Hearing of the RTI second appeal in the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is losing its credibility at an alarming rate.
It seems that the commission itself is actively searching for opportunities to dispose of the case without providing adequate information to the information seeker, which undermines the very purpose of the RTI Act.
This troubling trend raises serious questions about the commitment of the commission to transparency and accountability.
It is obvious that this ongoing process is reflecting anarchy in the proceedings of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, especially when it comes to the hearing of each second appeal, where the essential rights of citizens to access information are being disregarded.
Such practices not only erode trust in the institution but also contribute to a growing sense of frustration among the public, who rely on the RTI mechanism to ensure that government actions are subject to scrutiny and oversight.

Hearing RTI Second Appeal, Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, commission,: A Mirzapur Old age Citizen’s Year-Long Wait for Inheritance Information

A case filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission highlights the ongoing struggle of an elderly citizen, Yogi M.P. Singh, in obtaining what he claims to be basic information regarding inheritance records from the Tehsildar’s office in Lalganj, Mirzapur.
For over a year, Singh has pursued this crucial information, attending multiple hearings and navigating a complex bureaucratic landscape.
Despite his persistent efforts, he alleges that there has been consistent non-compliance and willful disobedience of the Commission’s orders by the Public Information Officer (PIO) throughout the hearing process of the RTI second appeal.
This troubling situation underscores not only the personal difficulties faced by Singh but also raises broader questions about transparency and accountability within governmental institutions, highlighting the challenges that many citizens endure when attempting to exercise their rights under the Right to Information Act.

---

Hearing RTI Second Appeal, Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, commission, Case Overview and Key Identifiers

• Welcome ID: UPICR20240000149
• Registration Number: A-20241002356
• File Number: S09/A/1948/2024
• UPIC Diary Number: D-041020250097

Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
  • Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City
  • Mobile: 7379105911
  • Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
• Respondent (PIO): Tarun Pratap Singh
  • Address: Public Information Officer, Office – Tehsildar, Tehsil-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur, PIN: 231001

Current Status:

• Case Status: For further hearing.
• Next Hearing Date: 19th November 2025
• Hearing Room: S-9 (Court of Hon’ble State Information Commissioner Smt. Shakuntala Gautam)

---

Timeline of Events and Allegations

The appellant, Mr. Singh, has meticulously outlined a clear timeline of events, detailing his experiences and frustrations as he navigated the often convoluted and opaque bureaucratic landscape.
He accuses the PIO of a “clear pattern of insolence and contempt” for the law, suggesting that there is a systemic disregard for proper protocol and accountability.
This behavior was especially evident during the RTI second appeal process, which is crucial to the hearing, as it not only affects Mr. Singh’s case but also represents a broader issue of transparency and citizen rights within public institutions.
The implications of this matter extend beyond Mr. Singh himself, raising important questions about the efficacy of the Right to Information Act and the practices of those entrusted with upholding its principles.

1. 30th October 2024: We filed an RTI application seeking crucial details about an inheritance matter.
2. 20th December 2024: The Commission held the first hearing. The appellant was present, but the PIO did not attend. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information, but allegedly ignored the order.
3. 1st August 2025: The Commission conducted a second hearing and once again directed the PIO to furnish the information and submit a written statement. The appellant claims that the PIO also disobeyed this order.
4. 4th October 2025: The appellant submitted a formal representation to the Commission, detailing the PIO’s repeated failure to comply and arguing that this is tantamount to contempt of court.

The appellant, a old age citizen suffering from hyperglycemia, asserts that the administrative apathy is causing him “immense mental anguish and stress,” further complicating the RTI second appeal hearing situation.

---

The Information Being Withheld

The RTI application seeks simple, point-wise information that should be part of the public record at the Tehsildar’s office:

1. The name and designation of the staff who processed the inheritance from the appellant’s grandfather.
2. The details (name, posting, etc.) of the Lekhpal involved.
3. The details (name, posting, etc.) of the Revenue Inspector involved.
4. The details (name, posting, etc.) of the Tehsildar who oversaw the process.
5. The reason for excluding the appellant’s name, a Class-1 heir, from the inheritance records.

---

Prayer to the Information Commission

In his detailed representation, Yogi M.P. Singh has made the following requests to the Hon’ble Commission: he seeks to emphasize the importance of addressing pressing issues within the community, advocating for comprehensive measures that could lead to significant improvements in the overall well-being of the populace.
Additionally, he has highlighted the necessity of enhancing public services and infrastructure, requesting strategic initiatives that would ensure better accessibility and support for all citizens, ultimately aiming for a more equitable distribution of resources across the region.

(a) To direct the PIO, Tehsil-Lalganj, to provide the complete, point-wise information immediately and free of cost before the next hearing.

(b) To initiate penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, against the PIO for the unreasonable delay and willful disobedience of the Commission’s orders.

(c) To pass any other order deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice regarding the second appeal hearing in the RTI process.

Now we expect that The Commission will address these serious allegations of non-compliance at its next hearing, scheduled for 19th November 2025.

Sadhana Tiwari submitted appeal against tehsildar Lalganj for not providing information

Sadhana Tiwari filed second appeal against Tehsildar Lalganj