⚡️ Grant of Fund by PVVNL: Understanding the Process: Delays in Compensation and RTI Compliance

This blog post provides a structured analysis of the Second Appeal filed by Yogi M. P. Singh to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. It focuses on the core issues raised concerning the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, including the Grant of Fund by PVVNL. It also addresses the alleged failure by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (PUVVNL) to disburse compensation.

---

🏛️ Case Background and Appeal Particulars

The appeal highlights issues arising from an RTI application. It also addresses a subsequent First Appeal submitted to the ENERGY DEPARTMENT (Headquarters Office). The team submitted this through Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (PVVNL).

Particular	Detail
Appellant	Yogi M. P. Singh
Public Authority	Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (PUVVNL)
Original RTI Date (6(1))	21-03-2025 (Reg. No. PUVNL/R/2025/60167)
PIO Reply Date	19-05-2025 (Reply: Incomplete/Unsatisfactory)
First Appeal Date (19(1))	21-04-2025 (Reg. No. PUVNL/A/2025/60104)
FAA Order Date	Not Provided (Status: “There is no answer”)
Second Appeal Date (19(3))	22/07/2025

Core Grievances (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The appellant’s primary complaints revolve around two critical areas:

1. Non-Compliance with RTI Act: The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided allegedly misleading information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to entertain or dispose of the First Appeal. This failure is a violation of the statutory provisions of the RTI Act.
2. Delay in Public Service/Compensation: The core subject matter of the RTI is the non-payment of compensation. The incident of crop damage occurred when a short circuit caused burning in the wheat crop. On April 18, 2021, Dayanand Singh S/O Shobhnath Singh reported the incident.

📝 Analysis of Information Sought and PIO’s Response (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The initial RTI application (PUVNL/R/2025/60167) sought specific information related to the compensation matter:

RTI Query (Summary)	Appellant’s Submission on PIO’s Action
1 & 2. Notings/Action Taken on internal communications (Letter No. 524, Letter No. 1064) regarding compensation.	The PIO provided misleading information. The PIO specifically stated the fund had been “increased.” The appellant claims this is false. They cited subsequent RTI applications.
3. Reason for not providing the ₹40 Lakh fund demanded by the Executive Engineer for compensation.	The PIO did not adequately address this point.
4. Access to the mechanism to process fund demands by the Director of Finance.	The PIO did not adequately address this point.
5. Time taken to sanction the requested ₹40 Lakh fund.	The PIO did not adequately address this point.

The appellant argues that the PIO did not provide the requested five points of information. The PIO only stated that the fund was increased. This statement is misleading and unsatisfactory.

🛑 Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

A significant ground for the Second Appeal is the FAA’s failure. Vishv Deep Ambardar, AA DISCOM, did not act on the First Appeal. The status of the First Appeal is merely “RTI APPEAL RECEIVED,” with no subsequent order or reply. (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

• Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days. They may extend this period up to 45 days with written reasons.
• The First Appeal was filed on 21-04-2025. By the time the Second Appeal was filed on 22-07-2025, a period of 92 days had passed. This represents a clear breach of the statutory timeline. It also indicates a failure to perform a statutory duty.

⚖️ Prayer for Action under Section 20 of the RTI Act (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The appellant’s core relief is action against the Information Commission. They seek action against the PIO and FAA under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Section 20 Provisions: (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

1. Penalty on PIO (Section 20(1)): A penalty of ₹250 per day up to a maximum of ₹25,000 can be imposed. This applies if the PIO, without any reasonable cause, failed to receive an application. It also applies if they delayed information or provided incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information. The appellant specifically alleges the PIO provided misleading information.
2. Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2)): The Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO or FAA. This occurs if they persistently fail to discharge their duties under the Act. The FAA’s failure to entertain the appeal falls under a grave lapse warranting such action.

🎯 The Core Public Service Issue: Delayed Compensation (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The Second Appeal highlights a severe and long-pending public issue: the non-payment of compensation for crop damage since April 2021.

The subsequent RTI (PUVNL/R/2025/60342) further sought to prove the misleading nature of the PIO’s earlier reply. It directly asked for the reason for non-payment to Dayanand Singh. This was done even if the budget had supposedly been increased on 25.03.2025.

The appellant’s final prayer eloquently summarizes the issue: “How can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily? How can promoting anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos be justified? Arbitrarily making a mockery of the law of the land is unacceptable.”

---

Conclusion and Potential Next Steps

The Information Commission will likely focus on the following in its hearing: (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

1. FAA’s Failure: The non-disposal of the First Appeal is a clear violation and may lead to action against the FAA.
2. PIO’s Response: We need to determine if the PIO’s reply about the fund increase was misleading. It also must be assessed if it was factually incorrect. These findings could lead to a penalty under Section 20(1).
3. Mandate for Information: Directing the PIO to provide complete and non-misleading information. This includes details on the fund demand and processing mechanism. It also covers the current status and reason for the 4-year delay in compensation payment.

That is an excellent request. Understanding the specific provisions of the RTI Act is crucial. It helps to grasp the gravity of the issues raised in the Second Appeal.

Here is a breakdown of the relevant sections. It focuses on the penalties for the PIO. It also discusses the obligation of the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

---

⚖️ Penal Provisions of the RTI Act (Section 20)

Section 20 of the RTI Act penalises the Public Information Officer (PIO). This happens if they fail in their statutory duty without reasonable cause. (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

1. Penalty on the Public Information Officer (PIO) – Section 20(1)

The Information Commission can impose a penalty on the PIO for various defaults. The appellant has specifically invoked two of these:

Default Alleged in the Appeal	Statutory Provision (Sec 20(1))	Penalty
Providing misleading information.	The PIO knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.	A penalty of $₹250$ per day till the information is furnished, subject to a maximum of $₹25,000$.
Delay in providing information.	The PIO failed to furnish the information within the specified time. (If the Commission rules the PIO’s initial response was a nullity).	Same daily penalty of $₹250$ up to $₹25,000$.

• Key Point: The penalty is levied directly on the PIO from their salary, not on the public authority. The burden of proof lies on the PIO to prove that they acted reasonably and diligently.

2. Disciplinary Action against the PIO – Section 20(2)

If the Commission finds that the PIO’s conduct warrants it, the Commission can take additional steps. It can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules that apply to them. The appellant specifically requested this in the prayer.

---

🏛️ Obligations of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The appellant’s Second Appeal also hinges on the FAA’s failure to issue an order on the First Appeal.

1. Mandatory Time Limit for FAA Order – Section 19(6)

The RTI Act prescribes strict time limits for the FAA to dispose of a First Appeal: (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

• The FAA shall dispose of the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal.
• This period can be extended to a maximum of 45 days. The FAA must record the reasons for the extension in writing.

Timeline in the Appellant’s Case	Assessment
First Appeal Filed: 21-04-2025
Mandatory 30-day period ends: approx. 21-05-2025	Violation: No order passed.
Extended 45-day period ends: approx. 05-06-2025	Violation: No order passed, and no reason for extension recorded.
Second Appeal Filed: 22-07-2025	This gap of 92 days from the First Appeal filing (well over the 45-day limit) is grounds for the SIC to accept the Second Appeal.

2. FAA and Penalties: A Critical Distinction

• No Direct Penalty: A critical legal interpretation reveals important details about the RTI Act. It indicates that the Act does not impose penalties directly on the First Appellate Authority (FAA).The RTI Act omits any direct penalty for the FAA. The penalty under Section 20(1) applies to others. Section 20 only refers to the Central/State Public Information Officer (CPIO/SPIO).
• Recommendation for Departmental Action: The Commission often instructs the superior authority of the FAA (the Public Authority). They need to investigate the delay or non-compliance. They initiate suitable departmental or disciplinary action against the FAA for dereliction of duty. This is the relief the appellant is implicitly seeking by asking for “action under section 20.” This is achieved through the Commission’s general power to enforce the Act.

---

🎯 Summary of Legal Consequences (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The appellant, by filing the Second Appeal, forces the Commission to address two serious breaches:

1. The alleged misleading information and delay by the PIO. This warrants a show cause notice. There is a potential penalty of up to $₹25,000$ under Section 20(1).
2. The FAA did not dispose of the First Appeal. This action violates Section 19(6). It is grounds for the Commission to direct the public authority to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the FAA.

The Commission’s final order will likely contain a directive. This directive will require the immediate provision of the five points of information sought. The information must be provided free of cost due to the delay.

That’s a very focused and insightful question. Analyzing the specific information sought versus the PIO’s purported reply is key to understanding the appellant’s claim of “misleading information.”

Here is a breakdown of the original RTI queries. The assessment explains why the appellant finds the PIO’s general statement that they have increased the funds” is misleading. The appellant deems this assessment unsatisfactory.

---

🧐 Analyzing the Claim of “Misleading Information”

The appellant sought information specifically related to actions taken on documents and the status of a ₹40 Lakh fund demand. The PIO’s alleged response was simply: “the fund has been increased.”

Information Sought vs. Information Provided

RTI Query (Summary)	Type of Information Requested	Why PIO’s Reply is “Misleading/Incomplete”
Q1 & Q2: Notings and Action Taken on two specific internal letters (No. 524 & No. 1064). (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)	Factual/Documentary: Inspection or copies of internal file notings.	The PIO provided a general statement (“fund increased”) which is not the specific document (notings) requested. This violates the core duty to provide material information.
Q3: Reason for not providing the ₹40 Lakh fund demand by the Executive Engineer.	Explanation/Justification: Administrative decision-making and reasons for fund non-availability.	The PIO replied with a current status (“fund increased”). He did not address the historical reason for the delay. He also failed to explain the inability to meet the specific ₹40 Lakh demand. This unmet demand has been the cause of the problem since 2021.
Q4: Access to the mechanism to process fund demand by the Director of Finance.	Process/Procedure: A document outlining the steps, flow chart, or rules for fund approval.	The PIO provided a status update instead of the requested procedure. A status update is temporary; a mechanism is a permanent rule or process that must be disclosed under RTI.
Q5: Time will be taken to sanction the Rs.40 Lakh fund.	Future Action/Timeline: An estimate or commitment regarding the processing time.	This information falls under Section 4(1)(b)(ix) of the RTI Act. Suo Motu Disclosure requires public authorities to publish decision-making norms. The PIO gave no commitment or timeline, providing only a vague status.

The “Misleading” Element in Detail

The appellant’s subsequent RTI application (PUVNL/R/2025/60342) provides the strongest evidence that the PIO’s initial reply was misleading. (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The appellant states that the PIO claimed the fund was increased on 25.03.2025. In the follow-up RTI, the appellant asked:

“If the budget has been increased on ERP on 25.03.2025, Please provide the reason of non-payment of compensation to Dayanand Singh whose crops were burnt due to short circuit.”

1. If the PIO truly increased the Fund and made it available, the team should have processed the compensation payment.
2. If the appellant implies that the Compensation remains unpaid, the PIO’s statement that “the fund increased” is misleading because the increase either:
   • Was insufficient to cover the ₹40 Lakh demand and the old 2021 compensation.
   • The organisation increased the funds on paper (ERP), but the local office did not receive or access them.
   • Was completely false.

In any of the latter three scenarios, the PIO’s statement failed to address the core problem. The core problem is the persistent non-payment of compensation. It presented a status that did not solve the issue. This qualifies as misleading information under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

---

🗺️ How the Information Flow Should Work (Grant of Fund by PVVNL)

The appellant sought information on the decision-making process, which is critical for transparency. The typical flow of a fund demand shows where the PIO and FAA actively intervene, as outlined below:

The appellant was trying to understand the demand made by the local Executive Engineer. He wanted to go to the Office (PIO/Finance). He aimed to find the exact point of bureaucratic failure. The PIO’s simple reply blocked access to this critical flow chart and the decision-making documents.