Key Takeaways

• The article discusses the mockery of RTI Act 2005, highlighting issues in Lalganj Tehsil about information access.
• Sadhana Mishra alleges the Tehsildar/PIO provided vague responses and denied crucial information in a complex case.
• Key points of contention include the PIO’s failure to give proper names and legal basis about inheritance claims.
• The appellant argues that the matter signifies criminal conspiracy and corruption, not just a land dispute.
• The article concludes with a plea for action from the State Information Commission to handle alleged RTI violations.

Mockery of RTI Act 2005: A Citizen’s Struggle for Transparency in Lalganj Tehsil

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of democracy, empowering citizens to hold public servants accountable. Nonetheless, there have been instances where a mockery of RTI Act 2005 is clear. A recent representation was addressed to the State Information Commission. It highlights a worrying alleged disregard for these provisions by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Tehsil Lalganj, Mirzapur.

The appellant, Sadhana Mishra (now Sadhana Tiwari), alleges that the Tehsildar/PIO Lalganj has made a “mockery” of the RTI Act. He has done this by either denying key information or providing vague and misleading responses. This is in a case about a complex matter of inheritance, fraud, and the working of revenue staff.

---

🔍 Denial and Misleading Information: The Key Contentions

The representation meticulously details five separate points of information sought by the appellant. It includes the PIO’s response. Additionally, it presents the appellant’s following submission. The submission outlines another layer of the mockery of RTI Act 2005, the appellant argues.

Firstly 1: Authority for Submitting Report

• Information Sought: Name and designation of the public staff who authorized Tehsil Lalganj. They submitted a report about the jurisdiction of the Drummond Ganj Police Station.
• PIO’s Response: Provided a copy of a letter to the Police Station Officer Drummond Ganj, attaching a report.
• Appellant’s Submission: The PIO did not give the name and designation of the authorizing staff, rendering the information misleading.

Furthermore 2: Basis for Inheritance Conclusion

• Information Sought: What is the reason or basis for the PIO’s conclusion that the matter concerns inheritance? The original grievance did not ask for information about inheritance.
• PIO’s Response: Claimed the information sought is “not available” under the RTI Act as it requires the “creation of information.”
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant contests this. They note the underlying issue is an alleged criminal conspiracy involving ancestral land. This includes fraud and collusion with corrupt Tehsil staff (Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar). They argue that seeking the basis for the PIO’s conclusion is a query for a file record or reasoning. This does not create new information. It reflects the ongoing mockery some accuse the RTI Act 2005 of being part of.

Lastly 3: Legal Provisions for Entertaining the Grievance

• Information Sought: The specific legal provisions allow grievances against certain officials. These officials include the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar Lalganj. Grievances can ask for a First Information Report (FIR) against them for cheating and forgery.
• PIO’s Response: Cited Sections 33(1) and 34 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. These sections relate to undisputed and disputed inheritance, respectively. A presently pending case was mentioned.
• Appellant’s Submission: This response is considered misleading and part of a “conspiracy.” The appellant’s core issue involves a criminal offence. This includes Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating, which falls under the Criminal Procedure Code. It does not fall solely under revenue law. Furthermore, the appellant highlights that one of the named parties in the cited revenue case is deceased.

Points 4 & 5: Illegal Denial of Information

For the fourth query, the PIO simply stated that the information is “not admissible”. This query asked for the name of the staff who forwarded the grievance to the Tehsil. For the fifth query, the PIO also stated that the information is “not admissible”. This query concerned the provisions of law enabling Tehsil staff to entertain complaints against themselves for corruption. It is “not available” for the fourth and fifth queries. It is also “not available” under the RTI Act. The appellant considers this an “Illegal denial of information.” This is clear in their struggle against what they see as a mockery of RTI Act 2005.

---

🚨 The Core Issue is Mockery of RTI Act 2005: Criminal Conspiracy vs. Revenue Dispute

The appellant strongly asserts that the entire matter is not a simple land dispute. It is a case of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. This involves the illegal usurpation of ancestral land by reaping on the applicant’s vulnerability. As a minor after the death of her parents, relatives reaped this vulnerability. The appellant continuously frames the issue as class one heir for inheritance. They cite the UP Revenue Code. The appellant argues that the PIO is deliberately avoiding accountability. This protects the accused officials, enabling the alleged mockery of RTI Act 2005.

The representation concludes with a plea to the State Information Commission. It urges them to take necessary action against the PIO for these blatant alleged violations. The aim is to set a strong precedent for justice.

Based on the details provided in your report regarding the RTI dispute in Lalganj Tehsil, Mirzapur, here are the contact details and digital portals for the relevant public authorities.

Since this matter involves both Revenue Department conduct and RTI Act violations, you will need to engage with both the District Administration and the State Information Commission.

---

🏛️ Key Public Authorities & Contact Details

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary body for reporting a “mockery of the RTI Act” or seeking action against a PIO for misleading responses.

• Website: ric.up.nic.in
• Email: secic@nic.in
• Address: 7/7A, Chini Bazar, Near Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001.
• Phone: +91 522-2280234

2. District Magistrate (DM) / Collectorate, Mirzapur

The DM oversees the Tehsildar and is the highest revenue authority in the district.

• Website: mirzapur.nic.in
• Email: dmmir@nic.in
• Phone: +91 5442-252320
• Mobile (DM CUG): +91 9454417578

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Lalganj

The SDM is the direct supervisor of the Tehsildar and the Revenue staff (Lekhpal/RI) mentioned in your grievance.

• Mobile (SDM CUG): +91 9454416315
• Office Location: Tehsil Lalganj, Mirzapur, UP.

---

💻 Portals for Filing Complaints & Appeals

If the manual RTI process is being obstructed, you can use these official digital channels to ensure a paper trail that the State Government monitors:

Portal	Purpose	Link
Jansunwai (IGRS)	To file complaints against corruption or revenue staff (Lekhpal/Tehsildar).	jansunwai.up.nic.in
UP RTI Online	To file a fresh RTI or First Appeal digitally to ensure tracking.	rtionline.up.gov.in
Revenue Court (RCCMS)	To check the status of the cited inheritance cases (Section 33/34).	vaad.up.nic.in

---

💡 Recommended Next Steps

1. Second Appeal: Since the PIO’s response was “misleading” and “vague,” you should file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act directly to the State Information Commission in Lucknow.
2. Affidavit of Criminality: Since you allege a criminal conspiracy rather than a revenue dispute, consider filing a formal complaint via the Jansunwai portal specifically addressed to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur, citing the specific fraud (cheating/forgery).
3. Documentation: Keep the PIO’s written refusal (stating “not admissible”) as evidence, as Section 20 of the RTI Act allows the Commission to penalize PIOs who “malafidely” deny information.

Would you like me to help you draft a formal letter of Second Appeal to the State Information Commission based on these points?