10/A/0501/2025 or Registration Number: A-20250500801) here: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/trackstatus
• Weekly Cause List (Hearing Schedule): To view the court schedule for Court S-10 (Shri Rakesh Kumar, State Information Commissioner): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/view_weekly_cause_list

2. Prayagraj Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation)

This is the public authority from which the information is being sought.

• Official Website (Prayagraj Municipal Corporation): http://www.allahabadmc.gov.in/
• District Portal (with links to the Corporation): https://prayagraj.nic.in/

3. Online RTI Portal for Uttar Pradesh

For general RTI filing and related information within the state:

• Online RTI UP Portal: You may find this link helpful for other RTI-related actions in the state. (The specific link for online filing is usually accessible via the UPSIC website).