🏛️ Alleged RTI Violation by PIO, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj: A Case of Non-Compliance

Second Appeal Before the UP State Information Commission (UPIC)

This post outlines the key submissions made by the Appellant, Indradev Yadav, in a Second Appeal filed against the Public Information Officer (PIO), Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 4th September 2025.

---

📅 Case Overview and Background

• Appellant: Indradev Yadav (Mirzapur, UP)
• Respondent: Public Information Officer (PIO), Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj
• Appeal Registration No.: A-20250500801
• Original RTI Application Date: 12/05/2025
• Subject: Seeking information regarding recruitment procedures and staffing details (specifically Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav’s recruitment, general recruitment advertisements, number of recruitments, recruiter details, and outsourced staff data) in Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj.

The core of the dispute is the PIO’s consistent failure to provide complete, relevant, and substantive information, leading to the Appellant’s second ‘KOF’ (likely referring to a second appeal or complaint) on the same matter.

---

🚨 Legal Grounds for Alleged Violation

The Appellant’s case rests on the violation of two critical sections of the RTI Act: Section 6(3) and Section 19(5).

1. Violation of Section 6(3): Failure to Transfer Application

• The Mandate: Section 6(3) obligates a PIO to transfer an RTI application to the concerned public authority within five days if the information sought pertains to another authority.
• The PIO’s Action: The PIO (Zone-8) repeatedly responded to multiple queries with the phrase “Not sustainable from Zone-8.”
• The Appellant’s Submission: This response, while acknowledging that the information is not with Zone-8, did not include the legally mandated step of transferring the application to the appropriate authority within Nagar Nigam (e.g., the Central Establishment Section or the main PIO), thus constituting a direct violation of Section 6(3) and a deliberate evasion of duty.

2. Violation of Section 19(5): Burden of Proof and Constructive Denial

• The Mandate: Section 19(5) places the burden of proving that the denial of information was justified squarely on the PIO.
• The PIO’s Action: The responses are described as vague and misleading. For example, for Query 1, the response was merely “Working since 2023,” which fails to provide the requested recruitment date and advertisement details.
• The Appellant’s Submission: Such evasive and incomplete responses are tantamount to a constructive denial of information and fail the test of justification under Section 19(5).

---

📑 Analysis of Specific Submissions and Deficiencies

RTI Query	PIO’s Response	Appellant’s Submission
1. Recruitment date/advertisement for Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav.	“Working since 2023.”	Evasive, incomplete, and not the specific date/advertisement sought.
2. Advertisement details of vacancies in the last 10 years.	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Violation of Sec 6(3): PIO failed to transfer the query to the competent central authority.
3. Number of recruitments (daily wage, ad hoc, permanent) in the last 10 years.	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Violation of Sec 6(3): Failure to transfer or provide any data, violating the transparency mandate.
4. Details of recruiters involved in the above recruitments.	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Violation of Sec 6(3): Same deficiency—lack of transfer and information.
5. Number of outsourced staff currently working.	“Not sustainable from Zone-8.”	Inadequate response; PIO should have transferred the query.

---

🙏 Prayer for Relief

The Appellant requested the Hon’ble Commission to take the following actions:

1. Direct the concerned PIO to immediately furnish complete and accurate information as originally sought in the RTI application.
2. Initiate Penal Proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the PIO for willful denial and delay.
3. Issue Appropriate Directions to ensure strict future compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 6(3) and Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

That is a critical area of the appeal. The Appellant’s request for the Commission to “Initiate penal proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act” is the most serious consequence a PIO can face under the Act.

Here is a structured explanation of the State Information Commission’s powers, specifically concerning penalties under Section 20(1) and the transfer obligation under Section 6(3).

---

⚖️ Powers of the State Information Commission (SIC)

The State Information Commission (UPIC in this case) acts as the final appellate and complaints authority for matters concerning state public authorities under the RTI Act, 2005. It wields significant powers to enforce compliance and punish deliberate violation.

1. General Enforcement Powers (Section 19)

When hearing a Second Appeal, the SIC has the authority to:

• Order Access: Direct the Public Authority to provide access to the information requested in a particular form.
• Ensure Compliance: Require the Public Authority to comply with the Act by:
  • Appointing a Public Information Officer (PIO).
  • Making necessary changes to its practices regarding record management.
  • Enhancing training for its officials.
• Award Compensation: Require the Public Authority to compensate the Appellant for any loss or detriment suffered.
• Impose Penalties: Impose penalties on the PIO as per Section 20.

2. The Power to Impose Penalty: Section 20(1)

Section 20(1) empowers the SIC to impose a penalty on the PIO if it is of the opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, committed any of the following defaults:

Default	Nature of Violation
Delay	Not furnishing information within the specified time limit (30 days/48 hours/35 days after transfer).
Denial	Malafidely denying the request for information.
Misinformation	Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. (Relevant to the Prayagraj PIO’s “Working since 2023” response).
Destruction/Obstruction	Destroyed information or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
Refusal	Refused to receive an application.

Penalty Structure:

• Amount: ₹250 per day for the delay or default.
• Maximum Limit: The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
• Key Provision: The penalty is levied on the PIO personally (deducted from their salary) and is not paid by the Public Authority.
• Burden of Proof: The PIO carries the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently.

---

🚫 The PIO’s Failure to Transfer: Violation of Section 6(3)

The Appellant has specifically highlighted the PIO’s failure to transfer the application as a key violation, which can trigger the penalty provision under Section 20(1).

The Mandate of Section 6(3)

Section 6(3) states that if an application requests information that is:

1. Held by another public authority, OR
2. The subject matter is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,

The receiving PIO shall transfer the application to the concerned public authority within five days and inform the applicant immediately.

Why the PIO’s Action is a Default

In the case of Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, the PIO of Zone-8 repeatedly stated, “Not sustainable from Zone-8.

• The PIO correctly identified that the information (e.g., city-wide recruitment) was not with his sub-unit (Zone-8).
• However, instead of simply returning the application (which is prohibited), the PIO was legally required to:
  • Transfer the application to the main PIO/Headquarters PIO of Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj (who controls city-wide records).
  • Or, if the information was with a different public body altogether, transfer it to that body.

The failure to transfer the application, after admitting the information was not held by his office, constitutes a refusal/obstruction and a failure to act within the law without reasonable cause. This omission directly attracts the penal provisions of Section 20(1).

Section 20(2): Recommendation for Disciplinary Action

Beyond the monetary penalty, the SIC may also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them if it finds that the PIO has persistently failed to provide information without reasonable cause.

---

In summary, the Appellant’s prayer for penalties under Section 20(1) has strong grounds, particularly given the combined violations of:

1. Section 6(3): Failure to transfer the application.
2. Section 7(1): Failure to furnish complete and relevant information.
3. Section 19(5): Failure to discharge the burden of proof by providing justified, non-misleading responses.

Would you like me to elaborate on the typical defenses (reasonable cause) a PIO might present to avoid the penalty?

Appeal submitted against arbitrary denial of information by PIO Nagar Nigam Prayagraj

Nagar Nigam prayagraj is running away from the issue of irregularities