Station House Officer MauAima Police Station Prayagraj did not take any action on the representation forwarded by Sub Divisional Magistrate Phoolpur to him regarding the pressing concerns raised by the local citizens.
In an attempt to establish accountability and transparency in the policing process, the appellant sought information from ACP Phoolpur, highlighting the importance of these details for the community’s trust in law enforcement.
However, now they are running away from providing information, which is the crux of the ongoing RTI battle in Prayagraj, as the lack of cooperation is not only hindering the pursuit of justice but also raising questions about the integrity of the police department in addressing the citizens’ grievances effectively.

RTI Battle in Prayagraj: Second Appeal Filed Over Misleading Information

In a classic case highlighting the challenges citizens face in seeking accountability, appellant Yogi M. P. Singh escalated a Right to Information (RTI) query to a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission against the Police Commissionerate Prayagraj.

This RTI Battle has showcased how specific questions about police action were met with unrelated reports, leading to a fight for transparency. The situation has raised important questions regarding the effectiveness of the RTI framework and the extent to which government bodies prioritize accountability.

Singh’s persistent efforts highlight the ongoing struggle for clarity and justice as citizens are often left with vague responses that fail to address their concerns adequately. This episode not only emphasizes the need for comprehensive reforms within the police system but also calls attention to the vital role of advocacy in ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected and upheld through appropriate channels, creating a ripple effect that could inspire more citizens to push for their rights and demand greater accountability from governmental institutions.

Case Overview: The Key Details

• Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
• Mobile: 7379105911
• Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City, UTTAR PRADESH, 231001
• Public Authority: Police Commissionerate Prayagraj
• RTI Application No: SSPPY/R/2025/60508 (Filed on 27/06/2025)
• First Appeal No: SSPPY/A/2025/60139 (Filed on 30/07/2025)
• Second Appeal Registration No: A-20251000262 (Filed on 03/10/2025)

The Information Sought: A Simple, Direct Query

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking straightforward, point-wise information regarding the action taken by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Mauaima police station on an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Phoolpur. This step marked another stage in the RTI Battle. The three questions were:

1. Please provide the action taken by the Station House Officer, police station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, in compliance with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur.
2. Please provide the name of the sub-inspector to whom the Station House Officer, Mauaima, referred the matter to take action.
3. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, has not taken action, the Public Information Officer must provide the reason for it as required under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Official Response: Evasion and Dismissal

Public Information Officer (PIO) Response: On 30/07/2025, the PIO, ACP Phoolpur, disposed of the request with a one-line reply and an attachment. This sparked a heightened stage in the ongoing RTI Battle.

• Reply: “अपेक्षित आख्या प्रेषित है।” (The desired report is attached.)
• Issue: The attached document was an investigation report concerning a land dispute. It did not answer any of the three specific questions asked by the appellant, thus fueling the RTI Battle further.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Order: Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal. On 02/08/2025, the FAA (Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj) dismissed the appeal.

• Order: “याची को जनसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत प्रार्थना पत्र में मांगी गयी सूचना नियमानुसार आधिकारी ने दिनांक 30.07.25 को प्रदान की है। अपील पोषणीय न होने के कारण अधिकारियों ने प्रत्यावेदन को निरस्त करते हुये निस्तारित किया है।” (The officer has provided the information sought by the petitioner as per rules on 30.07.25. The officials have rejected and disposed of the representation as the appeal is not maintainable.)
• Issue: The order did not explain why the PIO’s response seemed adequate, even though it clearly evaded the question. Instead, it upheld the PIO’s flawed reply without further discussion.

RTI Battle in Prayagraj: Grounds for the Second Appeal

The appellant has now taken the matter to the State Information Commission, citing several key grounds in this continuing RTI Battle:

• Irrelevant and Misleading Information: The PIO deliberately avoided the specific questions. An unrelated report was provided, clearly attempting to mislead and conceal the requested information.
• Failure of the First Appellate Authority: The FAA failed to apply his mind, arbitrarily dismissing the appeal as “not maintainable” without providing any reasoning, thereby failing in his statutory duty.
• Violation of the RTI Act: The actions of both the PIO and FAA defeat the core purpose of the RTI Act. This act aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, underscoring the ongoing RTI Battle.
• Denial of Right to Reason: By not providing the reason for inaction as requested in Point 3, the PIO violated Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It mandates proactive disclosure of reasons for administrative decisions.

Relief Sought from the Commission

The appellant has requested the Hon’ble Commission to:

a) Admit the appeal for a hearing, ensuring that all parties involved are given an opportunity to present their case.
b) Direct the PIO to provide complete, specific, and point-wise information relevant to the request, free of cost, as mandated by the RTI Act, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in administrative processes.
c) Impose a penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for furnishing misleading information, which undermines the principles of the Act and hampers the citizens’ right to access information.
d) Recommend disciplinary action against the FAA for the arbitrary dismissal of the first appeal, as such actions erode trust in the appeal process and discourage individuals from seeking their rightful information.
e) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice and transparency, recognizing the importance of adherence to legal protocols and the need to uphold the integrity of public information systems.

ACP PHOOLPUR did not provide information so second appeal made against him

Appeal made against A.C.P. Phoolpur Prayagaraj for providing misleading information