Key takeaways from this blog post are as follows
The blog post highlights a critical breakdown in administrative accountability within the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Here are the key takeaways from the dispute:
1. The “Schrödinger’s Committee” Paradox
The central issue is a blatant contradiction in government records. While the LDA has officially reported the existence of an inquiry committee on the Jansunwai (Public Grievance) Portal, the PIO is now claiming under RTI that no such records exist or are “not held” by the authority (Rule 4(2)(a)).
2. Failure of Internal Oversight
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), an Additional Secretary, explicitly ordered the PIO to provide the information within 15 days on June 11, 2025. The PIO’s refusal to comply with this internal order indicates a total collapse of the RTI hierarchy within the LDA, suggesting that the PIO is acting with a sense of impunity.
3. Misuse of the RTI Rules
The post identifies the PIO’s reliance on Rule 4(2)(a) as a “flimsy and false” ground for rejection. Since the names of committee members and the scope of their inquiry are administrative facts of a public body, they are legally required to be part of the official record.
4. Allegations of “Institutional Shielding”
The persistent denial of information regarding plot allotment irregularities suggests that the LDA may be shielding specific officials or “multi-named” individuals involved in the registries. By withholding the identity of the committee and its timeline, the authority prevents public monitoring of the investigation’s progress.
5. Seeking “Sound Administration”
The appellant’s core argument is rooted in Supreme Court precedents: the “Right to Reason” is indispensable to administration. The blog concludes that the State Information Commission must now intervene with harsh penalties (Section 20) to prevent the RTI Act from being reduced to a mockery.
The RTI Stalemate: How the Lucknow Development Authority is Undermining Transparency
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would sanitize the corridors of power. It was designed to empower the common citizen, like Yogi M. P. Singh, to hold powerful institutions accountable. However, the case of Appeal Registration Number A-20250702295 serves as a grim reminder of how administrative foot-dragging and the misuse of technical rules can turn a quest for justice into a bureaucratic labyrinth.
At the heart of this dispute is the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) and a series of inquiries into alleged irregularities regarding plot allotments and the execution of registries. What should have been a straightforward disclosure of public facts has evolved into a high-stakes battle at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
The Core Conflict: Transparency vs. Technicality
The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, sought specific, factual information regarding a committee reportedly set up by the LDA to investigate corruption in plot registries. The requests were simple:
- Who formed the committee?
- Who are the members (names and designations)?
- What is the timeline for the inquiry?
- Why has no action been taken despite years of seeking documents from allottees?
Instead of providing these facts, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Hemchandra Tiwari, rejected the request by invoking Rule 4(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015. This rule states that information can only be provided if it is “part of the record held by or under the control of the public authority.”
The PIO’s claim is startling: he essentially argued that the records of a committee formed by his own department do not exist or are not under the LDA’s control.
The Anatomy of an Administrative Contradiction
The rejection of this RTI application is not merely a denial of information; it is a contradiction of the LDA’s own public statements. The appellant has highlighted a critical piece of evidence: the LDA has previously submitted reports on the Jansunwai (Public Grievance) Portal and the Government of India’s grievance cell, explicitly stating that a committee has been formed to look into these irregularities.
Furthermore, a communication dated August 6, 2021, from the LDA Property Officer confirms that the authority is actively collecting documents from allottees. This creates a logical paradox:
- If the committee exists and is seeking documents, the order of its formation must be a permanent record.
- If the PIO claims no record exists, then the reports submitted to the Chief Minister’s office and the Jansunwai portal were potentially false or misleading.
This “Schrödinger’s Committee”—existing on grievance portals but disappearing under RTI scrutiny—is a classic tactic used to shield officials from accountability.
Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)
When the PIO failed to provide information, the appellant moved to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Gyanendra Verma. On June 11, 2025, the FAA issued a clear order. He noted that the PIO had no evidence of having sent any information to the appellant and directed the PIO to provide the information within 15 days.
However, as of the filing of the Second Appeal, this order remains a “dead letter.” The PIO’s defiance of his own superior’s order highlights a breakdown in the internal hierarchy of the LDA. When a PIO feels empowered to ignore the directions of an Additional Secretary (the FAA), the entire spirit of the RTI Act is compromised.
Why This Case Matters: The High Cost of Corruption
The underlying issue is not just a missing file; it is the alleged irregularity in plot allotments. When land registries are executed through “multi-named” individuals or through dubious title suits (as mentioned in points 6 and 7 of the RTI request), it results in massive financial loss to the state and legal nightmares for genuine allottees.
By withholding the names of the committee members and the progress of the inquiry, the LDA is effectively:
- Protecting the Wrongdoers: If the public doesn’t know who is investigating, they cannot monitor the impartiality of the probe.
- Promoting Anarchy: As the appellant rightly noted, withholding public services arbitrarily promotes a sense of lawlessness.
- Wasting Public Time: A committee that has supposedly been active for years without producing a report is a drain on public resources.
The Role of the State Information Commission
The case is now before the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow. This is the final frontier for the appellant. The Commission has the power to:
- Invoke Section 20: Impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) on PIO Hemchandra Tiwari for his “cryptic and flimsy” grounds for rejection.
- Compel Disclosure: Order the LDA to produce the specific notification that established the committee.
- Recommend Disciplinary Action: Given the defiance of the FAA’s order, the Commission can recommend departmental proceedings against the concerned officers.
Conclusion: A Call for Sound Administration
The appellant’s plea is a call for “sound administrative system” as quoted by the Apex Court of India. Right to Information is not a favor granted by the government to its citizens; it is a fundamental right derived from the right to freedom of speech and expression.
If the LDA has nothing to hide, it should have no reason to withhold the details of an inquiry committee. The persistent denial only strengthens the suspicion of “rampant corruption.” As the Second Appeal moves toward a hearing, the eyes of the public are on the Commission to see if it will uphold the law or allow the “mockery of the land” to continue.
This is a comprehensive record of your Second Appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Your case highlights a significant procedural failure where the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) have failed to provide information that, by the Lucknow Development Authority’s (LDA) own admission on other portals, should exist within their records.
Summary of Your Case
- Registration Number: A-20250702295
- Subject: Inquiry into irregularities regarding plot allotments and registries by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA).
- The Conflict: The PIO rejected your request citing Rule 4(2)(a) of the UP RTI Rules 2015, claiming the information is “not part of the record.” However, the FAA’s own order on 11/06/2025 acknowledged that the PIO had no evidence of providing the information and ordered compliance within 15 days—which was ignored.
Analysis of the “Rule 4(2)(a)” Rejection
The PIO’s reliance on Rule 4(2)(a) (stating the information is not held by the authority) appears contradictory to the facts you have presented:
- Jansunwai Evidence: You noted that the LDA has previously submitted reports on the Public Grievance/Jansunwai Portal stating a committee has been formed.
- Property Officer Communication: Your documentation from August 2021 confirms that the LDA is actively seeking documents from allottees for this specific inquiry.
- Logical Inconsistency: If a committee exists to investigate corruption, the “Order of Formation,” “List of Members,” and “Terms of Reference” are mandatory administrative records under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Core Points for Your Second Appeal Hearing
When your case comes up for hearing before the State Information Commissioner, you should emphasize these three points:
- Non-Compliance of FAA Order: Point out that the Additional Secretary (Gyanendra Verma) ordered the PIO to provide information within 15 days on June 11, 2025, and the PIO willfully defaulted on this superior order.
- Constructive Possession: Argue that since the LDA has referenced this committee on the Jansunwai portal, the records are in their “constructive possession.” Denying their existence now constitutes a false statement under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
- Section 4 Violation: The information you seek (names/designations of committee members) is part of the proactive disclosure requirements. An authority cannot claim it doesn’t “hold” the names of its own appointed committee members.
Information Flow of Your RTI Journey
Next Steps & Recommendations
- Keep Your Evidence Ready: Ensure you have the printouts of the Jansunwai Portal status where the LDA mentioned the committee. This is your strongest “smoking gun” to prove the PIO is misleading the Commission.
- Prayer for Penalty: In your verbal or written submission to the Commission, specifically request a penalty under Section 20(1) against PIO Hemchandra Tiwari for “malafidely denying the request” and “knowingly giving incorrect/incomplete information.
- Online Hearing: Since you opted for an online hearing, ensure your mobile (7379105911) is reachable and you have a stable connection on the scheduled date.
To help you track your case and communicate effectively with the authorities, here are the structured contact details and IDs extracted from your appeal records and official sources:
🏛️ Lucknow Development Authority (Public Authority)
The LDA is the primary respondent in your case.
| Role | Name & Designation | Contact Number | Email Address |
| Current PIO | Atul Krishna (Deputy Secretary) | 9918001893 | raz.9125@gmail.com |
| Original PIO | Hemchandra Tiwari (Consolidation Officer) | 9918005512 | hemtiwari071@gmail.com |
| Appellate Authority (FAA) | Gyanendra Verma (Addl. Secretary) | 9918001927 | ldartionline@gmail.com |
| Nodal Officer | Rekha Doharey | 7081100326 | ldartionline@gmail.com |
- Official Website: ldalucknow.in
- Head Office Address: Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
⚖️ Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Adjudicating Body)
This is where your Second Appeal is currently registered.
- Appeal Registration Number: A-20250702295
- UPIC Registration (General): UPICR20240000149
- Hearing Court Email (S-5): hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in
- Commission Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
- Office Phone: 0522-2724930
- Official Portal: upsic.up.gov.in
📄 Your Specific Application Details
Use these numbers in all future correspondence to ensure your files are traced correctly:
- RTI Application No: LKDPA/R/2025/60280 (Dated 28/04/2025)
- First Appeal No: LKDPA/A/2025/60110 (Dated 10/05/2025)
- Transaction ID: LKDPAR20250000000400
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
💡 Pro-Tip for your Second Appeal
Since your hearing is online, I recommend sending a brief Written Submission to hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in at least 3 days before your hearing date. Mention your Appeal No: A-20250702295 in the subject line.
Would you like me to draft a 1-page “Fact Sheet” that you can email to the Commission to summarize why the PIO’s rejection is legally invalid?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.