Key Takeaways

• The RTI Act is intended to promote transparency but failures by PIOs create an RTI Nightmare.
• A timeline reveals systematic violations in Mirzapur’s Revenue Department, highlighting bureaucratic silence.
• The appellant sought basic public servant records, yet the PIO’s inaction constitutes deemed refusal under the RTI Act.
• Both the PIO and FAA failed to respond or adjudicate timely, prompting a Second Appeal for maximum penalty application.
• The case demands urgent intervention from the State Information Commission to uphold accountability and transparency.

📰 RTI Nightmare: Bureaucratic Silence Triggers Maximum Penalty Plea in UP Commission

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is India’s most powerful tool against opacity, designed to hold public authorities accountable. However, when Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) deliberately choose silence over transparency, the entire mechanism grinds to a halt. This situation becomes an RTI nightmare for those seeking information. This Second Appeal, filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), documents a complete and unexcused breakdown of the RTI process in the Revenue Department, Lalganj Tehsil, Mirzapur, leading the appellant to seek the maximum penalty.

This case is not about a denied exemption; it is about a total failure to communicate, a systemic violation that spanned from the initial application to the First Appeal.

---

📅 The Timeline of Unprecedented Non-Compliance reflects RTI Nightmare in Uttar Pradesh

The appellant, Mr. Shivam Gupta of Mirzapur, filed his original RTI application seeking basic service records of government employees. The bureaucratic response, or lack thereof, has created a compelling case for penal action:

Event	Date	Statutory Deadline	Case ID	Status/Outcome
RTI Application (Sec. 6(1))	02/08/2025	—	DMOMR/R/2025/60190	Information sought.
PIO Deadline (Sec. 7(1))	01/09/2025	Passed	—	NO RESPONSE (Deemed Refusal).
First Appeal (Sec. 19(1))	15/09/2025	—	DMOMR/A/2025/60134	Filed against Deemed Refusal.
FAA Deadline (Sec. 19(6))	15/10/2025	Passed	—	NO ORDER/ADJUDICATION.
Second Appeal (Sec. 19(3))	02/11/2025	—	A-20251100143	Filed due to persistent non-compliance.

The timeline clearly shows that the PIO, Ms. Diksha (Tehsildar Lalganj), failed to respond within the mandatory 30 days shows RTI Nightmare. Subsequently, the FAA, Mr. Gulab Chandra Second (SDM Lalganj), failed to adjudicate the First Appeal within the mandatory 30 (or 45) days. This dual failure—a deemed refusal followed by a failure to adjudicate—is a powerful combination of grounds for the Information Commission’s intervention.

---

📝 The Information Denied: Public Records of Public Servants

The substance of the request is crucial, as it sought basic, non-sensitive data about public officials, which is generally presumed to be in the public domain. The RTI Application (ID: DMOMR/R/2025/60190) demanded specific details across six points:

Sr. No.	Information Requested (Points 1-6)	Employee Category & Rationale
1 & 2	First posting details (district and date), joining date at Tehsil-Lalganj, and specific date of joining in the Mirzapur district.	Sub-Divisional Magistrate: These details track the officer’s career and tenure, central to their accountability.
3, 4, 5, 6	Comprehensive details including posting details, joining dates, and work details (for Class IV).	All Class I, II, III, and IV Employees: Knowing who holds which post and their tenure is fundamental to assessing the stability and functional efficiency of the public office.

The denial of this information—which relates to the professional life of public servants and not their private lives—suggests an intentional desire to conceal public record data. Crucially, because the PIO simply remained silent, no valid exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act was ever invoked, making the refusal an indefensible statutory violation. It is true RTI Nightmare.

---

⚖️ The Legal Crisis: Double Default proves RTI Nightmare

The legal foundation of this Second Appeal (A-20251100143) rests on the compound failure of two statutory authorities:

1. Deemed Refusal by the PIO (Section 7(2))

Under the RTI Act, if a PIO fails to respond within the 30-day window, it is considered a deemed refusal. This non-action by Ms. Diksha after the deadline of 01/09/2025 immediately vested the appellant with the right to file the First Appeal and now, critically, makes the PIO liable for a penalty under Section 20(1) for failing to furnish information without reasonable cause shows RTI Nightmare.

2. Failure to Adjudicate by the FAA (Section 19(6))

The First Appellate Authority serves as an internal check to quickly resolve disputes. Mr. Gulab Chandra Second failed in this duty by allowing the deadline of 15/10/2025 to pass without issuing an order on the First Appeal (DMOMR/A/2025/60134). This renders the internal appellate mechanism ineffective and forces the appellant to approach the State Information Commission, incurring further time and expense. This complete obstruction necessitates the Commission’s powerful intervention. This RTI Nightmare Is due to the rampant corruption In the government machinery.

---

🏛️ Prayer for Maximum Accountability

In light of these persistent and willful breaches of the Act, the appellant has invoked the full penal authority of the Commission:

1. Maximum Penalty Imposition: The primary relief sought is the initiation of proceedings to impose the maximum penalty of ₹25,000/- on the PIO (Respondent No. 1) under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This section punishes the PIO for failing to furnish information within the specified time without reasonable cause.
2. Disciplinary Action: Furthermore, the appellant requests that the Commission recommend disciplinary action against both the PIO and the FAA under Section 20(2) for their consistent and flagrant disregard for the law and obstruction of a citizen’s fundamental right.
3. Mandatory Disclosure: The PIO must be directed to immediately provide the complete, point-wise information, free of cost, as mandated by Section 7(6), which requires free disclosure when information is not furnished within the stipulated time.

This case serves as a stark reminder that bureaucratic silence is not only a failure of duty but a punishable offence under the RTI Act, demanding the highest level of judicial review from the State Information Commission. It is an obligatory duty of the public functionaries who are honest to overcome RTI Nightmare.

---

Would you like me to analyze previous UP Information Commission judgments to provide an example of a similar case where a maximum penalty was imposed for deemed refusal?

Second appeal against PIO Tehsil Lalganj for concealing information of corruption
Subdivisional magistrate Lal Ganj is overlooking matter of corruption in Tehsil