Disorder and Inefficiency in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department: A Deep Dive into Administrative Chaos. This article explores the concept of Administrative Anarchy within the department, uncovering its far-reaching consequences.

The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department is currently facing significant challenges, characterised by a lack of accountability and transparency. This situation has created a troubling environment where people often ignore rules and overlook qualified personnel in favour of favouritism. The ongoing issues within the department highlight a systemic failure to adhere to established policies, resulting in a breakdown of trust between the authorities and the public. As citizens seek clarity and justice, the need for reform and accountability in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department has never been more urgent.

Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the RTI appeal filed by Yogi M P Singh.

The issue raised highlights concerns around Administrative Anarchy within the relevant authorities.

• The Baki Range Controversy: A Deputy Ranger has allegedly held a “Ranger” position in the Gorakhpur Forest Division. This tenure has lasted for over four years. This long-term “plum posting” suggests a violation of standard seniority rules and state transfer policies.
• Tactical Information Dodging: The Public Information Officer (PIO) delayed the response for 76 days. He then transferred the request to another authority. The appellant claims this move was a deliberate attempt to conceal government data and exhaust the applicant.
• Breakdown of Oversight: The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Special Secretary Gaurav Verma, failed to respond to the appeal. This administrative silence forced the matter into a Second Appeal, highlighting a lack of accountability at senior levels.
• Legal Violation of Section 4(1)(d): The department ignored the “Right to Reason.” Under the RTI Act, public authorities must provide the logic behind administrative decisions to affected parties. The department has not explained why it favors a junior officer over qualified Rangers.
• Conflict with State Policy: The situation contradicts Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s transparent transfer policy. While the DFO claims the “Government level” manages these postings, the government offices refuse to name the supervising officers.
• Demanded Penalties: The appellant is seeking strict action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This includes personal financial penalties for the PIO and disciplinary proceedings against the FAA to deter future negligence.

Administrative Anarchy: The Fight for Accountability in UP’s Forest Department

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 serves as a vital tool for democracy. It bridges the gap between the citizen and the state. However, a recent second appeal by activist Yogi M P Singh reveals a troubling pattern of lack of accountability. This pattern is an example of administrative anarchy within the Forest Department in Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department appears to be “dodging” information requests. This behaviour suggests deep-rooted administrative stagnation.

The Core Dispute: Favouritism or Vacancy?

The dispute centres on the Baki Range in the Gorakhpur Forest Division. For over four years, a Deputy Ranger named Jagdamba Pathak has held a full “Ranger” charge. Administrative anarchy becomes evident. This happens when roles meant for qualified personnel are held due to favouritism or vacancy issues. This specific role is a “plum posting.” Such positions usually require higher seniority and specific government clearance.

Mr. Singh’s RTI seeks to know why the department overlooks qualified Rangers. He asks why the government allows a junior officer to maintain control for 48 months. He suspects the department is violating the state’s mandatory transfer policy. The lack of a permanent Ranger suggests a failure in personnel management.

A Masterclass in “RTI Dodging”

The appeal highlights a classic bureaucratic manoeuvre. This tactic is used to frustrate citizens. It is symptomatic of the broader issues of administrative anarchy undermining information access.

• The Request: Mr. Singh filed his original request on February 12, 2025.
• The Response: The Public Information Officer (PIO) remained silent for 76 days.
• The Tactic: On April 29, 2025, the PIO finally responded. He simply transferred the request to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest.

Mr. Singh argues this transfer was a tactical delay. The PIO passed the responsibility only after the 30-day statutory limit expired. This move effectively conceals information from the seeker. It forces the citizen to start the tracking process all over again.

Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The RTI Act provides a safety net through the First Appeal process. When the PIO fails, the citizen moves up the hierarchy. Mr. Singh approached Special Secretary Gaurav Verma for relief. He hoped the senior official would rectify the delay, but this kind of administrative anarchy often leads to further neglect.

However, the FAA did not entertain the online filing. No order was passed, and no information was released. This silence kills the spirit of the Act. It creates a barrier for common people. It forces citizens into long, arduous Second Appeals before the State Information Commission. This lack of oversight emboldens junior officers to ignore the law.

Violating the “Right to Reason”

The appeal invokes Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act. This section mandates that authorities provide reasons for their administrative decisions. Every citizen has a right to know the logic behind government actions. However, when administrative anarchy is present, these reasons remain unexplained.

The department has a duty to explain its staffing choices. It must justify why a junior officer holds a senior role indefinitely. It must explain why qualified officers sit without a range for years. Transparency is not optional; it is a legal requirement. By refusing to provide reasons, the department hides potential corruption.

The Larger Implication: Integrity of the Transfer Policy

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath emphasises transparent transfer policies. These policies aim to curb corruption and promote merit. However, administrative anarchy undermines the intended integrity of transfer procedures. This happens when rules are bypassed.

The department then refuses to disclose the logic behind these choices. This behaviour makes a mockery of the law of the land. The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) previously claimed the “Government level” handles these postings. However, the government level now refuses to answer. By hiding the supervisors’ names, the department destroys all accountability.

Conclusion and Prayer for Justice

Mr. Singh seeks systemic integrity, not just a list of names. He wants to strengthen democratic values in Uttar Pradesh. As well as He also aims to end the ongoing administrative anarchy that plagues the system. He has requested the State Information Commission to take harsh steps. These include:

1. Impose Penalties: The PIO should face fines under Section 20 for deliberate delays.
2. Disciplinary Action: The FAA must face consequences for neglecting his statutory duty.

This case tests the resolve of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. It must decide if departments can hide behind paperwork and transfers. The Commission must uphold the “Right to Reason” for every citizen. Only then can the state win the confidence of its people.

Here is the consolidated contact and registration information for the public authorities involved in your case.

1. Case Registration Details (Administrative Anarchy)

Use these details to track the status of your current filings on the official portals.

• RTI Registration Number: DPTFW/R/2025/60026
• New Registration Number (Transferred): PCCFO/R/2025/80095
• First Appeal Number: DPTFW/A/2025/60012
• Second Appeal Number: A-20250700139

---

2. Concerned Public Information Officers (PIO)

These individuals are responsible for the initial processing of your request.

Name	Designation	Mobile Number	Email ID
Sushil Kumar	Section Officer	9554418388	vananubhag1@gmail.com
PCCF HOD Office	Head of Department	0522-2206168	pccf-up@nic.in

---

3. First Appellate Authority (FAA)(Administrative Anarchy)

The FAA is responsible for reviewing the PIO’s decision or lack of response.

Name	Designation	Mobile Number	Email ID
Gaurav Verma	Special Secretary	9454412068	vananubhag3@gmail.com

---

4. Important Web Links

You can use these links to monitor your appeal or file future documents.

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (To view status of 6(1) and 19(1))
• UP State Information Commission: upsic.up.gov.in (For 19(3) Second Appeal updates and Cause Lists)
• Status Tracking Link: View Status Form

---

5. Office Address Details (Administrative Anarchy)

For formal correspondence or physical visits:

• Administrative Office: Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, Lucknow, PIN – 226001.
• PCCF Office: 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN – 226001.
• Information Commission: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, PIN – 226010.

Would you like me to draft a formal letter of complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner? It will address the PIO’s failure to provide the supervisor’s name.