Based on the detailed account of Case Number A-20250401704, here are the key takeaways regarding the systemic challenges and the core dispute:

1. The Core Financial Grievance

The GST hike from 12% to 18% sits at the center of the dispute. A Government Order implemented it on September 13, 2022. The appellant claims that the government is applying this retrospectively to tenders from 2020–2022. This action effectively wipes out the narrow profit margins of small-scale contractors and constitutes financial exploitation.

2. “Procedural Procrastination” as a Barrier

The RTI journey reveals a pattern of administrative stalling:

• The “Languish” Effect: The departments shuffled the original 2023 RTI request. They did this until the legal time limit for a second appeal expired.
• Arbitrary Transfers: Authorities should have sent the request to the Additional Chief Officer, the actual custodian of data. Instead, they transferred it to a local Assistant Development Officer. Predictably, this officer had no jurisdiction or information.

3. The “Circular Denial” Loop

The case highlights a common bureaucratic tactic where:

• Public Authority A rejects the request, claiming it belongs to another department.
• Public Authority B claims that someone sent the request to them in error. They do not hold the records.
• This results in a total denial of information through misdirection rather than a flat refusal.

4. Legal and Constitutional Grounding

The appellant identifies as a Human Rights Defender. They are not just citing the RTI Act but also Article 51A of the Constitution. Citizens have a fundamental duty to question administrative irregularities. They must protect vulnerable groups (the “poor contractors”) from arbitrary government orders.

5. Specific Demands for Transparency

The appeal seeks three specific pieces of evidence to prove the legality of the tax deduction:

• A certified copy of the 2022 Government Order.
• The circular/memo that explicitly authorizes retrospective application to older tenders.
• The guidelines used to ratify these changes in existing contracts.

Justice Delayed: The Systematic Obstruction of RTI and the Plight of Contractors in Uttar Pradesh

In the landscape of Indian democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 illuminates the halls of bureaucracy. It acts as the “sunlight” that disinfects them. However, activists like Yogi M P Singh and the small-scale contractors of Mirzapur face significant obstacles and similar challenges. Procedural “procrastination” and “arbitrary transfers” hinder their efforts. Therefore, they must understand court procedures and processes, as this understanding aids them in their pursuit of justice. Grasping court procedures empowers them to navigate these challenges and ensures transparency.

A recent case brought before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)—Case Number A-20250401704—highlights a disturbing trend. Administrative run-arounds are used to avoid accountability. This avoidance pertains to financial mandates that affect the livelihoods of the low income people.

---

The Core Conflict: Retrospective GST and Financial Hardship

The genesis of this dispute lies in a technical but impactful change in tax policy. On September 13, 2022, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order (Letter No. 02/2022/E-8-292/Ten-2022) regarding the deduction of GST. To effectively challenge such retrospective changes, one must have an understanding of court procedures involved in appeals and legal dispute resolution.

The crux of the grievance is not just the tax itself, but its retrospective application. Tenders issued between 2020 and 2022—calculated at a 12% GST rate—are reportedly being settled at an 18% rate in 2025. For a small contractor, this 6% discrepancy is not a mere line item. It is often their entire profit margin. This situation leads to what the appellant describes as “government-sanctioned exploitation.”

---

A Timeline of Administrative Evasion

The journey of RTI Application DPTPR/R/2023/60409 serves as a case study in bureaucratic “shuffling,” where understanding court procedures may help clarify avenues for redress.

1. March 2023: The initial request is filed with the Department of Panchayati Raj.
2. March 2023 (10 days later): The request is transferred to the Panchayati Raj Directorate.
3. The “Languishing” Period: The application remains in limbo for nearly two years. This duration exhausts the appellant’s statutory limits for a standard second appeal.
4. January 2025: A fresh application (DIRPR/R/2025/60094) is filed to break the deadlock.
5. January 2025 (4 days later): The DPRO Mirzapur rejects the request. The remark given is vague: “The matter pertains to another department.”

---

The “Wrong Door” Strategy: Misdirection as a Defense

One of the most frustrating tactics identified in this case is the arbitrary transfer of requests. Without the proper understanding of court procedures, citizens may find themselves endlessly redirected.

The appellant focused on the Additional Chief Officer of the District Panchayat, Mirzapur. This officer is the custodian of the relevant financial records. Instead, the Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the matter to the Assistant Development Officer (ADO) of the City Block.

As predicted, the ADO denied the information, stating the matter does not concern his office. This creates a “circular denial” loop:

• Office A says Office B has the info.
• Office B says it’s not their jurisdiction.
• The Citizen is left standing in the middle with no data and no recourse.

---

Constitutional Grounding: Article 51A and Human Rights

Yogi M P Singh’s appeal is not merely a request for paper; it is framed as a constitutional duty. Invoking Article 51A of the Constitution of India, the appellant makes an argument. It is the fundamental duty of a citizen to strive toward excellence. Citizens must protect the integrity of the nation’s administrative machinery. Often, this requires understanding relevant court procedures to ensure proper conduct and accountability.

The appellant frames himself as a “Human Rights Defender.” This elevates the issue from a tax dispute to a moral one. The question posed to the court is poignant: “Who has given authority to the government to exploit poor people?”

---

The Role of the Presiding Officer (Court S-9)

The hearing held on July 15, 2025, marks a critical juncture. The appellant has laid out three specific demands for the court’s perusal, demonstrating the vital role of understanding Court procedures in seeking effective remedies.

1. Certified Copies: A transparent, certified copy of the September 2022 Government Order.
2. Legal Justification: The specific circular or “Office Memo” that allows a 2022 order to affect 2020 tenders (retrospective implementation).
3. Ratification Guidelines: There must be evidence of the guidelines. These guidelines justify changing the financial terms of a contract. Changes can occur after the work has commenced or been completed.

Public Authority Involved	Role in the Dispute	Current Status
Dept. of Panchayati Raj	Policy Originator	Transferred Responsibility
DPRO Mirzapur	Local Oversight	Rejected Request
ADO City Block	Incorrect Recipient	Denied Jurisdiction
District Panchayat Mirzapur	Actual Custodian	Silent

---

Conclusion: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

The case of A-20250401704 is a microcosm of the struggle for transparency in local governance. When public authorities use “procrastination” as a shield, they don’t just delay a response; they erode trust in the state. Notably, a clear understanding of court procedures is an essential tool for citizens facing such systematic delay.

If the government has the right to increase GST retrospectively, it must produce the legal framework that allows it. Hiding behind the “wrong department” is a confession of administrative weakness. The contractors of Mirzapur are closely watching Court S-9. They want to see if the RTI Act still has the power to compel the truth. Their focus is guided by the understanding of court procedures and their application.

To help you in your pursuit of transparency, I have compiled the contact details and application identifiers for the authorities mentioned in your representation. These are essential for filing follow-ups or serving notices.

---

1. Primary Public Authorities (State Level)

Authority	Email Address	Mobile / Phone	Official Website
Panchayati Raj Directorate (UP)	up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com / panchraj@nic.in	0522-2322924 / 0522-2322926	panchayatiraj.up.nic.in
Principal Secretary (Panchayati Raj)	–	0522-2237165	–

2. District & Block Authorities (Mirzapur)

Authority	Email Address	Mobile / Phone	Address
DPRO Mirzapur	dpro-mi@nic.in / ddprmi-up@nic.in	9415139308 (V.S. Kushwaha)	Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur
District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur	dmmir@nic.in	9454417567	DM Office, Mirzapur
Chief Development Officer (CDO)	cdo-mir@up.gov.in	9454465106	Vikas Bhawan, Mirzapur
Additional Chief Officer (Zila Panchayat)	amaprmi-up@nic.in	05442-253081	Zila Panchayat Office, Mirzapur
ADO (Statistics/City Block)	–	9454416844 (Ref. Directory)	Block Development Office, City Mirzapur

---

3. Case & Application Reference Summary

Case Number (UPSIC): A-20250401704

Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/74231b

Track Your Applications:

1. Original Request (2023): DPTPR/R/2023/60409 (Transferred to DIRPR/R/2023/80583)
2. Subsequent Request (2025): DIRPR/R/2025/60094 (Rejected by DPRO)

---

Key Contact Note for Your Appeals:

When sending your next communication, ensure you CC the Commissioner of the Vindhyachal Division (Email: commmir@nic.in) and the Director of Panchayati Raj (Email: up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com). This ensures that the local DPRO office knows the matter is being monitored at the divisional and state levels.