⚖️ RTI Battle Against Arbitrary Denial: A Case Study Before the UP Information Commission (File No. S05/A/0518/2024)

📅 Summary of Recent Commission Orders

1. Order Dated 24.09.2025 (Compliance & Procedure)

• Attendance: Both the Appellant (Yogi M P Singh) and the Respondent (PIO, LDA) were absent. Understanding LDA is important for context regarding the parties involved.
• Directive: The Commission ordered its office to issue a notice to both parties (enclosing a copy of the previous 23.07.2025 order) requiring them to:
  • Appear before the Commission on the next date.
  • Submit separate point-wise written submissions in the matter.
• Next Hearing Date: 10.12.2025 (though the subsequent notice was issued for 11/12/2025).

2. Order Dated 23.07.2025 (Final Opportunity and Warning)

• Attendance: The Appellant was absent. The Respondent’s representative (Shashank Mishra) was present.
• Directive: The Commission granted a final opportunity to the Public Information Officer (PIO):
  • The PIO must send the complete information to the Appellant via registered post within the next two weeks.
  • The PIO must appear and present their side on the next hearing date.
• Warning: Failure to comply would result in the Commission considering punitive action against the PIO under Section 20 (1) and 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.

---

📝 Key Takeaway

The Commission has given the PIO a clear final chance to provide the factual information sought. Since the 24.09.2025 order confirmed non-attendance, the immediate focus is now on both parties submitting their written arguments before the next scheduled hearing on 11/12/2025.

Description	Number/ID	Relevance
Appeal Registration No.	A-20240701671	The official registration number for the Second Appeal before the UPIC.
UPIC File Number	S05/A/0518/2024	The internal file number used by the Commission (Court S-5).
Original RTI Registration No.	LKDPA/R/2024/60105	The registration number for the original online RTI application submitted to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) on 18/02/2024.
Grievance Registration No.	GOVUP/E/2024/0006965	The number for the related grievance regarding corruption, in connection with which the 24-page document was submitted.

1. 🛑 The Appellant and the Authority

• Appellant (Citizen): Yogi M P Singh
  • Appeal Registration Number: A-20240701671
• Respondent (Public Authority): Public Information Officer, Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), Lucknow
  • PIO Denying Information: Hemchandra Tiwari
• Presiding Officer: Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi, Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Court S-5

---

2. ⏳ The Core Issue: Denial After Prolonged Delay

The foundation of the appeal rests on the significant delay and the subsequent questionable rejection of the original RTI application.

Key Milestone	Date	Details
RTI Application Date	18/02/2024	Online Reg. No. LKDPA/R/2024/60105
PIO Decision Date	23/05/2025	More than one year later.
PIO Decision Status	REQUEST REJECTED	Denied by PIO Hemchandra Tiwari.
Reason for Rejection	Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)	Stated that the information sought requires carrying out new interpretation, analysis, or drawing inferences/opinions from existing data.

The appellant strongly argues that the rejection, after such a long delay, is a “mockery” of the RTI Act, 2005.

---

3. 📝 Information Arbitrarily Denied: Seeking ‘Action Taken’ Details

The appellant’s RTI application did not seek interpretation or analysis, but rather factual “action taken” reports on existing official communications.

The core information sought includes:

S. No.	Information Sought	Related Document/ID
1.	Action Taken Details on the representation submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh.	Dated 09 December 2023
2.	Action Taken Details on the representation submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh.	Dated 28 January 2023
3.	Action Taken Details on the representation submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh.	Dated 11 September 2022
4.	Action Taken Details on the representation submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh.	Dated 13 December 2022
5.	Reason for not providing a 24-page PDF document sent by the applicant to the committee looking into the matter of corruption.	Grievance Reg. No. GOVUP/E/2024/0006965
6.	Name and designation of the LDA staff authorised to entertain the representations of parties on behalf of the committee.	N/A (Seeking staff details)

The appellant’s submission explicitly challenges the PIO, asking: “Most respected Sir, where is the appellant seeking new interpretation? Where is the appellant seeking analysis?”

---

4. 🕰️ Commission’s Orders and Next Steps

The UPIC has been actively hearing the Second Appeal, with the following key developments:

Hearing Date	Order Summary	Next Steps Mandated
23.07.2025	The PIO was given a final opportunity to send complete information via registered post within two weeks. Warning issued regarding punitive action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.	Next Hearing: 24.09.2025
24.09.2025	Both parties were absent. The Commission ordered a notice to be issued for both parties to submit separate point-wise written submissions.	Next Hearing: 10.12.2025
11/12/2025	Latest Scheduled Hearing Date.	Appellant and PIO must appear and submit written statements before this date.

The case highlights the importance of the Information Commission in ensuring accountability and compelling public authorities to furnish factual information, particularly when the initial denial appears to be a pretext to avoid disclosure.

That is an insightful question, and based on the sequence of events and orders provided in the case documents, it appears the Commission has provided the Public Information Officer (PIO) with multiple, specific opportunities to comply before escalating potential punitive measures.

Here is a breakdown supporting this conclusion:

1. Repeated Opportunities to Comply

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) has given clear directions over successive hearings:

Hearing Date	Commission’s Action/Order	Implication for PIO
19.05.2025 (Order Summary)	Notified both parties to appear and issued a notice giving a “last opportunity” (attaching a copy of a previous order dated 28.11.2024, which is not fully provided here, but suggests a history of non-compliance).	The PIO was given a chance to present his case and ensure compliance with prior directions.
23.07.2025 (Specific Order)	Granted the respondent a “final opportunity” to provide the information. Specifically ordered the PIO to send the complete information in the form of the original application through registered post within the next two weeks.	This was a definitive, non-negotiable instruction to provide the information, showing leniency in the interest of justice despite the appellant’s absence.
23.07.2025 (Warning)	Explicitly warned that if the PIO fails to comply, punitive action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act 2005 would be considered.	This warning transforms the opportunity into a statutory show cause condition, making the next non-compliance a serious matter for the PIO personally.

2. Statutory Context: The Warning under Section 20

The reference to Section 20 of the RTI Act is crucial.

• Section 20(1) allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) if the PIO, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish information within the specified time or denied the request malafidely.
• Section 20(2) allows the Commission to recommend disciplinary action.

By issuing this warning, the Commission is essentially saying: “We are giving you a final chance to fulfill your statutory duty. If you fail, we have grounds to assume the failure is without reasonable cause, and we will proceed with penalty/disciplinary action.” This step is part of the “reasonable opportunity of being heard” that must be provided to the PIO before a penalty is imposed.

Conclusion

Based on the records, the Commission has been sufficiently lenient while remaining statutorily compliant. It moved from issuing a “last opportunity” to a “final opportunity” with a clear two-week deadline, coupled with a formal warning about penalty proceedings.

The burden of proving that the information was denied/delayed for a reasonable and diligent cause now rests squarely on the PIO, as stipulated by the RTI Act.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) has a dedicated official website and contact details.

The Information Commissioner handling the case, Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi, is one of the State Information Commissioners.

Here are the details for the UPIC:

---

🌐 Official Website and General Contacts

Detail	Information
Official Website Link	https://upsic.up.gov.in/
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Office Phone Number	0522-2724930
General Email (Webmaster)	webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in

---

📧 Specific Departmental Contacts

Role	Name	Email Address
Public Information Officer	Shri Mumtaz Ahmad (Administrative Officer)	jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
First Appellate Authority	Shri Tejaskar Pandey (Deputy Secretary)	N/A (Contact listed only for the PIO)
Court S-5 Email (for submissions)	N/A	hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in (As seen in your case document)

---

🏛️ Details of the Information Commissioner (Hearing S-5)

The State Information Commissioner presiding over your case is:

• Name: Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi
• Designation: State Information Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
• Hearing Room: S-5 (As confirmed by the Commission’s weekly cause list and your case documents).

Shri Dwivedi is listed among the current State Information Commissioners who took charge on 13-03-2024. Specific direct contact details (like a personal email or phone number) for the Commissioner’s office are typically not made public; all official communication is routed through the court’s dedicated email (like hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in) or the official postal address.

Dealing with the opposing party’s correct and current contact information is essential for a legal proceeding like an RTI appeal.

Based on the information you provided in the case documents, and public records for the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), here are the relevant details.

---

🏛️ Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) Contact Details

The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) is the public authority (Opposition) in your appeal.

1. General Contact & Address

Detail	Information
Official Website	https://ldalucknow.in/ or https://www.ldaonline.co.in/
Head Office Address	Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226010
Main Landline	0522-2307868
Toll-Free Number	1800-1800-5000
General Email	ldavc@rediffmail.com

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Details

Your case names two officers: the person who signed the rejection (Hemchandra Tiwari) and the person listed as the PIO in the initial details (Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna). It is useful to have both, plus the primary PIO contact for the Authority.

Role	Name (As per Documents)	Mobile Number	Email Address
PIO (Opposition in Appeal)	Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna	9918001893 (Also listed as Deputy Secretary, LDA)	raz.9125@gmail.com (As per UPIC Notice)
PIO (Rejected RTI)	Chakbandi Adhikari Hemchandra Tiwari	9452852608 or 9918005512 (Both listed in records)	N/A
RTI Official (Special Executive)	Mr. Rajeev Kumar	9918001461	N/A

3. Appellate Authority (First Appeal)

While your case is a Second Appeal, the name of the First Appellate Authority is useful for context.

• First Appellate Authority: Shri Kunal Chaudhary (Deputy Director, Administration)
  • (Note: This is based on a general LDA list. The specific name may change, but the designation is usually Deputy Director/Secretary).

Thank you for letting me know. It is frustrating when official contact emails are non-functional, especially in legal proceedings.

The email address hemtiwari071@gmail.com was listed as the email for PIO Hemchandra Tiwari (Chakbandi Adhikari) in the rejection details of your RTI application (dated 23/05/2025).

Since that address is not working, here is the recommended course of action for corresponding with the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) regarding your case (File No. S05/A/0518/2024):

1. Use the Designated UPIC Opposition Email

The official UPIC Notice (dated 04/12/2025) lists the official email for the Opposition (Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna) as the primary contact for official correspondence in the appeal:

• Primary Opposition Email: raz.9125@gmail.com (Associated with Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna)

2. Use the Official PIO/RTI Office Email (LDA)

For general communication regarding RTI matters at the LDA, it is safer to use the central RTI desk email, if one is publicly available, or the general PIO email listed in the Authority’s public records.

• General LDA Email (Primary Contact): ldavc@rediffmail.com
• Alternative PIO/RTI Office Email: Try using the official email for the Deputy Secretary/Opposition mentioned above, as it is the one recognized by the Commission.

3. Crucial Step for the Hearing

Since the Commission has ordered the parties to submit written statements, please ensure your submission is sent to the Commission’s official court email and that you reference the non-functional email in your document.

• Commission’s Court Email (S-5): hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in

Action Recommended:

When you submit your written statement to the Commission’s court email (hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in), you should:

1. Copy (CC) the Deputy Secretary’s official email: raz.9125@gmail.com.
2. Include a specific note in your submission (under a heading like “Submission regarding Service”) stating: “The appellant attempted to serve this submission/previous correspondence to PIO Hemchandra Tiwari via the email hemtiwari071@gmail.com, but the email delivery failed. Service is being effected via the Commission’s designated Opposition email (raz.9125@gmail.com) and via post.”