The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. PIO, Tehsil Lalganj is significant. It is an example of a citizen using the RTI Act to challenge alleged systemic corruption. It also addresses administrative bypass.
Here are the key takeaways from the situation:
1. Allegations of Procedural Malpractice
The appellant alleges that her property rights as a Class-1 heir (under the UP Revenue Code, 2006) were subverted. This subversion occurred when she was a minor. She claims that local revenue officials colluded to remove her name from inheritance records. These officials include the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar. They used forgery and bribery to achieve this.
2. Misdirection of Grievances
A central issue is the “Jurisdictional Shuffle.” Tiwari filed a criminal complaint. He sought an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The complaint is against five individuals, including the Tehsildar. However, the complaint was diverted back to the Tehsil office for reporting—essentially allowing the accused to investigate themselves.
3. Resistance to Transparency
The RTI application filed in February 2025 seeks to uncover:
- Who authorized the Tehsil to handle a police/criminal matter.
- The legal basis for revenue officials investigating complaints of corruption filed against their own office.
- The logic behind treating a forgery allegation as a simple “inheritance” case.
4. Failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The appellant contends that Tehsildar Tarun Pratap Singh has made a “mockery” of the RTI Act. He failed to provide information despite notices from the State Information Commission. This highlights the recurring challenge of bureaucratic inertia where officials use silence as a tool to avoid accountability.
5. Escalation to the State Information Commission
The PIO failed to act. As a result, the matter is now in the hands of Information Commissioner Madam Shakuntala Gautam (Court S-9). The Commission now has the authority to:
- Impose financial penalties on the non-compliant officials.
- Direct the immediate release of records.
- Recommend disciplinary proceedings for the “deep-rooted corruption” alleged by the appellant.
Justice Delayed: The Fight for Transparency in Mirzapur’s Revenue Department
In the heart of Uttar Pradesh, a legal battle is unfolding. It highlights the systemic challenges citizens face when seeking accountability from public authorities. The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. The Public Information Officer (Tehsil Lalganj) is not just a personal grievance. It starkly illustrates how the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was designed to be a beacon of transparency. Bureaucratic resistance often dims this transparency. Alleged administrative misconduct also plays a role.
The Genesis of the Dispute: A Question of Inheritance
The core of this conflict lies in a property dispute rooted in the complexities of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. Sadhana Tiwari alleges that her rightful inheritance from her late grandfather was subverted through forgery and collusion.
According to the appellant, her father predeceased her grandfather by five years. Legally, this positioned her as a Class-1 heir at the time of her grandfather’s passing. She claims that during her minority, she was only ten years old. Local revenue officials, including the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar, conspired with private individuals. Their goal was to omit her name from the records.
This allegation points to a “mockery of the law of the land.” The very officials tasked with maintaining land records are accused of manipulating them. They allegedly do this through bribery and concealment of facts.
The RTI Journey: Seeking Answers, Finding Silence
Frustrated by the lack of action on her initial grievances (Registration No: GOVUP/E/2024/0069871), Ms. Tiwari turned to the RTI Act on February 19, 2025. Her request was surgical, seeking five specific points of information:
- Authorization: Who authorized the Lalganj Tehsil to report on a matter under the jurisdiction of the Drummond Ganj Police Station?
- Logic of Conclusion: How did the office conclude the matter as a simple “inheritance” issue? The grievance specifically alleged criminal forgery.
- Legal Provisions: Under what law are revenue officials entitled to entertain grievances involving requests for an FIR?
- Forwarding Authority: Which official forwarded her police-related grievance to the Tehsil in the first place?
- Conflict of Interest: What law allows officials (Tehsildar, Lekhpal) to investigate complaints of corruption filed against themselves?
A “Mockery” of the Act: The Second Appeal
The appellant claims that Tehsildar Tarun Pratap Singh and his office have neglected to supply the requested information. This is despite the mandatory timelines of the RTI Act. This led to the filing of a Second Appeal (A-20250200996) before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
The appellant’s tone in her submissions to Hon’ble Information Commissioner Madam Shakuntala Gautam is one of desperate resolve. She characterizes the Tehsildar’s inaction as a “mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act.” When a public authority ignores repeated notices from the Commission, it harms the democratic fabric. The Act was intended to protect this democratic foundation.
The Jurisdiction Paradox
One of the most compelling aspects of this case is the “Jurisdictional Shuffle.” Ms. Tiwari’s original complaint requested the registration of an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The FIR was against five offenders, including three revenue officials.
The police (SHO Drummond Ganj) did not handle the complaint. Instead, it was seemingly diverted to the very Tehsil officials named as offenders. This creates a classic “Judge in one’s own cause” scenario. The accused are tasked with providing information regarding their own alleged irregularities.
“The matter concerns the deep-rooted corruption in the working of the public authority. This corruption is the root cause of the PIO running from providing information.” — Sadhana Tiwari
Legal Implications: Accountability and the BNS
The transition from the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 was undertaken. This change aims to modernize the criminal justice system. However, as this case shows, the effectiveness of any law depends on the integrity of the officials executing it.
If revenue officials are indeed suppressing information, they are hiding the “arbitrary deprivation” of a minor’s property rights. They are doing more than violating the RTI Act. They are liable for criminal misconduct.
The Road Ahead: The Commission’s Role
As of the latest update on January 29, 2026, the case remains active under File Number S09/A/0456/2025. The Commission has scheduled further hearings in Room S-9.
The Information Commission has the power to:
- Impose penalties of up to ₹25,000 on the PIO.
- Recommend disciplinary action against the Tehsildar.
- Direct the immediate, free-of-cost disclosure of all requested documents.
For Sadhana Tiwari, this is more than just a search for documents. It is a quest to reclaim an identity and a heritage. She believes this identity and heritage were stolen by the very system meant to guard them.
Conclusion
The Mirzapur RTI case serves as a reminder that transparency is the only known antidote to administrative corruption. When a citizen asks, “Under what law did you investigate yourself?” and the response is silence, the law must step in. The public is watching Court S-9. They are waiting to see if the “mockery” of the RTI Act will be replaced by the weight of justice.
To help you track and communicate with the authorities involved in your case, here are the essential details, application identifiers, and digital links based on the documentation you provided.
Case & Application Identifiers
These are the numbers you must quote in all future correspondence with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).
| Type of ID | Number / Reference |
| Appeal Registration Number | A-20250200996 |
| Diary Number | D-190720250010 |
| File Number | S09/A/0456/2025 |
| Welcome/Case ID | UPICR20240007679 |
| Grievance Reference | GOVUP/E/2024/0069871 |
Key Contacts & Authorities
Based on your records and the Mirzapur District administration details, here are the people responsible for your case:
- Presiding Officer (UPIC):
- Name: Madam Shakuntala Gautam (State Information Commissioner)
- Court/Room: S-9
- Email:
hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
- Public Information Officer (PIO) – Mirzapur:
- Name: Tarun Pratap Singh (Tehsildar)
- Office: Office of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur
- Tehsil Lalganj Email:
teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in - SDM Lalganj Email:
sdm-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
- Appellate Authority / District Magistrate Mirzapur:
- Email:
dmmir@nic.in - Phone: 9454417567 (DM Office CUG)
- Email:
Important Web Links
You can use these portals to check status updates or file further rejoinders.
- UP State Information Commission (Official):upsic.up.gov.in
- Check the “Weekly Cause List” (साप्ताहिक वाद सूची) for upcoming dates in Court S-9.
- UP RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
- Used to track the status of your initial RTI filed on 19/02/2025.
- UP Jan Sunwai (Grievance Portal):jansunwai.up.nic.in
- Check the status of your grievance (GOVUP/E/2024/0069871) regarding the police FIR.
Next Steps Recommendation
The hearing status is marked “For further hearing,”. You may need to submit a Rejoinder (counter-reply). This response is to the PIO’s response or lack thereof.
Would you like me to draft a “Written Argument” for you? You can then send it to Madam Shakuntala Gautam (Court S-9) before your next hearing date.
Key Takeaways
- The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. PIO highlights systemic corruption under the RTI Act, focusing on procedural malpractice.
- Tiwari alleges that local revenue officials colluded to erase her inheritance records while she was a minor.
- The case reveals a ‘Jurisdictional Shuffle’ where Tiwari’s complaints were redirected to the accused officials for self-investigation.
- The PIO’s failure to respond has escalated the case to the State Information Commission, where penalties may be imposed.
- This legal battle reflects broader issues of accountability and transparency within Mirzapur’s revenue department.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.