The core of your argument is based on your submission. It states that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) must have certain key documents. They must also have specific details. This is because they executed the registry. Concerns about corruption in LDA have influenced public perception and response to their actions, especially when their action appears to be in response to or related to the High Court’s order.

Here is a breakdown of the specific information you are seeking and the legal implications of the LDA’s alleged actions:

📜 Key Information Sought and Logical Implication

You are requesting factual, documentary information. This information should be part of the LDA’s official records. Their involvement in the property transfer necessitates it.

• Details of Title Suit: You believe LDA records should contain the specific court details. These include the case number, court name, and date of final order of the title suit filed by Anuradha Singh. The outcome of that suit is a necessary precursor to LDA executing the registry.
• Staff Details: The designation, name, and posting details of the public staff who executed the registry are official records. They are maintained within the LDA’s Property/Registry section.
• High Court Compliance: Your submission indicates that the High Court (Writ Petition No. 135 HC Year 2006) specifically directed Anuradha Singh to file a title suit in a competent court to get possession.

---

🧐 The Central Contradiction and Your Assertion

The main issue you are raising before the Information Commission revolves around a critical contradiction:

1. High Court Order: The High Court ordered Anuradha Singh to file a title suit. This was necessary to seek a civil remedy. She needs to establish her title and obtain possession.
2. LDA Action: The LDA executed the registry in her favour.

Your Assertion:

If the LDA executed the registry, it implies one of the following:

• The title suit was successfully concluded in favour of Anuradha Singh. The LDA has a copy of that final court order. They relied upon it to execute the registry.
• The LDA overlooked or ignored the High Court’s directive. They did not wait for the finalisation of the title suit. Instead, they proceeded with the registry without proper legal foundation.

Why the PIO’s Rejection is Questionable (Rule 4(2)(b)(ii))

The PIO rejected your request by claiming it required “new interpretation or analysis” (Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)).

The information you are seeking includes details of the title suit. It also includes a copy of the court order and staff names. These are records of transactions and actions already carried out by the LDA. To provide a copy of the final court order, an existing document must be retrieved. Retrieving a list of the staff who signed the registry also involves this process. It involves obtaining factual data, not performing a new interpretation or analysis.

The PIO must provide the records. Alternatively, they must explain which specific exemption applies. They should not reject the request by claiming the records themselves require interpretation. The act of connecting the LDA’s registry to the High Court’s order is your inference. The records themselves are factual.

Your appeal correctly focusses on the point. Providing the court order copy and staff details are standard documentary duties. They are not analytical tasks.

⚖️ Second Appeal Against RTI Rejection: Yogi M. P. Singh v. LDA

This post details the core issues, submissions, and facts surrounding the second appeal filed by Yogi M. P. Singh before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). The appeal questions the decision to reject an RTI application. This decision was made by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA).

---

🚨 Case & Appeal Summary

Detail	Information
Appellant	Yogi M. P. Singh
PIO Concerned	Sangeeta Raghav (OSD), Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)
Appeal Registration	A-20240701538
File Number	S05/A/0512/2024
Original RTI Date	February 10, 2024 (Reg. No. LKDPA/R/2024/60085)
Rejection Date	July 16, 2025
Rejection Basis	Uttar Pradesh RTI rules 2015, Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)
Next Hearing Date	October 10, 2024 (Originally scheduled, though the rejection date suggests future proceedings) / July 23, 2025 (as mentioned in the objection)

---

📜 Grounds for Rejection Cited by PIO

The PIO, Sangeeta Raghav, rejected the RTI application on the grounds of Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules, 2015, with the following remark:

“The information sought should not require carrying out new interpretation or analysis of existing data. It should not require drawing of inferences. Making of assumptions is also not needed. Nor should it involve providing advice or opinion based on existing data.”

---

🧐 Information Requested by the Appellant

The appellant sought the following five specific points of information. These points primarily concern a title suit, property registration, and an internal enquiry committee. The inquiry is related to a lady named Anuradha Singh (also named Guddi Singh/Aradhana Singh).

• Point 1: Title Suit Details
  • Details of the title suit filed by Anuradha Singh (Guddi Singh) in LDA records.
  • Designation, name, and posting details of the public staff who executed the suit/related action.
  • Appellant’s Submission: The High Court ordered Anuradha Singh to file a title suit. This was in Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. Since LDA executed the registry, the title suit must have been finalized. The court details and order copy are now available with LDA.
• Point 2: Copy of Court Order
  • Copy of the order passed by the competent court deciding Anuradha Singh’s title suit. This is in compliance with the High Court’s order (Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006).
• Point 3: Staff Details for Registry Execution
  • Detail of the posting is provided. The designation and name of the staff executing the registry of the impugned plots to allottees are included. This is for accountability purposes.
  • Appellant’s Submission: Since the registry was executed by the public authority, the details of the staff must be available.
• Point 4: Details of Irregularity Committee
  • Details of the committee set up to check the irregularities. These include the name, designation, and posting details of its members. It also includes their date of joining the department.
• Point 5: Nomination and Timeframe for Committee
  • Details of government functionaries who nominated the committee members are included. This also covers their posting details and the stipulated time given to the committee to complete the enquiry.

---

🏛️ Appellant’s Core Objections and Submissions

The appellant’s primary argument is that the information sought consists of existing records. It does not require the PIO to create a new analysis. No new interpretation or opinion is needed, contrary to the rejection rule cited.

• Availability of Records: The LDA should keep official records and processes. This includes information regarding court orders, registry execution, and internal committee formation (Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). These records should be readily available. Providing copies of orders or staff lists is not an “analysis.”
• Concealment Allegation: The arbitrary rejection and delay occurred. The RTI was filed in Feb 2024 and rejected in July 2025. These actions suggest the PIO is “concealing the corrupt deeds” of the LDA staff.
• Previous Denial: The appellant notes a history of denial and obfuscation in prior RTI applications and appeals over more than two years (RTI Reg. No. LKDPA/R/2022/60189, LKDPA/A/2022/60084), suggesting the use of the ‘committee setup’ as a persistent pretext for denying information.
• Related Matter: The appellant highlights an issue involving Dinesh Pratap Singh, who is the claimant of the plot. He notes that the same core information was overlooked in Dinesh Pratap Singh’s applications (LKDPA/R/2023/60495, LKDPA/A/2024/60032).
• Questionable Conduct: The appellant questions the legitimacy of Anuradha Singh changing names. She used names such as Anuradha, Guddi, and Aradhana. This was done while pursuing remedies from various bodies. The appellant implies this activity is illegal.

---

🎯 Core Issue for the Commission

The core issue before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is to determine if the requested information, such as court orders, staff details, and committee member names, falls under an exemption. Specifically, it analyzes Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) to make this determination. The commission needs to find out if it requires interpretation or analysis. Alternatively, the PIO might have wrongfully denied access to the existing, factual records held by the public authority.

The specific rule cited by the Public Information Officer (PIO) for rejecting the RTI application is Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015.

The exact text of this rule, which outlines conditions under which an RTI request may not be fulfilled, is as follows:

---

📜 Rule 4(2)(b)(ii) of the U.P. RTI Rules, 2015

Rule 4(2) stipulates conditions that any request for obtaining information under the Act should fulfill. Sub-clause (b)(ii) states that the information sought should not:

“(ii) require carrying out new interpretation or analysis of existing data, or drawing of inferences, making of assumptions, or providing advice or opinion based on existing data; or”

---

In Summary:

The PIO used this rule to assert that providing the requested information—such as the details of a title suit, copies of court orders, or reasons for staff actions—would require the public authority to engage in subjective activities. These activities include new analysis, inference drawing, assumption making, or providing an opinion. This would be instead of simply providing copies of existing records. This is the central point the appellant is challenging in their second appeal.

To provide you with the most relevant links, I’ve categorized these by the most likely authorities you are referring to. “UPIC” is commonly used for the State Information Commission, and “DA” usually refers to the Development Authorities in Uttar Pradesh.

---

1. UPIC (Uttar Pradesh Information Commission)

This is the official body for RTI (Right to Information) appeals and complaints in Uttar Pradesh.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Online RTI Application/Appeal: upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/citizen
• Case Status/Hearing Details: upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/online_case_info

---

2. DA (Development Authorities)

In Uttar Pradesh, “DA” typically refers to the various Development Authorities (like LDA for Lucknow, GDA for Ghaziabad, etc.). The umbrella portal for all major development authorities in the state is:

• UP Housing and Development Board: upavp.in
• UPSIDA (State Industrial Development): beta.upsidamarketplace.com
• Common Portal for All DAs (Janmitra): upobpas.in (Used for building plan approvals across different cities).

If you are looking for a specific city’s DA (e.g., Lucknow, Kanpur, Varanasi), please let me know and I can provide the direct link.

---

3. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The High Court of Uttar Pradesh has two main seats: Allahabad (Prayagraj) and its Bench at Lucknow.

• Official Website: www.allahabadhighcourt.in
• Case Status Search: allahabadhighcourt.in/apps/status_ccms/
• Cause List (Daily Hearings): allahabadhighcourt.in/calendar/calendar.html
• Judgments/Orders: allahabadhighcourt.in/judgments/judgments.html

---

Important Note

If by UPIC you meant UPICON (UP Industrial Consultants Ltd), their official link is upicon.in.

Would you like me to find the contact details for a specific Development Authority (like Lucknow, Ghaziabad, or Noida) or a specific district court?