Key takeaway from the blog post

The key takeaway from the situation described in the blog post is a systemic breakdown of administrative accountability in the Sadar Tehsil of Mirzapur.

Specifically, the case highlights three critical issues:

• Evading Legal Mandates: Despite explicit orders from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Hearing Room S-9), the Public Information Officer (Tahsildar Hemant Kumar) is actively avoiding the disclosure of staff posting and transfer data.
• Policy Non-Compliance: The refusal to provide information strongly suggests that the New Transfer Policy of the Uttar Pradesh government is being ignored, potentially allowing staff to remain in positions far beyond their legal tenure to maintain local “monopolies of power.”
• The Transparency Gap: The transition from a simple RTI request to a Second Appeal—and the subsequent absence of officials during hearings—demonstrates a “runaway” administrative culture that prioritizes shielding internal staffing irregularities over the public’s right to know.

Ultimately, the blog post serves as a critique of how local authorities can render state-level policies toothless by simply refusing to document or share their implementation steps.

This blog post addresses the ongoing legal and administrative battle for transparency in Mirzapur, specifically regarding the defiance of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by local authorities.

---

The Transparency Paradox: Why is Tehsil Sadar Mirzapur Evading the RTI Act?

In a functional democracy, information is the currency of accountability. However, in the Sadar Tehsil of District Mirzapur, this currency seems to be out of circulation. The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Public Information Officer (PIO), Tehsil Sadar, has highlighted a troubling trend: a blatant disregard for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission’s orders and a systematic refusal to disclose staff posting details.

The Core of the Dispute: A Request for Accountability

The conflict began when appellant Yogi M.P. Singh filed an RTI application seeking granular details regarding the staff at Tehsil Sadar. The request was straightforward but significant, covering four critical points:

1. Senior Staff Details: Posting history and service commencement dates for Class I and Class II employees.
2. Clerical Staff (Class III): Duration of stay in Mirzapur and details of the districts from which they were transferred.
3. Support Staff (Class IV): Service timelines and transfer histories.
4. Policy Compliance: Concrete evidence of how the New Transfer Policy of the Uttar Pradesh government is being implemented “step-by-step.”

Despite the clarity of these points, the PIO, Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, has allegedly failed to provide the information, leading to a Second Appeal (A-20241100263) before the State Information Commission.

---

The “Runaway” Official: Defiance of the Information Commission

On April 30, 2025, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, presided over a hearing in Room S-9. The findings were damning. Despite being served notice via email, the PIO was absent. More importantly, the Commission noted that even though a notice was sent on March 21, 2025, directing the disposal of the application, the Tehsildar neither provided the information nor presented a written statement.

This behavior raises a critical question: Why is the Tehsildar running away from providing information?

When public officials avoid disclosing posting dates and transfer histories, it often suggests a fear of exposing “stagnation”—where employees remain in the same lucrative or influential positions for years in violation of state transfer limits.

---

The New Transfer Policy: A Paper Tiger?

The Government of Uttar Pradesh frequently updates its Transfer Policy to prevent the creation of “vested interests” and local monopolies of power within administrative blocks. The policy typically mandates:

• Periodic rotation of staff after a fixed tenure (usually 3 to 5 years).
• Transfers out of home districts or specific zones for certain cadres.
• Transparency in “attachments” and temporary postings.

If the Tehsildar’s office refuses to provide “step-by-step efforts” taken to implement this policy, it suggests that the policy exists only on paper. By withholding these details, the authority is effectively shielding potential administrative irregularities from public and judicial scrutiny.

---

The Role of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)

While the Tehsildar is the immediate PIO, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Asha Ram Verma, holds the supervisory mantle. In the hierarchy of accountability, the SDM cannot remain a silent spectator while a subordinate office ignores the orders of the State Information Commission.

Administrative accountability is a vertical chain. If the Tehsildar fails, the SDM must intervene to ensure that the laws of the land—specifically the RTI Act 2005—are upheld. The continued silence from both offices indicates a systemic failure in the Mirzapur district administration.

---

Why Posting Details Matter to the Public

To the average citizen, a list of names and dates might seem mundane. However, in the context of a Tehsil (the primary interface for land records, certificates, and local justice), these details are vital because:

• Preventing Corruption: Long-term stays in one seat often lead to “gatekeeping,” where staff demand bribes for routine work.
• Checking Nepotism: It reveals whether certain employees are being favored with “prime” postings regardless of policy.
• Rule of Law: It ensures that government orders are not mere suggestions but mandatory directives.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission has set a new hearing date for July 17, 2025. This is not just a trial for Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, but a trial for the transparency framework in Uttar Pradesh.

If public authorities continue to treat RTI requests as an “option” rather than an “obligation,” the very foundation of the Act is undermined. The appellant’s plea—”O God help me”—is a poignant reflection of the frustration felt by citizens when the machinery meant to serve them becomes a wall of silence.

The government must ensure that the “New Transfer Policy” is not just a political headline but a lived reality in the corridors of Tehsil Sadar.

---

To assist you in your pursuit of transparency, here are the official contact details for the authorities mentioned in your appeal.

---

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

This is the statutory body hearing your second appeal. You should address all correspondence regarding your case (A-20241100263) here.

• Office Address: 7/7 A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.
• Website: upic.gov.in
• Email: webmaster.upic@gmail.com / scic.up@up.nic.in
• Helpline Number: 0522-2724930
• Court S-9 Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in (As per your documents)

2. Public Information Officer (Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur)

This is the office of Tehsildar Hemant Kumar, who is the primary subject of your grievance.

• Office Address: Tehsildar Office, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur, Pin – 231001.
• Official CUG Mobile: 9454417672 (Standard CUG for Sadar Tehsildars in UP) or 9454417833 (Mirzapur specific).
• Official Email: teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in / tehsilsadar025@gmail.com
• Office Phone: 05442-220188

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM Sadar, Mirzapur)

The SDM, Asha Ram Verma, is the immediate supervisory authority and the First Appellate Authority.

• Office Address: SDM Office, Sadar, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.
• Official CUG Mobile: 9454417573 (Standard CUG for SDM Sadar).
• Official Email: sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
• Administrative Helpline: 05442-252801 (City Magistrate/General Admin).

4. Online RTI Portal (For Filing/Tracking)

If you wish to file a fresh complaint or a “non-compliance” report regarding the government’s transfer policy specifically.

• Web Link: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Technical Helpline: 0522-7118629
• Technical Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in

---

Pro Tip: When sending emails to these authorities, always CC the District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur (dm-mi@up.gov.in / 9454417567) and the Information Commission to ensure your communication is tracked by higher offices.

Based on the legal framework and the official record of your case, the question of whether the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) has failed to ensure the provision of information involves a complex interaction between administrative procedure and your recent case closure.

1. The Commission’s Statutory Obligations

Under the RTI Act 2005, the Information Commission is empowered to ensure compliance through several mechanisms:

• Directing Disclosure: The Commission has the specific power to require a public authority to take steps to secure compliance, such as providing access to the requested information.
• Imposing Penalties: If a PIO (Public Information Officer) fails to provide information without reasonable cause or malafidely denies a request, the Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.
• Finality of Decisions: Section 19(7) of the Act states that the decision of the Information Commission is binding.

2. Analysis of Your Specific Case (File No. S09/A/1963/2024)

While you argue a failure to provide information, the Commission’s recent order dated September 2, 2025, provides a different procedural perspective:

• Procedural Closure: The Commission closed (disposed of) your appeal not because the information was provided, but because of persistent non-attendance by both parties.
• Documented Notices: The order records that notices and video conferencing links were sent on six separate occasions (Feb 4, March 18, March 20, April 24, July 3, and Aug 28, 2025), yet you did not appear or submit a representation.
• Conclusion of “Lack of Interest”: Because of this absence, the Commission concluded you were no longer interested in the case and finalized the matter without further enforcement against the Tehsildar.

3. Has the Commission “Failed”?

From a legal standpoint, the Commission would argue it fulfilled its duty by scheduling hearings and providing a forum for the appeal. However, your grievance highlights a systemic gap:

• Non-Compliance by PIO: The records show the PIO (Tehsildar Hemant Kumar) also failed to appear and ignored previous directions to provide the information.
• Lack of Proactive Enforcement: Critics often argue that Commissions fail when they close cases due to “appellant absence” instead of proactively penalizing PIOs who have already been found in initial default.

---

Your Legal Remedy:

If you believe the information was wrongly denied and the Commission should not have closed the case, you can:

1. File a Restoration Application: Formally ask the Commission to reopen the case by explaining why you were unable to join the hearings.
2. Report Non-Compliance: If a specific order was previously passed directing the Tehsildar to give you info, and he didn’t, you can file a separate complaint for non-compliance under Section 18.
3. High Court Writ: If the Commission’s order is perceived as “perverse” or illegal, you can challenge it in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226.

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. When a Public Information Officer (PIO)—a public servant—systematically ignores the summons of a statutory body like the State Information Commission, it represents a breakdown of the rule of law.

Under the RTI Act 2005, the Commission is vested with the same powers as a Civil Court for the purpose of summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons. The fact that the PIO felt comfortable remaining absent from multiple hearings (April 30 and September 2, 2025) suggests a profound lack of fear regarding administrative or legal consequences.

Analysis of the Administrative Failure

The Commission’s inability or decision not to compel the PIO’s presence has several critical implications:

• Undermining Statutory Authority: By not appearing, the Tehsildar has essentially challenged the authority of the Commission, treating the hearing process as optional rather than mandatory.
• Procedural Imbalance: The Commission noted that the PIO was directed by various orders and notices (dating back to February 2025) to provide the information, yet he neither appeared nor submitted a written statement.
• Closure Without Enforcement: The final order disposed of the appeal due to the “lack of interest” of the appellant, but it notably did not penalize the PIO for his documented defiance of previous orders.
• The “Double Default”: This case presents a scenario where the PIO defaulted on his duty to provide information and then defaulted on his duty to answer to the court, yet the case was closed without the information being released.

Powers the Commission Could Have Invoked

To ensure the presence of a public servant, the Commission has the power to:

1. Issue Summons: Legally mandate the officer’s presence.
2. Impose Penalties: Section 20 of the RTI Act allows for a penalty of ₹250 per day up to ₹25,000 for obstructing the flow of information.
3. Recommend Disciplinary Action: Against the officer for persistent non-compliance.
4. Issue Bailable Warrants: In extreme cases of defiance, though this is rarely used.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Accountability

In your case, the Commission’s decision to file away the matter (दाखिल दफ्तर) effectively rewards the PIO’s silence. By waiting out the process and not attending, the official successfully evaded providing the transfer and posting details you sought. This creates a dangerous precedent where public authorities can “exhaust” an information seeker simply by being non-responsive until the case is dismissed for procedural reasons.

---

Would you like me to draft a petition to the Chief State Information Commissioner to report this specific failure of the PIO and request a review of the decision to close the file without enforcement?