How BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI becomes clear from the appellant’s own words below.

“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.”

🚨 How BDO Chhanbey is Failing RTI: A Citizen’s Struggle for Transparency in Mirzapur

This blog post examines how BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI obligations in a citizen’s case concerning development works in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. Specifically, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Chhanbey, reportedly failed to provide information even after the District Development Officer (DDO) transferred the application to him. In other words, the process broke down exactly at the point where accountability should have kicked in.

---

📝 How BDO Chhanbey is Failing RTI: The Core of the Complaint

The document is an email addressed to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), and it serves as a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this appeal, the appellant, Ashok Kumar Maurya, is seeking critical information about 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 funded by the Central Finance Commission and Fifth Finance Commission.
• Current Status: The BDO, Chhanbey, has not provided any information, so the appellant filed a 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. Overall, it aimed to uncover details on the execution and expenditure of public funds — precisely the kind of records that show how BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI on ground-level development work. Specifically, the appellant requested:

• 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.

Additionally, for each item, the appellant asked for the location, date of execution, and financial details.

---

⚖️ The Legal Perspective on How BDO Chhanbey is Failing RTI

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

Initial Transfer & Accountability

To begin with, the appellant correctly addressed the initial application to the DDO. Then, when the DDO realized the information resided with the BDO Chhanbey, he transferred the application, and the BDO then became the responsible PIO. From that point on, under the RTI Act mandates, the PIO must respond with the information — or a valid reason for denying it — within a set time limit, typically 30 days.

• The Alleged Breach: Despite the transfer, the BDO has allegedly provided no information whatsoever, so the core grievance is a clear violation of the RTI Act.

The Commission’s Role (Second Appeal)

At this stage, a Second Appeal to the Information Commission is the appellant’s final administrative remedy. Consequently, the Hon’ble Commission can:

1. Direct Compliance: Order the PIO (BDO Chhanbey) to furnish the complete requested information immediately.
2. Impose Penalty: Take action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Specifically, this section lets the Commission impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000, on a PIO who does not furnish information without reasonable cause, or who denies a request in bad faith.
3. Recommend Disciplinary Action: Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.

---

🙏 Prayer for Justice and Transparency

In short, the appellant’s prayer is straightforward: he wants a directive ordering the BDO to furnish the information, appropriate action against the BDO for the non-compliance and delay, and assurance that such lapses will not recur. Overall, this case is a powerful reminder of the ongoing challenges citizens face when they try to use the RTI Act to enforce transparency and accountability in local governance and development spending.

The upcoming hearing on September 25, 2025, will therefore be crucial. It will determine whether this citizen finally gets the information he sought, and whether the Commission takes action against the public servant for the alleged non-compliance. In many ways, the hearing’s outcome will show just how far BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI accountability in Mirzapur.

---

🛑 How BDO Chhanbey is Failing RTI Recovery: Penalties Rarely Get Recovered

Beyond this individual case, how BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI obligations also points to one of the biggest challenges in enforcing the Right to Information Act across India, including in Uttar Pradesh: there is a well-documented gap between the penalties Information Commissions impose and the amounts they actually recover from defaulting Public Information Officers’ (PIOs’) salaries.

Below, therefore, is a summary of the documented issues concerning the recovery status of penalties the UPIC has imposed.

The Recovery Challenge in UPIC Penalties

Aspect	Findings and Observations
Lack of Data	Notably, the UP Information Commission (UPIC) has itself acknowledged that it does not keep comprehensive, up-to-date data on the actual recovery status of the fines it imposes.
Statistical Discrepancy	Reports indicate the UPIC has imposed a high total penalty amount — one report cited ₹10.39 crore over a period — but this figure represents the imposed amount, not the recovered one. Indeed, national studies consistently show a negligible recovery rate across various State Information Commissions (SICs).
Procedural Gap (State Level)	The Commission (UPIC) imposes the penalty, but the officer’s Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) or Head of Department must actually recover the fine from the PIO’s salary and deposit it into the government account. So if the DDO or department does not follow through, the recovery simply fails.
Administrative Indifference	As the BDO’s own disregard for notices in this case shows, many public authorities show little urgency in enforcing recovery orders against their own officers. Consequently, observers often cite the absence of a strict, time-bound follow-up mechanism in the State’s RTI Rules as a major gap.
No Timeframe for Recovery	A former Chief Information Commissioner of UP stated that the Act sets no timeline for recovery, which leads to administrative delays and non-compliance across government departments.

Implications for This Case

Admittedly, the fact that recovery so rarely happens reflects a systemic weakness. Even so, the Commission does have the power to enforce it, provided the appellant asks clearly:

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

This approach puts the onus back on the DDO to ensure recovery, which helps close the implementation gap described above.

---

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

Specifically, on February 10, 2021, the Principal Secretary of the UP Government issued a Government Order (शासनादेश) that set up a detailed system for the timely recovery of fines the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission imposes under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This order matters here because it is the very mechanism that should, in theory, stop BDO Chhanbey from failing RTI obligations without consequence.

Step	Responsibility	Relevant Provision (Summary)
Issuing the Order	The Registrar of the Commission	The Commission sends the penalty imposition order (on Form-17) to the Controlling Authority (नियंत्रक प्राधिकारी) of the concerned PIO.
Ensuring Recovery	The Concerned Controlling Authority (DDO/Head of Department)	This authority must ensure it recovers the penalty amount from the PIO’s salary and deposits it under the specified accounting head.
Compliance Report	The Controlling Authority	It must send a Compliance Report (अनुपालन आख्या) to the Commission’s Registrar immediately (अविलम्ब) after the recovery.
Monthly Monitoring	Principal Secretary/Secretary at Government level, and Head of Department at Department level	Departments must upload penalty data monthly on the UPIC website, and officials must monitor it every month.
Final Follow-up	Administrative Reforms Department	The Secretary, UPIC, sends a list of cases with missing compliance reports to the Administrative Reforms Department, which then directs the concerned departments to ensure recovery.

🚨 Confirmation of Non-Recovery (Mirzapur Cases)

Indeed, the Reminder Letters (अनुस्मारक पत्र) dated February 07, 2024 confirm that recovery actions have stalled — and this despite the fact that officials passed the penalty orders back in 2017 and sent initial notices in 2018.

Case / PIO	Original Notice Date	Reminder Date (2024)	Status on 07/02/2024
DDO Mirzapur (District Development Officer)	Nov 30, 2016	Feb 07, 2024	Compliance Report (अनुपालन आख्या) NOT received.
ADM (Revenue) Mirzapur	Nov 30, 2018	Feb 07, 2024	Compliance Report NOT received.
CDO Mirzapur (Chief Development Officer)	Nov 30, 2018	Feb 07, 2024	Compliance Report NOT received.
BSA Mirzapur (Basic Shiksha Adhikari)	Nov 30, 2018	Feb 07, 2024	Compliance Report NOT received.

These documents clearly show a systemic failure in compliance, since the Commission still has to issue reminders years after the initial order — the same pattern of drift that now defines how BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI in the current case.

⚠️ Key Obstacle: Transfer of the PIO

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

• To begin with, officials transferred the then-PIO, Shri Amarnath Singh (upon whom the fine was imposed), in 2016.
• He currently works 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 when a defaulting PIO gets transferred, recovery orders often fail, since responsibility then shifts to the new Controlling Authority (DDO) — a risk worth flagging, since it could easily repeat if BDO Chhanbey keeps failing RTI compliance after this hearing.

---

✅ Recommended Strategy: Countering How BDO Chhanbey is Failing RTI

To recap, the original appeal states that the BDO Chhanbey has ignored multiple notices. Therefore, the appellant can use this evidence of systemic non-compliance to strengthen his prayer before the Hon’ble Commission:

1. Demand Explicit Recovery Directions: Ask the Hon’ble Commission not only to impose the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1), but also to issue clear, specific instructions to the District Magistrate (DM) and the Treasury Officer (कोषाधिकारी) of Mirzapur, directing them to recover the fine from the BDO’s salary in installments, as similar orders have done elsewhere.
2. Mandate a Compliance Report: Explicitly request that officials direct the DM and Controlling Authority (DDO/CDO, Mirzapur) 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: Finally, highlight the risk that a transfer could once again derail recovery, and request that the order also be marked to the Principal Secretary (Gramya Vikas, U.P. Shasan) and the Commissioner (Gramya Vikas Vibhag) for monitoring at the highest administrative level.

Together, these steps address both the legal offense — non-furnishing of information — and the administrative failure of non-recovery of the penalty. Ultimately, how BDO Chhanbey is failing RTI compliance in this case will test whether the Commission’s powers translate into real accountability.

[PDF attachment: KOFbdochhan]