Kamlesh Singh filed a second appeal against ASP Mirzapur for providing misleading information that affected his pursuit of justice.
In this case, he argued that the response he received was not only inadequate but also raised questions about the transparency of the information shared.
ASP Mirzapur, in turn, took the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 under scrutiny, emphasizing the importance of accurate and truthful responses to inquiries made by citizens.
This situation highlights the ongoing struggle between individuals seeking clarity and accountability and the officials responsible for providing accurate information.

Transparency Denied: A Citizen’s Fight for Information in Uttar Pradesh

This post details a citizen’s journey through the appeals process of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, highlighting alleged deliberate obstruction by public authorities in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.
This journey began when the citizen, seeking transparency and accountability, filed a request for crucial information that could shed light on the disturbing allegations of land grabbing and significant state financial loss.
The case involves an appeal filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) against the police department’s persistent failure to provide specific information regarding this serious case.
Despite multiple attempts to secure the information, the citizen faced numerous hurdles, including delays and inadequate responses, which raised concerns about the commitment of public authorities to upholding the principles of transparency and effective governance.
As the case unfolds, it serves as a critical example of the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in accessing information that is vital for justice and accountability in public administration.

---

The Case Overview

The Appellant, Kamlesh Singh of Mirzapur, sought detailed information from the Home Department concerning the alleged inaction of the Jigna Police Station on a complaint regarding serious issues of land grabbing and evasion of stamp duty (Complaint No. 60000230077406).
This complaint highlighted not only the lack of necessary action from the authorities but also raised concerns about the potential abuse of power by local land mafias, who were reportedly involved in unlawful practices that deprived original landowners of their rightful properties.
Mr. Singh emphasized the urgency of this matter, given the increasing number of similar cases in the region, stressing that significant delays in addressing such complaints could lead to irreversible losses for the affected individuals and disrupt the fabric of justice.

The core issue is transparency and accountability. The Appellant sought specific answers on why the police allegedly failed to register an FIR and allowed the opposite party to take possession of the disputed land despite official assurances.

Category	Detail
Appellant Name	Kamlesh Singh
Contact	Mobile: 8127195424 / Email: kamleshsingh8127195424@gmail.com
Public Authority	Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur (Home Department)
PIO Name	Om Prakash Singh, ASP Mirzapur Operation
FAA Name	Somen Varma, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)

Export to Sheets

---

The RTI and Appeals Timeline

The case demonstrates a systematic progression through the three stages of the RTI mechanism, with the Appellant claiming denial at every level, indicating not only a lack of transparency but also potential misuse of power by the authorities involved.
This persistent denial raises critical questions about the effectiveness of the RTI framework in ensuring accountability and upholding citizens’ rights to information.
As the Appellant navigates through bureaucratic challenges, it becomes evident that the issues at hand reflect broader systemic failures that require urgent attention and reform to restore faith in the democratic process.

Event	Application ID / Response Date	Authority’s Action
RTI Application (Sec. 6(1))	14-07-2025 (ID: SPMZR/R/2025/60189)	Filed for point-wise details on police inaction.
PIO’s Reply	11-08-2025	PIO stated “remaining information has been sent to your address” due to a 1MB upload limit. The Appellant alleges incomplete/misleading information was received.
First Appeal (Sec. 19(1))	13-08-2025	Appealed against the PIO’s evasive reply.
FAA’s Order	06-09-2025	FAA arbitrarily closed the appeal by allegedly uploading the very same misleading report previously provided, demonstrating a “non-application of mind.”
Second Appeal (Sec. 19(3))	04-10-2025 (Reg. No: A-20251000377)	Filed with the UP Information Commission (ID: UPICR20250004949).

Export to Sheets

---

Grounds for Seeking Intervention

The Second Appeal to the UP Information Commission represents a crucial, final attempt to secure justice and hold the officials accountable for their actions.
This appeal has been meticulously crafted to highlight the numerous and clear violations of the RTI Act that have been overlooked.
It underscores the persistent struggle of citizens who have been left unheard in their quest for transparency and accountability.
By detailing each violation, the appeal not only seeks redress for individual grievances but also aims to shed light on the systemic issues that plague the administration, bringing to the forefront the urgent need for reform and a more responsive governance structure.
As the community rallies together in this pivotal moment, it emphasizes the collective demand for accountability, ensuring that those in power are not only answerable but also compelled to act within the framework of the law.

1. Deemed Refusal (Violation of Section 7): The PIO’s claim of having dispatched the full information, which the Appellant never received, amounts to a “deemed refusal” and a deliberate tactic to obstruct transparency.
2. Failure of the Appellate Authority (Violation of Section 19(1)): The FAA argues that by merely forwarding the initial vague report, it fails in its statutory, quasi-judicial duty, making the First Appeal a “futile exercise.”
3. Public Interest: The information sought serves the overwhelming public interest, as it pertains to holding accountable those responsible for significant financial loss to the state and addressing alleged corruption within law enforcement.

---

The Relief Sought

In his prayer, the Appellant is not only seeking the information itself but also strong punitive action against the non-compliant officials, whose disregard for established protocols has led to significant setbacks and continued hardships for the community.
The Appellant emphasizes the urgency of this matter, citing multiple instances where these officials have failed to fulfill their responsibilities, ultimately undermining public trust and safety.
This situation not only demands transparency but also accountability, as the consequences of inaction may further exacerbate the issues already plaguing the residents.
As detailed in the linked report, the call for urgent action against these energy department officials is a critical step toward ensuring justice and restoring faith in public service.

1. Specific Direction: Direct the PIO to provide complete, accurate, and point-wise information on all three original queries, free of cost.
2. Maximum Penalty: Impose the maximum penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for providing incomplete and misleading information.
3. Disciplinary Action: Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO and the concerned APIO under Section 20(2) for obstructing the furnishing of information.

The outcome of this Second Appeal will be a key test of the UP Information Commission’s resolve to enforce the RTI Act against perceived bureaucratic resistance.

Kamlesh Singh submitted appeal against PIO Inspector General Registration, U.P. Lucknow

Kamlesh Singh sought information concerning his plaint submitted through post before S.D.M. Sadar under section 116 of revenue code

secappaspmzpDownload