Key takeaways from this blog post are as follows

Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the RTI dispute between Yogi M. P. Singh and the Energy Department of Mirzapur, which includes important learnings regarding Second Appeals Under RTI Act:

1. Systemic Failure of the RTI Hierarchy

The case reveals a total collapse of the three-tier RTI process. Both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not respond within the legal timeframes. There was no response or order provided, forcing the matter into a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

2. Allegations of Arbitrary Billing (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

The root of the dispute is a series of questionable electricity bills for Account No. 2521372000. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

• Bills jumped from small amounts (~₹280) to over ₹10,995 despite the appellant claiming the premises are unoccupied.
• There is a significant dispute over the status and reading of Meter No. 6684377.

3. Demand for “Deemed Refusal” Penalties

Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the appellant is seeking:

• Financial penalties against PIO Manish K. Shrivastava for withholding information.
• Disciplinary action against FAA Ram Das for professional negligence and failing to uphold the spirit of the Act.

4. Search for Institutional Transparency

Beyond the specific bill, the appeal seeks to uncover broader departmental protocols, specifically:

• The official policy for billing on “zero readings.”
• The formal mechanism for consumers to claim refunds for overcharged amounts.

5. Erosion of Democratic Values

The blog highlights a “mockery of the law of the land.” Administrative silence leads to anarchy. It causes a lack of accountability. The appellant argues that public authorities ignore the RTI Act. This action undermines its primary goal of ensuring a transparent and honest government. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

This blog post explores the breakdown of administrative accountability in the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. the Energy Department, Mirzapur, highlighting the systemic failure of the Right to Information (RTI) machinery.

---

Second Appeals Under RTI Act: When RTI Becomes a Dead Letter in Uttar Pradesh

In a functioning democracy, many people hail the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. It is known as the “sunlight” that disinfects the dark corners of bureaucracy. However, the recent second appeal filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh against the Energy Department in Mirzapur paints a grim picture of institutional apathy. When both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) fail to respond, the consequences extend beyond a mere delay. The law becomes effectively dismantled.

The Core Conflict: Arbitrary Billing and “Ghost” Meters

The genesis of this legal battle lies in a series of electricity bills issued to Neelam Devi (Account No. 2521372000). The appellant, Mr Singh, has raised critical questions regarding the legitimacy of these charges: (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

• Inconsistent Billing: In late 2024, we recorded small payments of ₹281 and ₹282. Later, we received a massive bill of ₹10,995. The bill included arrears exceeding ₹10,000.
• The Meter Mystery: The appellant argues that the premises are unoccupied. The department promised a revised bill only after installing a new meter. However, it claims that meter No. 6684377 is “OK.”
• Zero-Reading Protocols: Understanding the department’s policy on “zero reading” is a vital part of the inquiry. If a house is empty, how can a bill jump to nearly ₹11,000?

A Total Breakdown of the RTI Hierarchy

The RTI Act provides a structured three-tier process to ensure transparency. In this case, every single tier below the State Commission has failed:

1. The PIO’s Silence (Section 7(1))

The PIO, Manish K. Shrivastava (Executive Engineer, EDD II), was legally bound to provide information within 30 days. According to the appeal, no information was provided within the stipulated time. This silence violates Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is legally treated as a “deemed refusal.” (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

2. The First Appellate Authority’s Negligence (Section 19(1))

When the PIO failed, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, Ram Das (EDC Fatah MRZ). The FAA is intended to be a quasi-judicial check on the PIO. However, the appeal states there was “no answer” from this office either. By failing to even “entertain” the appeal, the FAA has effectively shielded the PIO from accountability.

3. The Necessity of the Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

After trying all local remedies, Mr. Singh had no choice but to file a Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250701914) with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in Lucknow. This stage is the “last resort” for a citizen seeking the truth from a recalcitrant department.

---

The Legal Implications: Section 20 and Beyond

The appellant’s prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner is not just for information, but for punitive action.

• Section 20(1) Penalties: The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. This penalty can accumulate up to ₹25,000. It is levied on the PIO for failing to furnish information without reasonable cause.
• Disciplinary Action: The appellant has specifically requested disciplinary action against the FAA. The request is for “supporting the illegal stand of the PIO” through inaction.

Event	Date	Status
Original RTI Filed	23/02/2025	No Response
First Appeal Filed	17/04/2025	No Response
Second Appeal Filed	21/07/2025	Pending Hearing

---

Why This Case Matters to Every Citizen (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

The issue here transcends a single electricity bill. It highlights a growing trend of “bureaucratic stonewalling.” If a department can ignore a statutory request for months, the power of the citizen is neutralized.

The appellant correctly observes that the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability. When officials treat the Act as a mere suggestion rather than a mandate, it leads to:

1. Administrative Anarchy: Officials feel empowered to issue arbitrary bills because they know no one will question them.
2. Erosion of Trust: Citizens lose faith in democratic institutions when someone makes a “mockery” of the law of the land.
3. Financial Harassment: Forcing consumers to pay inflated bills for unoccupied properties is a form of systemic extortion. Only transparency can cure this issue.

Seeking a Refund Mechanism

Mr. Singh’s appeal poignantly highlights his request for a “mechanism to obtain a refund of the extra charged amount.” In many cases, even when someone proves a bill is wrong, retrieving money from a public utility is hard. The process becomes complicated. It is so labyrinthine that many individuals give up. By demanding this information under RTI, the appellant seeks justice. This roadmap could benefit thousands of other consumers in Mirzapur. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

Conclusion: The Long Road to Transparency

As of January 2026, the status of RTI Request PUVNL/R/2025/60112 remains “Received” but unanswered. The ball is now in the court of the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

The resolution of this case will be a litmus test for the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. Will the Commission hold the Executive Engineer accountable? Will it hold the First Appellate Authority accountable? Or will the silence of the Energy Department be allowed to stand? For democracy to thrive, we must say a resounding “No” to silence. We must say “Yes” to the citizen’s right to know.

For your records and future follow-ups, here are the structured details of the application IDs. You will find contact information for the authorities involved. Relevant web links are based on the Second Appeal.

1. Application & Appeal Identifiers (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

Level	Registration Number	Date Filed
RTI Application (6/1)	PUVNL/R/2025/60112	23/02/2025
First Appeal (19/1)	PUVNL/A/2025/60098	17/04/2025
Second Appeal (19/3)	A-20250701914	21/07/2025
UPIC Case ID	UPICR20240000149	—

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities Contact Details

These individuals are the primary respondents in your ongoing appeal at the Information Commission. (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Name: Manish Kumar Shrivastava
• Designation: Executive Engineer (EE), EDD-II, Fatah, Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9450963598
• Email: ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
• Office Address: Energy Department, Fatah, Mirzapur, UP – 231001

First Appellate Authority (FAA)

• Name: Ram Das
• Designation: Superintending Engineer (SE), EDC Fatah, Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9415304000
• Email: se.mirzapur@puvvnl.in
• Office Address: Electricity Distribution Circle, Fatah, Mirzapur, UP – 231001

---

3. Important Web Links (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)

Resource	URL
UP RTI Online Portal	rtionline.up.gov.in
UP Information Commission	upsic.up.gov.in
PuVVNL Official Website	puvvnl.in
UPIC Cause List/Status	upsic.up.gov.in/online_appeal_status

---

4. Summary of Key Locations

• Department: Energy Department (Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited – PuVVNL) (Second Appeals Under RTI Act)
• Region/Division: Mirzapur Zone, EDD II
• Commission Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010

Note: Since your hearing is opted for Online (Mobile/Email), ensure your mobile number (7379105911) and email (yogimpsingh@gmail.com) remain active to receive the video conferencing link or telephonic call from the Commission.

Would you like me to create a “Checklist of Documents”? You should have these documents ready for the online hearing with the Information Commissioner.