Information neglected by Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar, Sadar, Mirzapur, raises serious concerns regarding transparency and accountability within the public authority.
The continued adoption of the same dismissive practice in every case by Tehsil Sadar not only undermines the integrity of the office but also erodes public trust in the administration.
Such consistent negligence reflects a disregard for the principles enshrined in the Right to Information Act.
Thus, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has violated subsection 1 of section 7 of the RTI Act 2005, which mandates timely responses to queries, thereby limiting access to crucial information that citizens are entitled to.
This situation calls for immediate rectification to ensure that public authorities uphold the law and fulfill their obligations to the citizens they serve.

Navigating the information neglected by PIO: An Inside Look at a First Appeal

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 is, indeed, a powerful tool for Indian citizens, empowering them to seek clarity and understanding about the functioning of government bodies. Furthermore, it promotes transparency and accountability in government, thereby strengthening democracy by ensuring that officials operate within the bounds of the law and remain answerable to the public.
Additionally, the Act provides individuals the right to ask for information from public authorities, giving them a voice in governance and enabling them to participate actively in the democratic process. This process not only holds these authorities accountable for their actions and decisions but also encourages good governance practices that benefit society as a whole.
Yet, what happens when a public authority fails to respond or provides inadequate information? In such cases, the neglected requests can lead to the filing of an appeal, ensuring that citizens remain vigilant and proactive in claiming their rights.
This post, thus, breaks down a real-life example of a first appeal filed under the RTI Act, illustrating the challenges and triumphs faced by individuals seeking justice and accountability within the bureaucratic framework.

---

Case Study: The information neglected by PIO/Tehsildar Sadar

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, a concerned citizen hailing from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, took the initiative to file an RTI application to the Tehsildar, Sadar, Mirzapur, as part of his efforts to seek clarity and action regarding a pressing issue affecting many in his community.
Specifically, he sought detailed information related to a government grievance that had been a source of frustration for numerous residents, reflecting his commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability within local governance.
The RTI application, which has been meticulously prepared and submitted with Registration Number DMOMR/R/2025/60201, highlights his dedication to addressing bureaucratic delays and seeking rightful assistance.
Ultimately, the application was formally filed on August 14, 2025, marking a significant step towards advocating for the rights and welfare of his fellow citizens, and showcasing the power of informed citizenship in the pursuit of justice.

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal wanted information on several points, including:

• The name and designation of the official who endorsed a specific grievance to Tehsil Sadar.
• The authorities did not send the grievance to the police department. Unfortunately, this information has been neglected.
• Copies of any government orders or guidelines that allow Tehsil Sadar to handle police-related grievances.
• Identification of the specific part of the grievance that asks for the partition of ancestral land.
• The posting details, names, and joining dates of the Tehsildar presently serving in Mirzapur. The Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal are also serving in Mirzapur and Tehsil Sadar.

---

The Deemed Refusal: Why an Appeal Was Necessary

According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) must supply the requested information promptly and efficiently.
They are legally required to reject the application within 30 days of receiving it if they find it invalid or without merit.
In this specific situation, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal failed to respond for over 30 days, which is a significant lapse in duty.
A lack of timely information not only leads to frustration for applicants, who rely on transparency and accountability, but also undermines the spirit of the RTI Act itself.
He did not provide any reply to the PIO, Vishal Kumar Sharma, which further exacerbates the lack of communication.
This failure to address the applicant’s request forms a “deemed refusal,” a term used in the Act to denote a situation where the PIO has not adhered to the statutory timeline for disclosing information.
Such neglect directly violates the Act and contributes to an environment of distrust and dissatisfaction among citizens seeking information from public authorities.

---

Filing the First Appeal

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal filed a first appeal after not receiving a response to his initial request for information. Frustrated by the lack of communication and transparency, he submitted this appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on September 22, 2025, with Registration Number DMOMR/A/2025/60137. The information he sought was neglected and overlooked, which ultimately led Naresh to take this step as a means to pursue accountability and ensure that his inquiries were addressed properly.
Typically, the FAA is a senior officer within the same public authority, responsible for reviewing appeals and rectifying any potential oversights. In this particular case, he directed the appeal to Asha Ram Verma, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Sadar, Mirzapur, who is known for her fair handling of such matters. Naresh expressed his hope that with her involvement, the issues he faced would be resolved and that the information he sought would finally come to light, thus restoring his faith in the system.

The appeal requested that the FAA intervene and direct the PIO to give the information promptly. When information is neglected by public authorities, it leads to accountability actions. It also asked that they take appropriate action against the PIO for violating the RTI Act.

---

Key Details from the Case

• RTI Application Registration Number: DMOMR/R/2025/60201
• RTI Application Date of Filing: August 14, 2025
• First Appeal Registration Number: DMOMR/A/2025/60137
• First Appeal Date of Filing: September 22, 2025
• Public Authority: District Magistrate Office Mirzapur
• PIO: Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar, Sadar, Mirzapur
• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Asha Ram Verma, SDM Sadar
• Appellant: Naresh Kumar Jaiswal
• Appellant Contact Details: Mobile: 9005697304, Email: nareshkumarjaiswal8[at]gmail[dot]com
• FAA Contact Details: Mobile: 9454416810, Email: sdm-sadar[dot]mi[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
• Nodal Officer Contact Details: Ajay Kumar Singh, Mobile: 8756844195, Email: shakti[dot]3916[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in

This case highlights the importance of the appeal process in the RTI framework. It ensures citizens have a recourse when their right to information is denied and prevents information from being neglected.

Matter concerning deep rooted corruption forwarded by office of president, office of sub divisional magistrate filed it without taking any action

Ashok Kumar Maurya submits appeal against Tehsildar Sadar for not providing information concerning government land grabbing

S.D.M. Sadar may safeguard public land in gram panchayat from grabbers