A Citizen’s Fight for Accountability: When the Wrong Department Answers an RTI
In a compelling case highlighting the procedural challenges within the Right to Information (RTI) framework, an appellant from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, finds himself battling not just for information, but also for the very principle of accountability. The core issue, therefore, is that an RTI application directed to the Revenue Department is being answered by the Agriculture Department; this move, the appellant argues, constitutes a “serious procedural error” designed deliberately to shield the corrupt officials. This situation exemplifies a classic case of responses coming from the wrong department.
This case, set for a hearing before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, underscores the persistent struggle citizens face in ensuring that the designated Public Information Officers (PIOs) fulfill their statutory duties.
Case Background and Hearing Details of matter of Wrong Department
The matter pertains to an appeal filed by Yogi M P Singh concerning information related to the PM Kisan scheme, a crucial initiative aimed at providing financial support to farmers across the country. Initially, after his RTI application and first appeal failed to yield satisfactory results, Yogi M P Singh found himself increasingly frustrated with the lack of transparency surrounding the implementation of this significant program. After exhausting all available channels for resolution, he decided to escalate the issue, and the case has now consequently reached the State Information Commission, where he hopes to obtain the information necessary to understand the effectiveness of the PM Kisan scheme and ensure that the benefits intended for farmers reach those in need.
Key Case Identifiers
- Appeal File Number:
S09/A/1087/2025 - Registration Number:
A-20250401292 - Original RTI Application No.:
DMOMR/R/2025/60003 - First Appeal No.:
DMOMR/A/2025/60027
Upcoming Online Hearing Information
- Date: 08/10/2025 (Wednesday)
- Time: 12:30 PM to 02:00 PM
- Presiding Officer: The Hon’ble Smt. Shakuntala Gautam
- Hearing Room: S-9, Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, Lucknow
- Hearing Link:
https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/20b7cc
The Heart of the Matter of wrong department: Information Sought
The appellant’s original RTI was filed with the Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur (Revenue Department). Moreover, the information requested is crucial for understanding the processing and rejection of a PM Kisan application, as it pertains exclusively to the records held by the Tehsil office, which plays a pivotal role in the disbursement of funds and resources to eligible farmers. Access to this information not only sheds light on the specific reasons behind the application outcomes but also aids in ensuring transparency and accountability within the system. Understanding the processes involved can help the appellant identify potential areas of improvement in their future applications, ensuring they meet all necessary criteria. Specifically, the five key points of inquiry are:
- Furthermore, the name, designation, and posting details of the revenue staff member who cancelled the PM Kisan application.
- Moreover, copies of government orders that mandate the uploading of certified revenue records for the scheme.
- Furthermore, details of the verification steps taken by Tehsil Sadar for the application of Shri Keshav Pratap Singh.
- Names and designations of all staff within Tehsil Sadar who, furthermore, process PM Kisan applications.
- Additionally, copies of any guidelines issued by the SDM Sadar or the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, for processing these applications.
Objection: “A Display of Lawlessness”
On October 7, 2025, the appellant, Yogi M P Singh, submitted a strong objection to the Hon’ble Commission, expressing his concerns in a detailed manner. The objection was against a communication (Letter No. 3181, dated 03.10.2025) sent by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mirzapur, which he deemed to be unjust and lacking proper justification. In his objection, Singh emphasized the impact of the letter’s claims on local farmers, highlighting the potential negative consequences for agricultural practices and the livelihood of those dependent on farming in the region. Furthermore, he called for a thorough review of the policies that led to such communications, urging the Commission to consider the broader implications of the Deputy Director’s assertions on the agricultural sector and the need for a more supportive approach towards the farming community.
The appellant argues that the involvement of the Agriculture Department is a deliberate misdirection.
Grounds for Objection
- Wrong Jurisdiction: Consequently, the information sought is unequivocally about the records, files, and functioning of the Tehsil Sadar (Revenue Department). Therefore, the Deputy Director of Agriculture is not the custodian of this information.
- Evasion of Accountability: Moreover, the appellant claims the District Magistrate’s office wrongly forwarded the hearing notice to the Agriculture Department. Consequently, this action, he argues, serves only to shield the actual PIO (Tehsildar Sadar) and the First Appellate Authority (SDM Sadar) from accountability.
- Violation of Rule of Law: Consequently, allowing one public authority to answer for another’s defaults undermines the RTI Act. The appellant states, “How can the accountability of the Tehsildar and the SDM be fixed if, furthermore, the appeal is being answered by a completely unrelated department?
A Pattern of Non-Compliance
This objection follows a previous representation filed by the appellant on October 2, 2025. In it, he accused the PIO of providing a “misleading and non-compliant” reply dated 30.09.2025.
Instead of addressing the specific points of the appeal, the PIO had mechanically stated that the information “has already been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.” The appellant contends this is false, as the very reason for the appeal was the inadequacy of that previous response. This conduct, he argues, is a willful disobedience of the Commission’s earlier order from July 3, 2025. The matter concerns the forwarding the notice to the wrong department to provide information.
Appellant’s Prayer to the Commission
In light of these events, Yogi M P Singh has humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Commission take the following actions:
- Summarily reject any communication from the Deputy Director of Agriculture; therefore, it is essential to understand that it is from an incorrect authority.
- Direct the actual PIO, the Tehsildar Sadar, Mirzapur, to be present and, therefore, provide complete, point-wise information.
- First and foremost, fix accountability on the Tehsildar Sadar (PIO) and the SDM Sadar (FAA) for failing to perform their duties.
- Consequently, issue a show-cause notice to the PIO for disobeying the Commission’s orders.
- Consequently, impose maximum penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act on the PIO for persistent obstruction. To stop forwarding in the wrong department , the commission must take action sternally.
Key Parties & Contact Details
- Appellant:
- Name: Yogi M P Singh / Mahesh Pratap Singh
- Email:
yogimpsingh@gmail.com - Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh-231001
- Mobile: 7379105911
- Commission Contact:
- Name: SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM
- Email:
hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
- Official Respondents & Other Recipients:
- District Magistrate, Mirzapur:
dmmir@nic.in - Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mirzapur:
ddamzp2012@gmail.com - Tehsildar, Lalganj:
teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in - SDM Sadar, Mirzapur:
sdm-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
- District Magistrate, Mirzapur:
S.D.M. Sadar may entertain the appeal of Anil Kumar Maurya
Anil Kumar Maurya frustrated with rampant corruption in Tehsil, seeking posting details
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.