Key Takeaways

• Indradev Yadav filed an RTI application. He sought documentation on leave encashment for two municipal employees. This action highlighted a failure to respond within the legal timeframe.
• The appeal against deemed refusal emphasizes the PIO’s obligation to give information within 30 days according to the RTI Act.
• The appellant requests immediate disclosure of information, free of cost, and disciplinary action against the PIO for non-compliance.
• The appeal underscores the critical role of the Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj in enforcing transparency and accountability.
• If unsatisfied with the FAA’s decision, the appellant is expected to escalate the matter to the State Information Commission. The appellant can seek severe penalties against the PIO.

🚨 The Right to Information Denied: An Appeal Against Deemed Refusal by PIO in the office of Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj

Seeking Accountability in the office of Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj: The Core Issue

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of India’s democracy, empowering citizens to hold public authorities accountable. This case centers on an application filed by Indradev Yadav (Registration No. DIRLB/R/2025/60347) seeking crucial documentation from the Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, about the leave encashment of two municipal employees, Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, who are presently facing criminal proceedings. In this context, the role of Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj becomes pivotal.

The core issue is a blatant violation of the statutory timeline. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Musir Ahmad, neglected to respond to the inquiry within the mandated 30-day limit. The lack of response made it necessary to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. This appeal is against the “Deemed Refusal” of information. The appellant is seeking the information itself. They are also demanding strict adherence to the law. Additionally, they want accountability for the delay.

---

The Original Request: Transparency in Employee Benefits

The appellant submitted the original RTI application on September 12, 2025. They specified the application to focus on internal administrative processes related to employee benefits. It particularly targets staff involved in legal matters. The appellant sought four key pieces of information from PIO Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj:

1. A certified copy of the specific rule or regulation authorizing leave encashment for employees attending court proceedings. This aims to set the legal basis for the advantage.
2. Please send certified copies of all internal communications (memos, letters). The sanctioning officer exchanged these with the departmental head. They pertain to the approval for the encashment for the two named employees. This seeks to trace the chain of decision-making.
3. A certified copy of the original leave applications submitted by Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav for this specific encashment.
4. The name and designation of the officer who possesses the final authority to approve such leave encashment.

These requests are critical for establishing transparency. They help verify whether the Nagar Nigam followed proper procedures in granting employee benefits. This is especially important under unusual circumstances.

---

Legal Grounds: The Deemed Refusal Doctrine

The most potent legal ground for this appeal is the doctrine of “Deemed Refusal.”

• Violation of Section 7(1): The RTI Act strictly mandates a specific timeframe. A PIO must supply the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application. Alternatively, the PIO must reject the application by stating valid reasons. In this case, the deadline for the PIO’s response was October 12, 2025.
• Invocation of Section 7(2): The authorities neglected to respond by the deadline, deeming the application legally refused. The PIO failed in their duty. This automatically triggers the citizen’s right to appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under Section 19(1).

Ravi Ranjan, Nagar Ayukt, NN Prayagraj (the FAA), the appellant filed the appeal on November 7, 2025. The appeal highlights this administrative oversight and demands that the information be provided without further delay.

---

Relief Sought: Information Free of Cost and Accountability

The prayer section of the appeal does not merely repeat the original ask; it leverages the legal penalty linked to the delay:

1. Immediate Disclosure: The primary relief is a direction from the FAA to the PIO. They must promptly supply the full, certified, and point-wise information as sought.
2. Information Free of Cost (Section 7(6)): Crucially, Section 7(6) of the RTI Act stipulates an important condition. If authorities do not supply information within the specified time limit, they must give it to the applicant. This information should be absolutely free of charge. The appellant rightfully invokes this provision due to the PIO’s failure.
3. Disciplinary Action: The appellant requests that the authorities begin necessary disciplinary action. This action is against the PIO, Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj for non-compliance. Enforcing the sanctity of the 30-day timeline is essential. It ensures that public servants take the law seriously.

---

The Critical Role of the Appellate Authority

The Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj, as the First Appellate Authority, holds the responsibility to rectify this administrative lapse. The FAA’s decision in this appeal will send a clear signal. It will show whether the Public Authority condones administrative negligence. Alternatively, it will strictly enforce the transparency norms of the RTI Act.

If the FAA fails to give a satisfactory remedy, the appellant will have another choice. The next step is to file a Second Appeal directly with the State Information Commission (SIC). There, the penalties for non-compliance are significantly more severe. These include potential fines against the PIO. Resolving this First Appeal promptly and decisively is vital. This action upholds the spirit and letter of the RTI Act.

---

Conclusion and Next Steps in the matter about working of Nagar Ayukt Prayagraj

Indradev Yadav’s appeal against the Prayagraj Nagar Nigam exemplifies a citizen’s fight against a “Deemed Refusal.” The appeal stands as legally sound, meticulously documented, and clearly articulates the required relief. It reminds us that the RTI Act serves as a powerful tool, with its effectiveness heavily relying on accountability mechanisms. Appellate Authorities trigger these mechanisms when PIOs fail to fulfill their statutory duties. The focus now shifts to the Nagar Ayukt. They must make sure they grant the requested transparency. The rules of the Act must be, enforced by them.

Indradev Yadav is seeking posting details of staff from Apar Nagar Ayukt

Chief Minister Office forwarded grievance about Nagar Nigam Prayagraj to SP Mirzapur