Kamlesh Singh filed this RTI appeal against police inaction in Mirzapur under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He directed it at the Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur, because the Public Information Officer had missed the statutory 30-day deadline for responding to his original RTI application.

RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction: Registration Summary

Registration Details

Registration No.SPMZR/A/2025/60036NameKamlesh SinghDate of Filing10/08/2025StatusRTI Appeal received as on 10/08/2025

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details

NameSomen VermaDesignationSSP MirzapurMobile7007941679Emailspmzr-up[at]nic[dot]in

Nodal Officer Details

NameOm Prakash SinghMobile7007941679Emailaddlspopmzr[at]gmail[dot]com

Online RTI Appeal Form Details in case RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction

Public Authority Details

Public Authority: Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur

Applicant’s Personal Details

NameKamlesh SinghGenderMaleAddressVillage Kothra Kantit, Post Sri Niwas DhamPincode231313StateUttar PradeshEducational StatusIlliteratePhoneDetails not providedMobile+91-812719XXXXEmailmyogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]comCitizenshipIndianBelow Poverty LineNo — see BPL criteria

First Appeal Details (u/s 19(1))

Registration No.SPMZR/A/2025/60036Date of Filing10/08/2025Appellate AuthoritySomen VermaMobileXXXX (View)Ground for AppealNo Response Within the Time Limit

Text of the First Appeal

To

The Superintendent of Police
District – Mirzapur
PIN Code – 231001

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding Non-Response to RTI Application (Registration No. SPMZR/R/2025/60170)

Respected Sir,

I, Kamlesh Singh, hereby submit this appeal under subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This is in reference to my RTI application dated 04/07/2025. The application bears Registration Number SPMZR/R/2025/60170. The application was duly received on the same date, as per the online portal status. However, the stipulated time under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act has lapsed. The concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), Shri Om Prakash Singh, ASP Operation, Mirzapur, has not provided any response.

Grounds of Appeal

1. Violation of Statutory Timeline — As per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO must respond within 30 days. This period starts from the date of receipt of the application. However, more than 30 days have passed, and no reply has been furnished, thereby violating the statutory obligation.
2. Failure to Discharge Duty — The PIO has failed to entertain the RTI application. This failure amounts to a denial of the applicant’s right to information. It undermines the transparency objectives of the RTI Act.

Information Sought in the Original RTI Application

1. Police Inaction Despite Emergency Call — The applicant’s son dialed 112 to report illegal boring activity, yet the offenders continued unabated. Kindly provide the documents or order notes, including any instructions from a competent authority that restrained the police from taking action in this matter.
2. Sub Judice Matter and Police Stagnancy — The land in question is under judicial consideration. Despite this, the offenders are attempting to override the jurisdiction of the competent revenue court. Please clarify which legal provisions or departmental protocols justify the police’s passive stance in such a situation.
3. Details of Police Personnel at the Site — Kindly provide the names, designations, and posting details of the police personnel who visited the site on the said date but failed to prevent the illegal boring activity.

Additional Submissions

It is deeply concerning that the accused parties are attempting to take possession of the disputed land while the matter is pending before the competent court, by installing a bore. This not only undermines the authority of the judiciary but also renders the role of the Sub-District Magistrate ineffective. In such circumstances, the silence of the Jigana police raises serious questions about their moral and legal responsibility.

If the police allow such possession actions during the pendency of the case, it defeats the very purpose of judicial adjudication. The court’s decision becomes irrelevant if the status quo is not maintained. Therefore, I humbly urge your good office to intervene and uphold the rule of law by ensuring that no party takes unilateral action on disputed land.

Prayer

In light of the above, I request you to:

• Direct the concerned PIO to furnish the requested information without further delay.
• Initiate appropriate action for the delay and non-compliance under the RTI Act.
• Ensure that the applicant is protected from unlawful actions and that the sanctity of the judicial process is preserved.

I look forward to your prompt and just intervention.

Sincerely,
Kamlesh Singh
Date: 10/08/2025
Address: Kothara Kantit, Shri Nivas Dham

How This RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction Moves Forward

The Right to Information Act, 2005 builds in exactly this safeguard: a first appeal under Section 19(1). Section 7(1) gives a Public Information Officer thirty days to respond, or forty-eight hours if life or liberty is at stake. If that window lapses, or the reply is incomplete or evasive, the applicant has a clear next step. Section 19(1) lets the citizen approach a more senior officer, the First Appellate Authority, and ask that officer to enforce compliance.

The First Appellate Authority faces its own deadline. Section 19(6) requires the FAA to dispose of the appeal within thirty days of receipt. It gets forty-five days only if it records written reasons for the delay. In this case, Kamlesh Singh registered the appeal on 10 August 2025 against the Superintendent of Police’s office. As a result, the FAA, Somen Verma, was due to issue a reasoned order before the end of September. The key question is whether that order addresses why police personnel did not act on a live emergency call. If it doesn’t, the matter will likely need to advance further.

If the First Appeal Fails in case RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction

Sometimes the FAA also stays silent, or issues an order that doesn’t satisfy the applicant. In that case, the Act provides a further remedy. Section 19(3) allows a second appeal to the State Information Commission — the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in this case — within ninety days of the FAA’s decision or the deadline it missed. The Commission, unlike the FAA, holds real teeth. Under Section 20, it can fine a Public Information Officer up to ₹250 a day, capped at ₹25,000, for withholding information without cause. It can also recommend disciplinary action against an officer who acted in bad faith.

Why This Police Inaction Appeal Matters Beyond One Case

This RTI appeal against police inaction reflects a wider pattern. This blog has tracked it repeatedly: government offices treat a pending court case as an excuse to dodge direct questions about their own conduct. A land dispute being sub judice explains why a court hasn’t ruled on ownership yet. However, it doesn’t explain why police who received an emergency call about illegal activity on that land chose not to respond. Nor does it explain why officials won’t name the officers involved. Transparency about what officials did, or didn’t do, is a separate question from the property dispute itself. The RTI Act treats it that way.

Supporting Document in matter RTI Appeal Against Police Inaction

Supporting document (PDF, up to 1 MB): Supporting document not provided

Original RTI Application Details (u/s 6(1))

Registration No.SPMZR/R/2025/60170Date of Filing04/07/2025PIO ApproachedOm Prakash SinghDesignationASP OperationMobile7007941679Emailaspopmzp[at]gmail[dot]comOrder/Decision No.Details not providedOrder/Decision DateNot provided

Related RTI Appeals

• Court Order Non-Compliance by Lekhpal Exposed
• Tehsildar Sadar’s Role in Resolving Public Grievances
• Reporting Tax Fraud: A Case Study
• Urgent Grievance Against Police Oversight in Mirzapur
• Fight for Accountability & Mirzapur Police Justice Struggle

Related: Ancestral Properties Controversy: Legal Rights Explained