Respected Sir/Madam,

In the light of, the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360/ 2021, dated 09.10. 2023, and the subsequent directives issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Obviously, They mandated the implementation of paperless governance through the e-office system. I humbly submit the following representations in support of the second appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Hindustan times abplive

1. Non-Compliance with RTI Act and Commission Orders

Despite repeated notices from the Hon’ble Information Commission, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Tehsildar Lalganj, has failed to respond to the RTI application filed online under Registration Number DMOMR/R/2024/60106. The status remains unchanged as “RTI REQUEST RECEIVED” since 28/09/2024, reflecting a blatant disregard for statutory obligations under Sections 7 and 19 of the RTI Act.

2. Violation of Paperless Governance Mandate

Obviously, The PIO has not utilized any digital means—email, WhatsApp, or postal communication—to communicate with the appellant, which contradicts the Supreme Court’s emphasis on digital transparency and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s eoffice directives. This not only burdens the public exchequer but also undermines administrative efficiency.

3. Denial of Information and Misleading Reports

Obviously, The appellant sought specific reasons for the denial of inheritance processing under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The Tehsildar’s contradictory reports on the Jansunwai portal mislead both the monitoring authorities and the appellant, thereby eroding the credibility of grievance redressal mechanisms.

4. Allegations of Corruption and Collusion

The inheritance was processed in a manner that excluded the appellant, a rightful Class-I heir, due to her minority status at the time. Evidently, The omission appears deliberate and collusive, involving:

• Dayashankar Mishra
• Hariprasad Mishra
• Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar of Lalganj

In Conclusion, The circumstantial evidence suggests bribery and misuse of official position, warranting a departmental inquiry.

5. Request for Inquiry and Disciplinary Action

In the light of, gravity of the allegations and the procedural lapses, I HUMBLY  request:

• Firstly, An inquiry into the inheritance processing irregularities.
• Secondly, Disciplinary action against the erring officials.
• Furthermore, Directions to the PIO to furnish the requested information through electronic means, in compliance with eoffice norms.

6. Legal Grounds

In the light of Under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, the burden of proof lies with the PIO to justify denial of information. Obviously, The continued inaction violates the binding nature of the Commission’s orders under Section 19(7), and the appellant’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Prayer for Relief: In light of the above, the appellant prays that the Hon’ble Commission:

• Firstly, Direct the PIO to provide the requested information immediately via digital means.
• Secondly, Initiate inquiry proceedings against the officials involved in the inheritance fraud.
• Furthermore, Ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s and State Government’s directives on paperless governance.

Date: 28/08/  2025
With regards
Sadhana Tiwari
W/O Omkar Nath Tiwari
Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal, Mirzapur – 231001
Mobile: 6387233091
Email: sadhanamishramzp@gmail.com