🛑 The Practice: Concealment and Deemed Refusal

The core practice involves a designated Public Information Officer (PIO) failing to adhere to the statutory duties under the RTI Act, 2005, which is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability within public authorities.
This negligence not only undermines the intent of the legislation but also creates an environment of distrust among citizens seeking information.
When PIOs neglect their responsibilities, it results in delayed responses, incomplete information, and, in some cases, a complete absence of acknowledgement of requests.
Such behaviour is detrimental to the democratic process, as it limits the public’s ability to scrutinise governmental actions and hinders the flow of information essential for informed citizenry.
Consequently, it is imperative that compliance with the RTI Act is strictly enforced, ensuring that PIOs understand the importance of their roles and the impact of their actions on public access to information.

1. Non-Compliance with Section 7(1)

The primary violation is the failure to respond within the mandated 30-day period.

• What it is: The DPRO, as the PIO, is legally bound by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act to either furnish the requested information or reject the application (citing valid exemptions under Sections 8 or 9) within 30 days of receiving it.
• The Effect: By taking no action, the officer actively obstructs the citizen’s fundamental right to information.

2. Deemed Refusal

When the 30-day limit passes without a response, the law automatically treats the non-response as a refusal.

• What it is: This is known as a “deemed refusal” (implied refusal). The officer doesn’t have to state “I refuse” for the refusal to be legally established.
• The Implication: This deliberate silence is a tactic that forces the appellant to spend more time, effort, and resources (by filing a First Appeal and potentially a Second Appeal) just to get a response.

3. Concealment of Public Funds Information

The concealment is particularly grave because the information sought relates to the use of public funds for village development schemes (like estimates, fund distribution, work booklets, and expenditure on wall paintings).

• Lack of Accountability: When details about the execution of schemes in places like Village Panchayat – Dhanwatiya are withheld, it suggests a lack of transparency and opens the door to potential financial irregularities, corruption, or substandard work.
• Undermining Grassroots Governance: The DPRO’s role is crucial in monitoring Panchayat Raj institution activities. Concealment directly prevents social audits and citizen oversight at the grassroots level.

---

🎯 Impact on the RTI Act and Governance

This widespread practice severely weakens the democratic process and the goals of the RTI Act.

A. Erosion of Citizen Trust

When government officers, especially those overseeing development funds, actively hide information, it leads to deep distrust between citizens (the appellant, Devi Prasad Gupta) and the public authority (DPRO Bhadohi’s office).

B. Increased Burden on Appellate Authorities

The failure of the PIO (DPRO) to perform their duty creates a cascading effect. It transfers the initial responsibility of seeking information onto the First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Deputy Director, Mirzapur) and subsequently, the State Information Commission. This backlog clogs the appellate machinery, delaying justice for all RTI applicants.

C. Penalty Evasion

The PIO’s hope is often that the appellant will tire out or that the FAA will simply order the information to be supplied without imposing the mandatory penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for malafide denial or non-provision of information without reasonable cause.

The relief sought in your appeal—instructing the PIO to provide the information free of charge (Section 7(6)) and taking disciplinary action—is precisely the mechanism designed to curb this practice and enforce accountability.

🚨 RTI Appeal: Seeking Transparency from DPRO Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar)

This post outlines the details of a First Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, filed due to the non-response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), the District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO), Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar). The core issue revolves around the DPRO’s alleged concealment and failure to provide information concerning developmental schemes in Village Panchayat – Dhanwatiya.

---

🧑‍💻 Parties and Key Authority Details

This section identifies the individuals and authorities involved in the RTI process.

Appellant Details

• Name: Devi Prasad Gupta
• Address: Shuklha Tri Corner Road, Anup Computer, Mirzapur City, Sadar Tehsil, Mahuariya, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-231001
• Mobile: 9935329090

Public Information Officer (PIO) Details

The PIO is the officer responsible for the initial failure to provide information.

• Name & Designation: Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar) – DPRO, District Panchayat Raj Officer
• Mobile: 9450981727
• Email: dprosr-up@nic.in

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details

The FAA is the authority to whom the appeal has been filed.

• Name & Designation: Mirzapur – Deputy Director
• Mobile: 9412445037
• Email: ddprmi-up@nic.in

Nodal Officer Contact

• Mobile: 9795140577
• Email: up.panchayatiraj@gmail.com

---

📅 RTI and Appeal Filing Timeline

This section tracks the official dates and registration numbers for the application and the appeal.

• RTI Application Registration Number: DIRPR/R/2025/61901
• RTI Date of Filing: 29/07/2025
• First Appeal Registration Number: DIRPR/A/2025/61627
• First Appeal Date of Filing: 31/08/2025

---

🔎 Information Sought (Scope of Inquiry on Development Schemes)

The appellant sought information covering the last four years and the current year regarding the Village Panchayat – Dhanwatiya (Post- Barwa, Development Block-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi, PIN Code-221402). All requests involve documentation overseen by the DPRO Bhadohi.

• Estimates of Schemes: Provide the estimates of the developmental schemes executed in the village.
• Government Fund Distribution: Supply details about the distribution of government funds allocated for these schemes.
• Work Booklets: Provide the work booklets related to the implemented developmental schemes.
• Release of Funds: Offer a detailed description of the release of government funds allocated for the schemes.
• Wall Paintings & Expenditure: Share details of wall paintings and the corresponding expenditure incurred from government funds on them.

---

📜 Grounds for Appeal

The appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act due to the PIO’s failure to respond within the legal timeframe.

• Violation of Section 7(1): No response was received from the PIO within the stipulated 30-day period.
• deemed refusal: The lack of response constitutes a deemed refusal under RTI jurisprudence, justifying the appeal.
• Denial of Transparency: The failure to supply information obstructs the fundamental objective of the RTI Act: ensuring transparency and accountability in public works.

---

🏛️ Relief Sought from the FAA

The appellant seeks the following intervention from the Deputy Director, Mirzapur (FAA):

• Instruction to Provide Information: Instruct the PIO to provide the requested information immediately and without charge (as per Section 7(6) for delayed response).
• Disciplinary Action: Take appropriate disciplinary action against the PIO for non-compliance with the RTI Act.
• Ensuring Future Compliance: Issue necessary instructions to the concerned department to prevent the repetition of such violations, especially from officers holding crucial roles like the DPRO Bhadohi.

Enquiry officer may provide the information concerned with enquiry