Explore the failures of the Mockery of RTI Act 2005 as citizens seek answers from the Public Information Officer in Lalganj. This shows the deep frustrations the public feels when their calls for transparency are ignored. The situation reveals a worrying trend. The system meant to help citizens does not always work well. As a result, people often feel powerless when trying to access information that should be available to them. This imbalance between the Public Information Officer’s authority and the accountability owed to citizens raises important questions about governance. It also highlights how effective legislation should support democratic values. While facing bureaucratic challenges, the citizens of Lalganj stay committed to changing the current situation. They are fighting for their rights and urging for a system that respects the intent of the RTI Act.

Key Takeaways

• First, the article shows how officials mock the RTI Act 2005. Specifically, it focuses on issues in Lalganj Tehsil when citizens ask for information.
• In particular, Sadhana Mishra states the Tehsildar/PIO gave vague answers. Furthermore, she states he hid vital facts in a complex case.
• For instance, key issues include the PIO failing to give names. Additionally, he failed to state the law behind inheritance claims.
• Consequently, the appellant claims this is not just a land dispute. Rather, she argues it shows fraud and corruption.
• Finally, the article ends with a call to action. Specifically, it asks the State Information Commission to act on RTI violations.

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

In principle, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, helps citizens hold public servants accountable. Yet, some officials make a troubling violation of transparency. For example, a recent complaint went to the State Information Commission. Indeed, it shows how the Public Information Officer (PIO) in Tehsil Lalganj, Mirzapur, ignores the law.

Specifically, the appellant, Sadhana Mishra (now Sadhana Tiwari), says the Tehsildar/PIO Lalganj mocks the law. As a result, he denies key facts or gives vague replies. Ultimately, this happens in a case about land fraud, inheritance, and local staff.

---

📜 Background: The Right to Information Act, 2005

Passed in 2005, the RTI Act replaced the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Consequently, its goal is to empower citizens and curb government corruption. For this purpose, under Section 6(1), any citizen can file an RTI request with the PIO to get public records.

In addition, Section 7(1) gives the PIO 30 days to answer or refuse the request with reasons. However, refusals must use valid rules under Sections 8 and 9. Therefore, blatant denials like “information not admissible” break the law. Indeed, they contradict key Supreme Court rulings on public transparency.

---

🔍 Denial and Misleading Information: Mockery of RTI Act 2005

In detail, the appeal details five points of information requested by the appellant and the PIO’s answers. Overall, it shows how the PIO continues to breach the RTI Act 2005.

Firstly 1: Authority for Submitting Report

• Information Sought: Name and post of the staff member who approved the report from Tehsil Lalganj. The report was sent to the Drummond Ganj Police Station.
• PIO’s Response: Sent a copy of a letter to the Drummond Ganj police chief, with a report attached.
• Appellant’s Submission: However, the PIO did not name the official who approved the report. Consequently, this made the answer incomplete and misleading.

Furthermore 2: Basis for Inheritance Conclusion

• Information Sought: Specifically, the reason why the PIO called this an inheritance issue. Notably, the original complaint did not ask about inheritance.
• PIO’s Response: Instead, he claimed the data is “not available” under the RTI Act because it requires “creating new information.”
• Appellant’s Submission: In response, the appellant rejects this defense. Indeed, the main issue is fraud and land theft involving Tehsil staff (Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar). Therefore, asking for official records or notes is valid. Moreover, it does not create new data. Thus, this is another example of officers ignoring the RTI Act 2005.

Lastly 3: Legal Provisions for Entertaining the Grievance

• Information Sought: In particular, the laws that cover complaints against officials like the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar Lalganj. For instance, the complaint asks for an FIR against them for fraud and forgery.
• PIO’s Response: In response, he cited Sections 33(1) and 34 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. Specifically, these rules cover property inheritance. In addition, he noted an active court case.
• Appellant’s Submission: However, this answer is misleading. On the contrary, the main issue is a criminal offense involving breach of trust under penal law. Hence, it is not just a revenue case. Furthermore, one person listed in the revenue case is already dead.

Points 4 & 5: Illegal Denial of Information

Similarly, for the fourth item, the PIO simply wrote “not admissible.” Specifically, this item asked for the name of the clerk who sent the complaint to Tehsil. Likewise, he gave the same “not admissible” reply for the fifth item. As mentioned, that item asked about laws that let staff handle corruption charges against themselves. Ultimately, the appellant calls this an illegal denial that undermines the RTI Act 2005.

---

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

First and foremost, the appellant stresses that this is not a routine land dispute. Rather, it involves fraud, fake records, and breach of trust. For example, suspects took advantage of an orphan minor to steal family land. Meanwhile, officers frame the case as an inheritance matter under the UP Revenue Code. Consequently, the appellant states the PIO is dodging duties to protect corrupt staff, mocking the RTI Act 2005.

Therefore, the appeal asks the State Information Commission to punish the PIO. Ultimately, quick action will set a strong warning for other officers.

⚖️ Legal Analysis: Systematic Misuse and Subversion of the RTI Act

In practice, public officers often claim that answering tough questions means “creating new information.” However, while PIOs do not have to write research papers, citizens have a full right to see existing files, notes, and reasons for actions.

For instance, when officers call criminal fraud a simple land case, they move the issue away from criminal courts. Consequently, this leads to slow civil cases instead. Furthermore, by hiding file notes, the PIO protects corrupt staff from swift punishment.

For reference, here are key contacts and online portals for the offices tied to this RTI case in Lalganj Tehsil, Mirzapur.
These resources will assist you in navigating the information related to the case.

Specifically, because this case involves Revenue Department rules and RTI Act breaches, you need to reach out to District Leaders. Additionally, you should contact the State Commission.

---

🏛️ Authorities Addressing the Mockery of RTI Act 2005 & Contact Details

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

In particular, this is the main body to report an “RTI Act mockery” or seek penalties against a bad PIO.

• 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

Specifically, the DM leads the Tehsildar and serves as the chief revenue leader 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

In addition, the SDM supervises the Tehsildar and local revenue staff (Lekhpal/RI) named in your case.

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

---

💻 Portals for Filing Complaints & Appeals

For instance, if staff block paper RTI forms, use these official web sites to build an online record:

Portal	Purpose	Link
Jansunwai (IGRS)	To report fraud or corrupt revenue staff (Lekhpal/Tehsildar).	jansunwai.up.nic.in
UP RTI Online	To file an RTI or First Appeal online with clear tracking.	rtionline.up.gov.in
Revenue Court (RCCMS)	To track land inheritance cases (Section 33/34).	vaad.up.nic.in

---

💡 Recommended Next Steps

1. Second Appeal: The PIO gave vague answers. Therefore, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act with the State Commission in Lucknow.
2. Report Criminal Acts: In addition, since this is a fraud case, send a formal complaint via the Jansunwai portal. Specifically, direct it to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur, listing fraud and forgery.
3. Keep Records: Furthermore, save the PIO’s written refusal (“not admissible”) as proof. Indeed, Section 20 lets the Commission fine PIOs who deny facts in bad faith.
4. Ask for Fines: If a PIO routinely hides facts or gives wrong data, ask for penalties under Section 20(1) (up to ₹25,000). Additionally, request department action under Section 20(2) in your Second Appeal.
5. File First Appeal: Before contacting the State Commission, submit a full First Appeal within 30 days. It is under Section 19(1) to the First Appellate Authority (SDM or ADM). Clearly list all errors made by the PIO.

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

Related Posts

• Mockery’ of Transparency in the RTI Act
• PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI: Transparency Issues
• Right to Information Act: Recent Appeal Insights
• Violation of Information Act and Its Implications
• DDA made the mockery of provisions of RTI Act 2005