The ₹2.7 Lakh Question: A Mirzapur Citizen’s 96-Day Battle for Accountability

In a world of headlines that often feel distant, one citizen’s relentless pursuit of answers truly shines through, illuminating the shadows of indifference that often surround issues of governance.
Consequently, he embarks on a journey that significantly contributes to the larger battle for accountability in governance, highlighting the ongoing need for public servants to answer for their actions and decisions that affect the lives of ordinary citizens.
Moreover, Kamlesh Singh courageously leads the charge in this struggle for transparency and accountability, serving as an inspiration for many who feel powerless against systemic hurdles.
This compelling story revolves around Kamlesh Singh from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, a man who posed a simple question about public money and ultimately faced not just a wall of silence, but an entrenched culture of secrecy and neglect that pervades many institutions.
Furthermore, his navigation through the maze of bureaucracy serves as a masterclass in civic persistence and a powerful reminder of the importance of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, showcasing how the right to seek information is fundamental in empowering individuals and promoting transparency in government operations.
By continuing his quest despite the challenges, he emphasizes that informed citizens are the backbone of a functional democracy, urging others to join in holding those in power accountable.

The Spark: Uncovering a Trail of Stolen Public Funds

It all started with a serious allegation: the theft of stamp duty, which is essentially tax paid to the government on property transactions. Authorities had already identified two cases where individuals evaded a combined ₹2,73,640 in stamp duty.
This pursuit for justice focused not only on information; Kamlesh Singh took active steps to ensure accountability in the recovery of lost public funds. Driven by a sense of responsibility and obligation to the community, he organised workshops to educate the public about the implications of stamp duty evasion.
In these sessions, he highlighted how such illegal activities undermine essential services and development projects that rely on government funding. Furthermore, Kamlesh collaborated with local authorities to enhance transparency in property transactions, ensuring that all citizens were aware of their rights and obligations regarding tax payments.
His efforts not only aimed to recover the lost funds but also sought to foster a culture of integrity that would deter future evasion.

• Case 1: A deficit of ₹2,29,640 in a transaction involving Raghuvar Dayal Singh and Priya Singh.
• Case 2: A deficit of ₹44,000 in a transaction involving the same Raghuvar Dayal Singh and Rita Singh.

The question was simple: What action has the Tehsildar’s office taken to recover this public money? Therefore, armed with this crucial query, Mr. Singh filed an RTI application on July 6, 2025, consequently becoming part of his battle for accountability.

A Wall of Silence: The 30-Day Clock Ticks Down

Under the RTI Act, Mr. Vishal Kumar Sharma, the Tehsildar of Sadar, must provide information to Kamlesh Singh within 30 days, allowing enough time for proper processing and response to enquiries regarding public information requests.
This legal obligation underscores the importance of transparency and accountability within governmental operations, ensuring that citizens have the right to access information that is crucial for democratic engagement and informed citizenship.
As the designated officer, Mr. Sharma’s prompt action and diligence in addressing Kamlesh’s request will greatly enhance public trust in the administration and promote a culture of openness in governance.

The 30-day deadline came and went. Consequently, August 5, 2025, passed without anyone replying, providing a document, or acknowledging anything. Therefore, the law deems this silence a “deemed refusal.” As a result, the system failed its first test. Furthermore, this silence posed a significant setback for Kamlesh Singh, who fought determinedly for accountability against a cumbersome system.

Escalating the Fight: The First Appeal Falls on Deaf Ears

Undeterred, Mr. Singh took the next logical step. Consequently, on August 15, 2025, he filed a First Appeal with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Mr. Asha Ram Verma, who serves as the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, as a senior officer, is therefore responsible for correcting the PIO’s inaction, and he has up to 45 days to decide on the matter.

Once again, the clock ticked as the 45-day deadline expired on September 29, 2025. Nevertheless, they remained silent. Moreover, they ignored the appeal, designed as an internal remedy, consequently turning it into a drawn-out and frustrating battle for accountability.

The Final Recourse: Taking the Battle to the State Commission

After 96 days of waiting, Kamlesh Singh had exhausted the primary channels. His only remaining option was to take his case to the highest authority in the state for RTI matters: the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This last effort was crucial in his ongoing battle to ensure accountable governance.

On October 10, 2025, he filed his Second Appeal. His grounds for the appeal were clear and powerful:

• Additionally, the PIO failed to provide information within the mandated 30 days.
• The FAA failed to adjudicate the appeal within the 45-day limit.
• Consequently, this inaction is a gross violation of the RTI Act, thereby undermining transparency and accountability.
• The information pertains to public revenue and corruption, making its disclosure essential for the public good.

More Than Just Information: A Plea for Penalties

This is where Mr. Singh’s appeal turns from a simple request for data into a powerful demand for accountability. He isn’t just asking for the information anymore. In his “Relief Sought,” he explicitly asks the Commission to impose the penalties outlined in Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. His actions highlight the importance of the battle for accountability through legitimate means.

Therefore, impose the maximum penalty on the PIO, Mr. Vishal Kumar Sharma, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the inordinate delay and, consequently, for furnishing no information without any reasonable cause.

The RTI Act’s real power resides in Section 20(1), which, consequently, enables the Information Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 for each day of delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. This provision, therefore, ensures that officials take their duties seriously. Ultimately, this entire scenario highlights the ongoing and deeply necessary battle for transparency and accountable governance.

Why This Case Matters

Kamlesh Singh’s journey highlights a common struggle faced by citizens who dare to ask questions. It shows that filing an RTI is often just the first step. The real test lies in the follow-up, the appeals, and the unwavering demand for justice while seeking accountability. The State Information Commission will now hear his case, which has the power not only to order the release of the information but also to penalise the official responsible for the delay.

This isn’t just one man’s fight in Mirzapur; rather, it’s a crucial test of our democratic system’s commitment to transparency. Therefore, will the wall of silence finally break? As a result, we’ll be watching, as this case is crucial in the ongoing battle for accountability.

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

Assistant General Inspector registry informed they registred two cases