Key Takeaways

• The article addresses serious allegations of RTI violations in UP. These include the willful denial of information by the Circle Officer of Lalganj.
• It highlights the delay in providing information, which undermines transparency and accountability in public offices.
• The appellant seeks a pecuniary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This is for these violations. The appellant cites negligence and misleading responses.
• The appeal calls for a thorough examination of evidence about contradictory communications from the officer.
• Ultimately, the action aims to reinforce the principles of transparency and citizen empowerment under the RTI Act.

⚖️ Demand for Action Against Circle Officer Lalganj: A Case of Alleged RTI Violation

The following blog post outlines the core arguments and appeal for relief concerning RTI violations in UP. These were presented in a Second Appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This commission serves as a critical platform for addressing grievances related to the Right to Information Act.

The appeal involves serious allegations of willful denial of information by the Assistant Public Information Officer. This officer has a mandated responsibility to give access to relevant information promptly. This failure undermines the principles of transparency. It also hinders the citizen’s right to seek accountability from public authorities.

Furthermore, it addresses the worrisome issue of undue procrastination by the Circle Officer, Lalganj. The Circle Officer’s lack of prompt action contributes significantly to delays. These delays frustrate citizens seeking information. Advocating for a swift resolution is crucial. Providing necessary information is equally important.

These actions highlight the need for stricter adherence to RTI norms. These measures are needed to make sure that public offices uphold their commitments to transparency and accountability.

---

The Core of Grievance is RTI violations in UP: Willful Denial and Delay

The appeal focuses on the behavior of the Circle Officer, Lalganj, who holds a crucial role as the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) in managing the RTI application with Appeal Registration Number: A-20250300419.
The appellant, Sadhana Tiwari, also known as Sadhana Mishra, contends that the officer has committed several violations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is designed to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
Sadhana argues that the officer’s actions not only contravene the regulations set forth by the RTI Act but also undermine the fundamental rights of citizens to access information, thereby raising concerns about the efficacy of the processes in place to address public inquiries.
Furthermore, she emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of openness and public participation, as intended by this legislation, and she seeks an appropriate review of the officer’s conduct to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and to reinforce the integrity of the information dissemination system.

The main points of RTI violations in UP are:

• Willful Denial: The Circle Officer initially denied the inquiry through a communication dated 29th April 2025. He explicitly claimed that he “does not pertain to his office.”
• Contradictory Admission: In a subsequent communication dated 22nd May 2025, the same officer admitted to receiving the online application. UPHRC Lucknow had forwarded it.
• Procrastination: Despite the starting application date of 08/03/2025, the officer allegedly procrastinated for over eight months. The appellant views this delay as prima facie evidence of negligence and disregard for the RTI process.
• Misleading Information: The Circle Officer ultimately provided five points of information to the seeker, contradicting his earlier categorical denial. This action confirms the misleading nature of his first response.

---

📜 The Plea for Penalty Under Section 20(1)

The appellant seeks to impose a pecuniary penalty on the Circle Officer of Lalganj. This is due to the RTI violations observed in UP. The action is taken under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The role of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is crucial. It provides information to seekers, yet it leads to the mockery of RTI act provisions.

What is Section 20(1) of the RTI Act?

Section 20(1) empowers the Central or State Information Commission (in this case, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission) to impose a penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) or an APIO if, without any reasonable cause, they:

• Refuse to get an application.
• Fail to provide information within the specified time limit (generally 30 days).
• Malafidely deny the ask.
• Knowingly give incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroyed information subject to the request.
• Obstruct the process in any manner.

The authorities impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until the information furnished, with the total penalty not exceeding ₹25,000. Crucially, the Public Information Officer must meet the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently.

---

🙏 Conclusion and Requested Relief

The appellant asserts that the officer engaged in several problematic actions. These actions include a prolonged delay. There was procrastination and an starting false denial of the information about his office. This is central to RTI violations in UP cases. Later, he provided the information. These actions fall squarely under the punitive provisions of the RTI Act.

The prayer for relief before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is clear:

• To examine the evidence of the contradictory communications.
• To find the Circle Officer, Lalganj, guilty of providing misleading information and undue procrastination.
• To impose an appropriate pecuniary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The appellant’s action aims to uphold the spirit of transparency and accountability in the RTI Act. This Act seeks to empower citizens by ensuring access to information held by public authorities. By advocating for this principle, the appellant reinforces the foundational values of democracy. The appellant also fosters a culture of openness that encourages government accountability.

This commitment to transparency empowers individuals to make informed decisions and participate meaningfully in the governance process. This approach enhances civic engagement and fosters a society where citizens actively express their voices and gain respect.

UPHRC directed S.P. Mirzapur to act according to law in matter of Sadhana

Sadhana Tiwari filed second appeal against Tehsildar Lalganj

colalganjdeniDownload