Prayagraj Nagar Nigam has faced criticism for denying numerous RTI (Right to Information) requests from citizens seeking transparency and accountability. Activists and residents express concern that this lack of access to information undermines democratic principles and hinders efforts to address local governance issues. Calls for improved communication and openness continue.

📜 Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests: Analysis of the RTI Second Appeal 🚨

This post analyses the Second Appeal that Mr Indradev Yadav filed before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPIC), Court S-10. A core concern is how Prayagraj Nagar Nigam denies RTI requests, violating the Right to Information Act, 2005. Furthermore, Mr Yadav filed this appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. It directly highlights the serious failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam to provide information.

---

📅 Appeal Details and Hearing Date (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

Appellant	Indradev Yadav
Respondent	Public Information Officer
Appeal Registration Number	A-20250101887
File Number	S10/A/0496/2025
Original Application Date	22/01/2025 06:48:48 AM
Date of Hearing	June 19, 2025
Hearing Court	Court S-10, Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission

The appeal clearly shows that officials withheld information from January 22, 2025 — the date of the original application — right up to June 18, 2025, the day before the hearing.

---

📑 Information Sought in the RTI Application (Core Subject)

The appellant sought information on five specific points from the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam office. These points covered employee postings, service details, and departmental transparency. Notably, this information concerns employees’ administrative and service records. As a result, it is crucial to ensuring transparency in the public interest.

1. Details of Class I and II Employees

• Posting details of all First Class and Second Class employees of the department.
• The date they started service in the Prayagraj district and the duration of their current posting.
• Details of their first posting.
• The appellant also requested their CUG mobile numbers, citing wider public interest.

2. Details of Class III Employees (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

• Posting and service-related details of all Third Class employees of the department.
• Details of the date of commencement of their service in the district.
• Specifics regarding which district they were transferred from to the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj office.

3. Details of Class IV Employees

• Posting details of all Class IV employees posted in the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj office.
• Details of the date of commencement of service in the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj office.
• Additionally, if officials transferred them from other districts to the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj office, the PIO must provide the full details of that transfer.

4. Compliance with Transfer Policy

• Whether the new transfer policy issued by the state government is being followed in the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj office.
• Moreover, if the office follows the policy, the PIO must inform the applicant of all steps taken to date.

5. Attached Document

• The appellant requested that the PIO consider the new transfer policy attached to the representation before providing the information.

---

⚖️ Why Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests: Appellant’s Main Arguments and Legal Basis

The appellant raises serious concerns about the conduct of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Specifically, their arguments centre on the officials’ deliberate disregard for the RTI Act and their gross negligence.

1. Wilful Denial of Information

• The PIO did not entertain the RTI application, and the FAA also did not take any action on the first appeal.
• This act is considered “wilful denial of information.”
• The appellant alleges that the FAA is colluding with the PIO in cryptically denying the information.

2. Insolence and Anarchy to the Act

• Consequently, this conduct by both officers reflects outright “insolence” toward the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Furthermore, the petition states that this act amounts to “anarchy in the working of the public authority.” Therefore, it must be curbed at the earliest stage.

3. Purpose of the RTI Act (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

• The appellant quotes the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005, which states that its main objective is “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.”
• They argue that Public Information Officers falsely withhold information about public authorities under the guise of commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property. As a result, the RTI Act cannot achieve its core goal.

4. Demand for Penalty and Disciplinary Action

• The aThe appellant urges the Commission to take strict action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, for the wilful denial of information. Furthermore, they demand that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the First Appellate Authority for colluding with the PIO in denying the information.

---

💡 Conclusion and Request to the Commission

This document clearly demonstrates that Prayagraj Nagar Nigam denies RTI requests. As a result, the appellant, Indradev Yadav, had no option but to pursue legal avenues before the State Information Commission. Municipal Corporation officials showed complete non-cooperation throughout the process.

Therefore, the appellant humbly requests the Commission to take cognisance of the matter. He urges it to ensure delivery of the requested information and take strict action against the public servants who violate the spirit of the RTI Act.

This appeal strongly tests the effectiveness of the RTI Act, 2005, and the legal obligations of public servants. Indeed, the pattern of how Prayagraj Nagar Nigam denies RTI requests demands urgent attention. Only then can we restore essential transparency and accountability in government. Notably, this is a crucial and legally sound request. The threat of penalty serves as the primary enforcement mechanism of the RTI Act.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the penalties under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which the appellant, Mr Indradev Yadav, has invoked.

---

⚖️ Penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

Section 20 of the RTI Act empowers the Central Information Commission (CIC) or the State Information Commission (SIC) — in this case, the UPIC — to impose penalties on the PIO. Specifically, the Commission imposes these penalties when the PIO fails to comply with the Act.

The penalty provisions primarily target the PIO or any officer who failed to assist the PIO when requested — referred to as a deemed PIO. However, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is generally not subject to these monetary penalties.

1. Grounds for Imposing Penalty (Section 20). The Information Commission can impose a penalty on the PIO if, without any reasonable cause, the PIO has committed any of the following:

• Refused to receive an application for information.
• Not furnished the information within the time specified (usually 30 days).
• Malafidely denied the request for information.
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroyed information that was the subject of the request.
• Obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information.

2. Monetary Penalty Structure

Daily Fine Rate	Rs. 250 per day.
Applicable Period	Calculated each day until the application is received or the information is furnished.
Maximum Limit	The total amount of penalty shall not exceed Rs. 25,000.
Source of Payment	The penalty is imposed personally on the PIO and must be paid from their salary. The public authority cannot bear this cost.
Burden of Proof	The burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently lies squarely on the PIO.

Crucial Note: In Mr. Yadav’s appeal (File No. S10/A/0496/2025), if the UPIC finds that the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam PIO failed to respond to the RTI application dated 22/01/2025 without reasonable cause, it will calculate the daily penalty of Rs. 250 from the expiry of the 30-day period — that is, from late February 2025. This calculation continues until the PIO finally furnishes the information, up to the maximum limit of Rs. 25,000.

---

3. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2)) (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

In addition to the monetary penalty under Section 20(1), the Information Commission also holds the power under Section 20(2) to recommend more severe action.

• Provision: Where the Information Commission is of the opinion that the PIO has persistently committed the violations listed above, it may recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them.
• FAA Liability: As per various High Court judgments, the PIO can face both a monetary penalty (Section 20(1)) and a recommendation for disciplinary action (Section 20(2)). However, the RTI Act does not hold the FAA liable for a monetary penalty. Nevertheless, the appellant’s request for action against the FAA for “colluding” with the PIO seeks to highlight the FAA’s failure to discharge its statutory duty under Section 19(1). Consequently, the Commission may make adverse observations or issue directions to the higher administrative authority regarding the FAA’s failure to act on the first appeal.

---

🌐 Web Link Details for Legal Reference (Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Denies RTI Requests)

You can find the official text of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, here:

• Official Source:India Code – Section 20(1)
  • URL: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_26_36_00004_200522_1517807322955&sectionId=10892&sectionno=20&orderno=20

Therefore, this confirms that Mr Yadav correctly invokes Section 20 as the appropriate legal recourse for the alleged “wilful denial of information” by the PIO.