💔 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. This is causing a bureaucratic impasse. This situation is frustrating. The responses from the Special Officer (Ravi Nandan Singh) and the Property Officer (Hemchandra Tiwari) are almost identical. They use a cryptic, deflective tactic. This is a clear example of LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information where they do this rather than directly addressing the core queries raised by the appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh. This effectively denies the requested information.

---

🕵️‍♀️ The Core Issue: Information Sought by the Appellant

The appellant sought specific, factual information. They also 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. 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

The cryptic denial by Ravi Nandan Singh (Special Officer) and Hemchandra Tiwari (Property Officer) shows negligible to non-existent differences. This is true in terms of both content and substance. 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.

The provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 should not be, mocked. Authorities can’t legally overlook such mockery if parties do not before an internal committee.

The LDA officials provided a reason. Special Officer Ravi Nandan Singh and Property Officer Hemchandra Tiwari are using a deflective tactic. It attempts to use an internal process as an exemption from the statutory duty to reveal existing public records.LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information will set up bad precedent.

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

1. 🛑 Requested Information is Independent of the Inquiry

The information sought by the appellant consists primarily of existing records. These records should be in the custody of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). 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).

The internal committee’s investigation does not affect this information. The parties’ presence is not, needed for it. Files and records contain this information. Hence, the PIOs must give it under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This action shows LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information.

2.Grounds for Denial are Strictly, Defined

The RTI Act, 2005, clearly lists the specific exemptions for denying information under Section 8 and Section 9. Citing the “non-appearance of parties before an internal committee” does not constitute a valid ground for exemption under the Act. 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

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

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

Conclusion: Mockery Can’t Be, Overlooked

The officials are mocking the RTI Act. They are creating a false roadblock (the stalled committee investigation). This avoids disclosing basic, verifiable records related to official duties and committee formation. The responsibility of the PIO is to supply the existing information requested. It is not their role to compel the applicant to join in a separate internal enquiry to get a response. LDA’s Cryptic Denial of Information will only promote the corruption in the working of the Lucknow Development Authority.

Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted representation before vice chairman L.D.A. as they are procrastinating on serious issue of corruption

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