📜 The Unanswered Plea: Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role in RTI Applications

🚧 A Case Study in Bureaucratic Resistance: Yogi M.P. Singh’s RTI Struggle

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 is a cornerstone of Indian democracy. It is designed to foster transparency. It also encourages accountability and citizen participation in governance. Yet, nearly two decades after its enactment, countless citizens still encounter systemic hurdles. They experience inertia and outright defiance from Public Information Officers (PIOs). This is particularly true at the district and sub-district levels, making understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s role more important than ever.

The case of Yogi M.P. Singh. He is the appellant in the matter before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). He offers a stark, documented example of this resistance. Filed against the Public Information Officer (PIO)/Tehsildar of Lalganj, District Mirzapur, the second appeal (File No. S09/A/1948/2024) reveals a protracted struggle to obtain crucial land record information, highlighting not just a delay in providing information, but a conspicuous disregard for the directives of the appellate authorities.

---

🔍 The Core of the Appeal: Seeking Transparency in Inheritance Records

The appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, is seeking information related to an inheritance process that followed the death of his grandfather. This is not a request for frivolous data. It concerns the legal and administrative process. This process determines land ownership and class-I heir rights. It has direct and profound implications for the appellant. Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role in promoting corruption in the tehsil.

The information sought is specific and pertains to public records held by the Tehsil office. It is broken down into five distinct points, aimed at establishing the administrative trail and the rationale behind a significant omission:

🎯 The Five Pillars of Information Sought: (Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role)

1. Staff and Timeline: Provide the name and designation of the staff of Tehsil Lalganj. They processed the inheritance from the grandfather to the inheritors. Also, include the date when it was enforced. This seeks to identify the key actors and the effective date of the mutation.
2. Lekhpal’s Role: Provide the name of the Lekhpal. Include posting details. Specify the current status, including retirement details, of the Lekhpal who played a vital role in processing the inheritance. Lekhpals are the ground-level revenue officials crucial for verifying records.
3. Revenue Inspector’s Role: Provide the name of the Revenue Inspector. Include their posting details. Mention the current status of the Revenue Inspector who played a vital role in processing the inheritance. The Revenue Inspector supervises the Lekhpal and verifies the records at the next stage.
4. Tehsildar’s Role: Provide the name of the Tehsildar who was posted at that time. Include the posting details and current status. This officer played a vital role in processing the inheritance. The Tehsildar is the officer ultimately responsible for the administrative decision.
5. The Critical Question: Right to Reason: This is arguably the most crucial point. It requests the reason for excluding the name of the applicant. The applicant was a Class-1 heir. The name was excluded from the list of inheritors during the processing of the inheritance. This directly invokes the fundamental administrative principle of the “Right to Reason,” which is essential for public authorities. This principle demands that they justify decisions that affect citizens’ rights.

---

🛑 The Pattern of Defiance: PIO’s Non-Compliance

The documents submitted by the appellant, including his email communication and submissions to the UPIC, paint a clear picture of bureaucratic stonewalling:

1. Repeated Failure to Appear: (Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role)

The order by Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, notes a significant lapse:

Today, the hearing in the present appeal was conducted through video conferencing. The complainant himself is present. No one is present on behalf of the opposing Public Information Officer.

A failure to appear before the Commission—the highest statutory body for RTI appeals in the state—is more than just a procedural lapse. It shows a significant disregard for the authority of the Commission. It demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the process and the law.

2. Disregard for Commission Notices:

The appellant’s email communication (dated 9 July 2025) explicitly states that “The public information officer has provided no information. This is despite the repeated notices of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in the matter concerned.”

This is the most serious allegation. A PIO’s non-compliance with the Commission’s directives directly challenges the Commission’s authority. It also violates the spirit of the RTI Act. The Act provides for the imposition of penalties on a PIO for such repeated, willful failure.

3. The Charge of “Anarchy”:

The appellant rightly asserts that the actions of the PIO create an atmosphere of anarchy in the working of the public authority. The actions lead to disorder and confusion. The First Appellate Authority reflects the same atmosphere. They “took under-teeth the provisions of the right to information act 2005.”

This is the essence of the problem. When PIOs at the grassroots level feel emboldened, they disregard both the law and the orders of superior quasi-judicial bodies. As a result, the entire system of accountability collapses. Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role one can observe as promoters of corruption.

---

⚖️ The Commission’s Intervention and Next Steps

The UPIC, recognizing the PIO’s failure, issued a clear directive in its initial order:

In the above situation, a notice should be sent to the opposition Public Information Officer... It should state that the desired clear information should be provided to the appellant. This must be done in accordance with the rules and provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005... The appellant should fulfill certain requirements before the scheduled hearing date. They must present a written statement before the Commission on the scheduled hearing date. It must include the information provided and evidence of dispatch.

The case was then listed for 28.01.2025 for further proceedings. The status shows a later date of 20/12/2024 for “For further hearing.” This indicates a continued process. Despite this order, the later correspondence from the appellant in July 2025 suggests the defiance continued.

The Path Forward for the Commission:

The Commission now faces the obligation to go beyond mere notices. It must impose the statutory penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

• Section 20(1) Penalty: If the PIO, without reasonable cause, failed to receive the application. Or if the PIO delayed the information malafide. Then the Commission shall impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. If the PIO obstructed the process, the same penalty applies. This continues until the information is furnished. It is subject to a maximum of ₹25,000.
• Recommendation for Disciplinary Action: Under Section 20(2), the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO. They can make this recommendation to the departmental Head for persistent, willful failure.

In a case where information is withheld, penalizing is necessary. Sometimes there are repeated commission notices. Also, there may be a failure to appear. Imposing a penalty is not just punitive. It is essential to uphold the rule of law and deter other PIOs from similar conduct.

---

💡 The Larger Picture: Why This Case Matters (Understanding Tehsildar Lalganj’s Role)

This Mirzapur case is a microcosm of a national challenge. It underscores three vital points for democratic governance:

1. The “Right to Reason” is Indispensable: The appellant’s fifth request is a powerful reminder. Every administrative action—especially one that affects property rights—must be based on cogent, recorded reasons. The failure to provide the reason for excluding an heir is an act of administrative arbitrariness.
2. The Integrity of Revenue Records: Land and inheritance records are the foundation of rural wealth and legal rights. The functioning of the Tehsil—the primary custodian of these records—lacks clarity and transparency. This situation is a recipe for litigation, corruption, and social injustice.
3. Upholding the Commission’s Authority: If the orders of the State Information Commission are routinely ignored by PIOs, the RTI Act loses its effectiveness. The orders must be followed. The act becomes a paper tiger. The Commission must use its penal powers judiciously. It must use them firmly to maintain its statutory teeth. This ensures that justice is not only served to Yogi M.P. Singh but is seen to be served.

The appellant’s statement, “O God help me,” at the end of his submission, is a poignant cry. It reflects the frustration of an ordinary citizen fighting a colossal, indifferent bureaucracy. The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission must step in decisively. It must ensure that the promise of the RTI Act is delivered. The PIO’s insolence must be met with the full force of the law.

Sadhana Tiwari filed second appeal against Tehsildar Lalganj

Ashish Kumar Pandey-Tehsildar Lalganj violated provisions of RTI Act 2005. Neither SHO Drummond Ganj nor SDM Lalganj is taking action against corruption