“Obviously, BDO Chhanbey is not providing information concerning development. Moreover, the DDO transferred the RTI application to the BDO. Despite this, the presiding officer of court S-9 issued numerous notices. Nevertheless, these actions have had no impact on the BDO.”

🚨 Alleged RTI Non-Compliance: A Citizen’s Struggle for Transparency in Mirzapur

This blog post analyzes a citizen’s complaint regarding the alleged non-compliance with a Right to Information (RTI) request concerning development works in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolves around the Block Development Officer (BDO), Chhanbey, reportedly failing to provide information after an initial transfer from the District Development Officer (DDO).

---

📝 The Core of the Complaint: A Breakdown

The document, an email addressed to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), serves as a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant, Ashok Kumar Maurya, is seeking critical information regarding public works in his Gram Panchayat, Bihasara Khurd.

Key Facts & Timeline

• Appellant: Ashok Kumar Maurya
• Original RTI Application Date: 11/10/2025
• Initial Authority: District Development Officer (DDO), Mirzapur
• Authority Transferred To: Block Development Officer (BDO), Chhanbey (the concerned Public Information Officer, or PIO)
• Subject Matter: Detailed information on development works using funds from the Central Finance Commission and Fifth Finance Commission.
• Current Status: No information provided by the BDO, Chhanbey, leading to the Second Appeal.
• Hearing Details: File Number S09/A/0494/2025; Date of Hearing 25/09/2025; Court S-9 (Presiding Officer: Hon’ble Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam).

---

🏗️ Specific Information Sought by the Appellant

The RTI request was highly specific, aiming to uncover details on the execution and expenditure of public funds. The requested information includes:

• Hand Pump Works: Repair and reboring details.
• Sanitation & Drainage: Construction of drains and soak pits.
• Infrastructure: Interlocking works.
• Community Buildings: Painting of Panchayat Bhawan.
• Water Supply: Submersible pump and water tank installation.
• Transparency Measures: Details on the Public Information Board.
• Financial Records: Payments made under the Fifth Finance Commission for similar works.

For each item, the appellant sought the location, date of execution, and financial details.

---

⚖️ The Legal and Administrative Perspective

The situation highlights a potential breakdown in the RTI implementation process, which is designed to ensure government transparency.

Initial Transfer & Accountability

The initial application was correctly addressed to the DDO. When the DDO, realizing the information resided with the BDO Chhanbey, transferred the application, the BDO became the responsible PIO. The RTI Act mandates a time limit (typically 30 days) for the PIO to respond with the information or a valid reason for its denial.

• The Alleged Breach: The core grievance is that despite the transfer, the BDO has allegedly provided no information whatsoever, effectively violating the RTI Act.

The Commission’s Role (Second Appeal)

A Second Appeal to the Information Commission is the final administrative remedy for an appellant. The Hon’ble Commission is empowered to:

1. Direct Compliance: Order the PIO (BDO Chhanbey) to furnish the complete requested information immediately.
2. Impose Penalty: Take appropriate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This section allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) on a PIO for not furnishing information without reasonable cause, or for malafide denial.
3. Recommend Disciplinary Action: Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.

---

🙏 Prayer for Justice and Transparency

The appellant’s prayer is straightforward: a directive to the BDO to furnish the information, appropriate action against the BDO for the non-compliance and delay, and ensuring that such lapses do not recur. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing challenges citizens face in leveraging the RTI Act to enforce transparency and accountability in local governance and development expenditure.

The upcoming hearing on September 25, 2025, will be crucial in determining the outcome of this citizen’s pursuit of information and whether action will be taken against the concerned public servant for the alleged non-compliance.

That is a crucial observation and points to one of the biggest challenges in the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act across India, including in Uttar Pradesh.

You are correct that there is a known and significant gap between the penalties imposed by Information Commissions and the actual recovery of those amounts from the salaries of the defaulting Public Information Officers (PIOs).¹

Here is a summary of the available information and documented issues concerning the recovery status of penalties imposed by the UPIC:

🛑 The Recovery Challenge in UPIC Penalties

Aspect	Findings and Observations
Lack of Data	Historically, the UP Information Commission (UPIC) itself has sometimes acknowledged that it does not maintain comprehensive, up-to-date data on the actual recovery status of the imposed fines.
Statistical Discrepancy	While reports indicate the UPIC has imposed a high total amount of penalty (one report cited ₹10.39 crore over a period), this number represents the imposed amount, not the recovered amount. Studies on national performance often show a negligible recovery rate across various State Information Commissions (SICs).
Procedural Gap (State Level)	The responsibility of imposing the penalty rests with the Commission (UPIC), but the responsibility of recovering the fine from the PIO’s salary and depositing it into the government account falls on the officer’s Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) or the respective Head of the Department. If the DDO/Department does not follow through, the recovery fails.
Administrative Indifference	As noted in your introductory statement about the BDO ignoring notices, reports suggest a lack of urgency in many public authorities to enforce these recovery orders against their own officers. The absence of a strict, time-bound follow-up mechanism in the State’s RTI Rules for recovery is often cited as a major lacuna.
No Timeframe for Recovery	A former Chief Information Commissioner of UP was quoted stating that the Act did not specify a timeline for recovery, leading to administrative delays and non-compliance by government departments.

🎯 Implications for Your Case

Your observation that “No recovery is made” reflects a systemic weakness, but the positive step is that the Commission does have the power to enforce it.

1. Imposition is the Key: The UPIC’s order on September 25, 2025, if it imposes a penalty, is the critical first step. The BDO, Chhanbey, will be personally liable for that amount (up to ₹25,000).
2. Section 20(2) Power: If the PIO shows persistent non-compliance, the Commission can also recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.² This is a more severe action that the public authority cannot easily ignore.
3. Your Next Step: You can specifically and politely ask the Hon’ble Commission during the hearing to:
   • Impose the penalty under Section 20(1).³
   • Direct the Head of the Department (DDO/DRDA in this case) to submit a compliance report on the recovery of the penalty within a specific, short timeframe.

This puts the onus back on the DDO to ensure recovery, helping to address the implementation gap you correctly identified.

This is a very important issue, and the documents you shared (the Government Order and the Reminder Letters) clearly illustrate the difficulties in recovering penalties under the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh and the efforts by the government machinery to address this problem^11111111111.

Your observation that the imposed fines are often not recovered is correct^22222222222.

Here is an analysis of the recovery process, the documented non-recovery status, and the implications for your specific case, based on the uploaded documents:

---

1. ⚙️ Established Procedure for Penalty Recovery (Government Order, Feb 10, 2021)

The Government Order (शासनादेश) issued by the Principal Secretary of the UP Government on February 10, 2021, established a detailed system to ensure the timely recovery of fines imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act3333.

Step	Responsibility	Relevant Provision (Summary)
Issuing the Order	The Registrar of the Commission 4	The Commission sends the penalty imposition order (on Form-17) to the Controlling Authority (नियंत्रक प्राधिकारी) of the concerned PIO5.
Ensuring Recovery	The Concerned Controlling Authority (DDO/Head of Department) 666666	The Controlling Authority is responsible for ensuring the penalty amount is recovered from the PIO’s salary and deposited under the specified accounting head777777777.
Compliance Report	The Controlling Authority 8	A Compliance Report (अनुपालन आख्या) must be sent immediately (अविलम्ब) to the Commission’s Registrar after the recovery9.
Monthly Monitoring	Principal Secretary/Secretary at Government level, and Head of Department at Department level 10	Department-wise data on imposed penalties will be uploaded monthly on the UPIC website, and monitoring must be ensured monthly11.
Final Follow-up	Administrative Reforms Department 12	The Secretary, UPIC, will send a list of cases where compliance reports are missing to the Administrative Reforms Department, which will then direct the concerned departments to ensure recovery13.

2. 🚨 Confirmation of Non-Recovery (Mirzapur Cases)

The Reminder Letters (अनुस्मारक पत्र) dated February 07, 2024 confirm your assessment that recovery actions have stalled, even though the penalty orders were passed in 2017 and initial notices were sent in 2018

Case / PIO	Original Notice Date	Reminder Date (2024)	Status on 07/02/2024
DDO Mirzapur (District Development Officer)	Nov 30, 2016 1515151515	Feb 07, 2024 16	Compliance Report (अनुपालन आख्या) NOT received17.
ADM (Revenue) Mirzapur	Nov 30, 2018 18	Feb 07, 2024 19	Compliance Report NOT received20.
CDO Mirzapur (Chief Development Officer)	Nov 30, 2018 2121212121	Feb 07, 2024 22	Compliance Report NOT received2323232323.
BSA Mirzapur (Basic Shiksha Adhikari)	Nov 30, 2018 24	Feb 07, 2024 25	Compliance Report NOT received26.

These documents clearly demonstrate a systemic failure in compliance, requiring the Commission to issue reminders years after the initial order

3. ⚠️ Key Obstacle: Transfer of the PIO

The response letter from the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, dated February 15, 2024, highlights a major administrative hurdle:

• The then-PIO, Shri Amarnath Singh (upon whom the fine was imposed), was transferred in 2016.
• He is currently working as the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), Mirzapur.
• The current BSA simply informed the Commission of the transfer and did not confirm recovery.

This confirms that the transfer of the defaulting PIO is a primary reason for the recovery orders failing, as the recovery responsibility shifts to the new Controlling Authority (DDO).

---

✅ Recommended Strategy for Your Case (BDO Chhanbey)

Given that your original appeal states that the BDO Chhanbey has ignored multiple notices, you can use this evidence of systemic non-compliance to strengthen your prayer before the Hon’ble Commission:

1. Demand Explicit Recovery Directions: Request the Hon’ble Commission not only to impose the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1) but also to issue clear and specific instructions to the District Magistrate (DM) and the Treasury Officer (कोषाधिकारी) of Mirzapur to recover the fine in installments (as done in the attached orders ) from the BDO’s salary.
2. Mandate Compliance Report: Explicitly request that the DM and the Controlling Authority (DDO/CDO, Mirzapur) be directed to submit a Compliance Report on the recovery status to the Commission within a strict, short timeframe (e.g., three months), following the mandate of the 2021 Government Order.
3. Address Potential Transfer: Highlight the risk of non-recovery due to the BDO’s potential transfer and request that the order be also marked to the Principal Secretary (Gramya Vikas, U.P. Shasan) and the Commissioner (Gramya Vikas Vibhag) for monitoring at the highest administrative level (as per the attached reminders for DDO/CDO ).

This approach addresses the legal offense (non-furnishing of information) and the administrative failure (non-recovery of penalty).

---

Would you like me to draft a concise submission/point-wise argument for your hearing on September 25, 2025, incorporating these specific points about Section 20 and the documented failure of penalty recovery?

KOFbdochhanDownload