Explore LDA’s cryptic denial of information under the RTI Act. This reveals a troubling pattern of obfuscation and secrecy. Discover how bureaucratic tactics, including vague justifications and procedural delays, impede transparency and accountability. LDA is leaving citizens in the dark about crucial information that should be readily accessible. This lack of openness raises questions about the commitment to democratic principles. It highlights the need for reform in the governance of public institutions. Government must ensure that information flows freely and rights of citizens are safe.

Key Takeaways

• LDA officials refuse to give information under the RTI Act through LDA’s cryptic denial of information, citing bureaucratic reasons instead of addressing queries directly.
• The appellant seeks specific information about plot allotments and alleged irregularities, but LDA’s responses are vague and similar.
• The denial from LDA violates the RTI Act. The requested information is independent of any ongoing enquiries.
• Citing the non-appearance of parties before an internal committee is not a valid exemption under the RTI provisions.
• LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information showcases a troubling trend that undermines transparency and accountability in public authorities.

💔 The Mockery of RTI: LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information

The refusal to provide specific information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 by officials of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) is evident. Consequently, this is causing a bureaucratic impasse. This situation is frustrating as a result. Furthermore, the responses from the Special Officer (Ravi Nandan Singh) and the Property Officer (Hemchandra Tiwari) are almost identical. Specifically, they use a cryptic, deflective tactic. This is a clear example of deflective responses regarding LDA allegations where they do this rather than directly addressing the core queries raised by the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh. Ultimately, this effectively denies the requested information.

---

🕵️‍♀️ The Core Issue: Information Sought by the Appellant

To begin with, the appellant sought specific, factual information. In addition, they sought actionable information related to alleged irregularities concerning plot allotments. These included plots SS-1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918 under the Kanpur Road Scheme. Specifically, the key requests were:

1. Title Suit Details: Details of the title suit were filed by “Anuradha Singh/Guddi Singh.” This includes the designation and name of the LDA staff. The LDA staff executed the relevant record with posting details.
2. Court Order Copy: Copy of the competent court’s order deciding the title suit (in compliance with High Court Order in Writ Petition No. 135 HC/2006).
3. Registry Staff Details: Information includes names, designations, and postings. These are of the staff who executed the registry of the impugned plots. This information is provided to fix accountability.
4. Committee Details (Setup): Details of the committee are provided to check irregularities. This includes the name, designation, and posting of its members. It also covers the date of joining the department.
5. Committee Details (Functionaries & Time): There are details of government functionaries nominated as members. It includes their posting details and the stipulated time given for the enquiry. LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information is showing the real face of the Lucknow Development Authority.

---

📜 LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information: Special Officer vs. Property Officer

Meanwhile, the cryptic denial by Ravi Nandan Singh (Special Officer) and Hemchandra Tiwari (Property Officer) shows negligible to non-existent differences. Indeed, this is true in terms of both content and substance. For instance, both officials issued letters that:

• Acknowledge the Appeal: Refer to the respective appeal numbers (Appeal No. S10/A/1318/2024 for the Property Officer’s response, and Appeal No. S05/A/0518/2024 for the Special Officer’s response) and the subject of irregular allotment.
• Use Identical, Deflective Language: Both responses use the exact same paragraph to explain the non-disclosure of the requested information. The crux of the denial is:
  • A committee has been formed, and “necessary action is being taken.”
  • The committee sent letters and made calls to the allottees and the complainant (appellant) to appear with original records/evidence.
  • Further action is stalled. Both the parties are not appearing in the office with the desired original records or evidences. Only the application form is submitted.
  • They conclude that “After both the parties are available… before the constituted committee, further action will be taken as per rules.”

Table of date and events

Official	Date of Response	The Cryptic Denial	Difference in Denial
Hemchandra Tiwari (Property Officer)	May 8, 2025	States that the matter is stuck because parties are not appearing with original records before the constituted committee.	References the same underlying reason for inaction: non-cooperation of parties before the committee.
Ravi Nandan Singh (Special Officer)	July 22, 2025	States that the matter is stuck because parties are not appearing with original records before the constituted committee.	Virtually none in substance. It’s a boilerplate, repeated response citing a process-related roadblock.

In principle, the provisions of the statutory information access provisions should not be mocked. Thus, authorities can’t legally overlook such mockery simply because parties do not appear before an internal committee.

For context, the LDA officials provided a reason. However, Special Officer Ravi Nandan Singh and Property Officer Hemchandra Tiwari are using a deflective tactic. In effect, it attempts to use an internal process as an exemption from the statutory duty to reveal existing public records. As a result, institutional silence in the LDA case will set a bad precedent.

Below is why this denial is a continued violation of the RTI Act:

1. 🛑 Requested Information is Independent of the Inquiry

First, the information sought by the appellant consists primarily of existing records. Therefore, these records should already be in the custody of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Specifically, these include:

• Details of the staff who handled the title suit and registry (Name, Designation, Posting).
• Copy of the court order deciding the title suit.
• Details of the committee itself (Name, Designation, Posting of members).

Moreover, the internal committee’s investigation does not affect this information. In fact, the parties’ presence is not needed for it, as files and records already contain this information. Hence, the PIOs must give it under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Clearly, this action demonstrates LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information.

2.Grounds for Denial are Strictly, Defined

Second, the RTI Act, 2005, clearly lists the specific exemptions for denying information under Section 8 and Section 9. However, citing the “non-appearance of parties before an internal committee” does not constitute a valid ground for exemption under the Act. Consequently, LDA violates RTI provisions by denying information cryptically.

• The only relevant exemption is Section 8(1)(h) (Impeding the process of investigation). Nevertheless, this exemption is generally, applied narrowly. The committee would not impede the factual collection of evidence by disclosing staff names, court orders, and committee composition. In fact, knowing the committee members is crucial for the appellant to understand who they should be before.

3. 🏛️ LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information Violates the Commission’s Directives

Third, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner (SIC), Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi, issued an order. Specifically, it explicitly directed the Public Information Officer to send “full information”. Furthermore, the officer must appear at the next hearing under the threat of punitive action (Section 20).

In response, the LDA officials issue cryptic, near-similar replies that merely explain why they have stalled the internal investigation. Thus, these replies show non-compliance with the SIC’s order. Ultimately, their failure to obey the clear directive of the Appellate Authority justifies a penalty, which the authorities can impose under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Conclusion: Mockery Can’t Be, Overlooked

In conclusion, the officials are mocking the RTI Act. Specifically, they are creating a false roadblock (the stalled committee investigation) to avoid disclosing basic, verifiable records related to official duties and committee formation. Meanwhile, the responsibility of the PIO is to supply the existing information requested, rather than compelling the applicant to join in a separate internal enquiry to get a response. Consequently, LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information will only promote corruption in the working of the Lucknow Development Authority.

Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted a detailed representation before the vice chairman of the L.D.A., expressing his concerns regarding the ongoing procrastination on a serious issue of corruption that is affecting the integrity of the organization. He emphasized the need for immediate action and transparency in addressing these allegations, as they undermine public trust and hinder effective governance. Singh believes that without decisive measures, the reputation of the L.D.A. could suffer irreparable damage, calling for a thorough investigation and accountability to ensure fairness and justice for all stakeholders involved.

LDA did not give plots to allottees, but preferred to auction, is corruption

• Understanding the Role of PIO of LDA in RTI Requests
• LDA Information Rejections: A Call for Transparency in Governance
• Case Disposed Of: A Real-Life Fraud Story
• Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Lucknow Development Authority:RTI Appeal
• First Appeal Insights: LDA Case Analysis

• Lucknow Development Authority (LDA): Transparency Denied – A Case in LDA / Yogi M. P. Singh vs. Lucknow Development Authority RTI Appeal
• State Information Commission / Appellate Authority: Divisional Commissioner Lucknow LDA in RTI Matters