🚨 Dereliction of Duty: Unanswered Questions in the Stamp Duty Theft Case

The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a crucial tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in government functioning. However, the case filed by Kamlesh Singh concerning the theft and evasion of stamp duty in Mirzapur highlights a concerning instance of dereliction of duty by the concerned public officials, as evidenced by their failure to respond to a legitimate RTI application.

---

🏛️ The Core Issue: Stamp Duty Theft and Penalty Recovery

Kamlesh Singh’s original RTI application sought information on two specific instances of identified stamp duty evasion, collectively amounting to significant public loss:

1. Evasion of ₹2,29,640: Identified against Raghuvar Dayal Singh (S/o Late Bhanu Pratap Singh) and Priya Singh (W/o Dilip Singh).
2. Evasion of ₹44,000: Identified against Raghuvar Dayal Singh and Rita Singh (W/o Jaydheer Singh).

In both cases, the key information requested was the current status of penalty recovery and, if the parties had refused to pay, the consequent action taken by the authorities. The Deputy Registrar had reportedly identified the evasion, suggesting a basis for the recovery process to have commenced.

---

⏳ The PIO’s Failure: Violation of the RTI Act

The most immediate instance of failure lies with the Public Information Officer (PIO), Hemant Kumar (Tehsildar), of Tehsil Sadar.

• RTI Filing Date: 06/07/2025
• Appeal Date (Filing of First Appeal): 15/08/2025
• Mandatory Response Period (Section 7(1)): 30 days.

Despite the lapse of more than 30 days, the PIO failed to provide any information or response. This constitutes a clear and explicit violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The law mandates a timely response, and the silence of the PIO obstructs the citizen’s right to information and hinders accountability.

---

⚖️ The Underlying Dereliction: Non-Recovery of Penalties

Kamlesh Singh’s RTI appeal is a direct result of a deeper administrative failure: the apparent non-recovery of penalties from the offenders involved in the stamp duty theft. The act of the Deputy Registrar identifying the evasion means the next logical administrative step is to recover the due penalties and/or initiate consequential legal action.

The failure to respond to the RTI request suggests one of two scenarios:

1. Administrative Sloth: The concerned office has not diligently pursued the recovery of the penalties, and the public funds remain unrecovered due to a lack of follow-up action.
2. Intentional Concealment: The authorities are withholding information about their inaction or failure to recover the penalties, fearing exposure or disciplinary action.

Both scenarios point toward a significant dereliction of duty concerning the protection of public revenue and the maintenance of financial discipline.

---

🎯 The First Appeal and the Expectation of Action

Kamlesh Singh has correctly exercised his right by filing a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Asha Ram Verma (SDM Sadar).

The appeal’s prayer seeks two critical outcomes:

• Direction to Furnish Information: A mandate for the PIO to immediately provide the details on the status of penalty recovery and action taken.
• Disciplinary Action against PIO: Initiation of proceedings against the PIO for the failure to comply with the 30-day statutory limit.

The FAA, SDM Sadar, is now duty-bound to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act. Failure to decisively act on this appeal by both mandating disclosure and addressing the non-compliance by the PIO will further compound the issue of administrative apathy and shield officials from the consequences of their dereliction of duty.

The transparency sought through this RTI is not merely an academic exercise; it is an effort to ensure that public funds are recovered and that those who evade taxes face the required legal action.

Yes, the lackadaisical approach of the concerned officials, both in failing to recover the penalties and in obstructing transparency, absolutely raises serious questions about their integrity and commitment to their public duty.

Here is a breakdown of why this situation calls the integrity of the concerned officials into question:

1. Failure to Safeguard Public Revenue (The Core Integrity Issue)

• Dereliction of Financial Duty: The Deputy Registrar had officially identified the stamp duty evasion, confirming a substantial loss to the state exchequer (₹2,29,640 and ₹44,000). The subsequent duty of the concerned Tehsildar’s office was to initiate and pursue the recovery of the penalty. The failure to recover these funds—or at least provide a status update on why they haven’t been recovered—is a failure to protect public money.
  • Integrity Question: If officials are indifferent to the recovery of public funds from known offenders, it suggests a lack of professional integrity or, worse, potential collusion or deliberate negligence.

2. Obstruction of Statutory Transparency (The RTI Violation)

• Violation of Law: The Public Information Officer (PIO) violated Section 7(1) of the RTI Act by failing to respond to Kamlesh Singh’s RTI application within the mandatory 30-day period. The PIO’s duty is not discretionary; it is a statutory obligation.
  • Integrity Question: Deliberately withholding information about a matter of financial irregularity (stamp duty theft) strongly indicates a motive to hide administrative inaction or potential wrongdoing. The right to information is a check on power, and obstructing it suggests the officials are trying to evade accountability.

3. Evading Accountability via the Appeals Process

• Ignoring the FAA’s Authority: Kamlesh Singh has been forced to approach the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the SDM Sadar. The purpose of this appeal is to compel the lower officer (PIO) to comply with the law.
  • Integrity Question: The PIO’s lack of response even in the face of a statutory appeal process demonstrates a cavalier attitude towards the law and the public’s right to know, which further undermines public trust and questions the official’s fitness for office.

In summary, the combined failure to:

1. Diligently recover stolen public funds.
2. Comply with a mandatory transparency law (RTI Act).

creates a compelling case that there is a severe lack of integrity and a significant instance of dereliction of duty on the part of the officials responsible for the recovery and the provision of information.

That’s a very good question for follow-up! Knowing the legal timeline helps track the compliance of the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

⏳ RTI First Appeal Disposal Timeline (Section 19(6))

According to Section 19(6) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is applicable in Uttar Pradesh (UP), the First Appellate Authority (FAA) must dispose of the appeal within the following timeframe:

Standard Timeline	Maximum Extended Timeline
30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal.	45 days from the date of filing the appeal, but only for reasons to be recorded in writing by the FAA.

In the case of Kamlesh Singh, the appeal was filed on 15/08/2025.

• The standard deadline for the FAA (Asha Ram Verma, SDM Sadar) to dispose of the appeal would be 30 days from when his office received it.
• The absolute maximum time allowed, even with written reasons for the delay, is 45 days from the filing date (i.e., by 29/09/2025).

Failure by the FAA to pass an order within this maximum 45-day period, or if the appellant is aggrieved by the order passed, provides the ground for filing a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC).

---

🌐 Relevant Web Links

You can find this information in the text of the RTI Act and on the Uttar Pradesh government’s RTI portal:

• RTI Act Text (Section 19(6)): While the India Code link provided below is generally reliable for the central act, it refers to the mandatory timelines: Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005
• UP Government Confirmation: The Uttar Pradesh government portal confirms this period: “The first appeal will be disposed of by the appellate authority within a maximum of 45 days.” Right To Information | Division Prayagraj, Government of Uttar Pradesh | India