Review Request for BDO City Order Dated October 13, 2025
Key Takeaways (Review Request for BDO City Order)
- The application requests a recall and review of an order dated October 13, 2025, due to violations of due process.
- The PIO’s failure to serve timely responses hindered the Appellant’s ability to present their case during the scheduled hearing.
- The recalled order lacks necessary procedural hearing and was made without the applicant’s fair opportunity to defend themselves.
- The PIO provided misleading information regarding financial competencies and environmental inquiries, violating the RTI Act.
- The Appellant seeks complete and accurate information from the PIO and initiation of penal action for non-compliance.
Introduction and Topic Matter (Review Request for BDO City Order)
This application is an urgent plea for the recall and review of the Final Order. The State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh, passed the order on October 13, 2025, in Appeal No. S 09/A/0634/2025. It also seeks the initiation of penal action against the Public Information Officer (PIO)/Block Development Officer (BDO), Block-City, District Mirzapur. This is a Review Request for BDO City Order. It addresses the core issue of the PIO’s deliberate non-compliance with the Commission’s procedural orders. Additionally, the PIO has continued providing misleading and incomplete information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Procedural Grounds for Recall: Violation of Due Process
The Appellant seeks a recall primarily because a critical procedural defect violated their right to present their case. (Review Request for BDO City Order)
Failure to Serve PIO’s Response
The Commission issued an Order on September 15, 2025. In this Order, it specifically directed the PIO to address the Appellant’s objection. The objection was submitted via email on September 6, 2025. Additionally, the Commission requested that the disposal report be accessible to the Appellant. You need to complete this before the scheduled hearing on October 13, 2025. (Review Request for BDO City Order)
The PIO issued the required communication (Letter No. 3211/Public Information/2025-26) on October 6, 2025. The Appellant received this communication in November 2025, after the court passed the final order. A peon delivered it.
Impact on Hearing (Review Request for BDO City Order)
This delay constituted a deliberate act of non-compliance. The Appellant did not receive the reply on time. Therefore, the Appellant could not present a rebuttal to the PIO’s final submission. This would have occurred during the hearing on 13.10.2025. The PIO’s failure to respond prevented the Appellant from presenting their case. This led to the appeal’s disposal without a full and fair adjudication of the facts.
Order Not Available to Applicant
As of the date of this application (12.11.2025), the Final Order dated 13.10.2025 has not been uploaded on the official website. This situation compels the Appellant to continue with this application. The application is based solely on the belatedly received PIO reply. This reply formed the factual basis for the final disposal. (Review Request for BDO City Order)
Detailed Analysis of Substantive Failures (Misleading Information) (Review Request for BDO City Order)
The PIO’s reply, received belatedly, merely repeated misleading and incomplete information, violating the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
Point 1: Sanctioning Authority
The PIO repeated the statement that the BDO sanctioned ₹1.04 crore. The Appellant maintains that this sanction is outside the BDO’s competence. They assert that the District Magistrate (DM) or Chief Development Officer (CDO) is the competent authority for such a sum. This indicates that the PIO is providing factually and legally contested information. (Review Request for BDO City Order)
Point 4: Pollution/Environmental Issues (Review Request for BDO City Order)
The PIO gave an evasive answer. He stated the “river is flowing smoothly.” He dismissed the inquiry for details on precautionary measures as “fictitious.” This is an avoidance of duty. The PIO should give specific details on any environmental measures taken. He should not simply offer a subjective or evasive opinion.
Point 6: Financial Documents (Estimates, Invoices)
The PIO attempted to evade the provision of detailed estimates, work booklets, and invoices by: (Review Request for BDO City Order)
- Misleadingly directing the Appellant to a national website.
- Incorrectly citing the exemption of “disproportionate allocation of resources” (under Section 4(2)(b)(5) of the RTI Act).
The requested documents are physical records maintained by the Public Authority’s custodian. It is improper to cite this exemption. This is a deliberate effort to withhold information. This information should be provided under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Focus on Section 12 in Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015
This section specifically governs the Recall of orders passed by the State Information Commission (SIC).
Rule 12: Secretary of the Commission (Review Request for BDO City Order)
(1) Grounds for Recall: The Commission can recall its own order. An aggrieved party applies for this action. It can only occur based on specific procedural defects.. These defects are:
- (i) Lack of Hearing for No Fault of Applicant: The Commission passed the order without hearing the applicant. The applicant was not at fault for this non-hearing.
- (ii) Hearing on Unfixed Date: The Commission heard and decided the matter on a different date. The hearing did not take place on the date originally fixed. The applicant was unable to attend for no fault of their own.
Application Relevance: The current application directly invokes Rule 12(1)(i). The PIO deliberately neglected to serve the reply before the hearing date. The failure resulted in the Appellant not recording their rebuttal during the appeal. It effectively rendered the order passed “without hearing the applicant for no fault of his.”
(2) Time Limit: The applicant must send the recall application.You must complete this within thirty days from when you become aware of the Commission’s order.
(3) Preliminary Scrutiny: The Commission has the authority to reject the recall application. This can happen if it believes prima facie there is no merit in the submission. (Review Request for BDO City Order)
(4) Opportunity to participate in a hearing: The Commission must issue a notice if it deems a hearing necessary. This informs all parties involved. This allows them to express their views before the Commission passes any order regarding the recall application.
Prayer for Relief and Penal Action (Review Request for BDO City Order)
In light of the deliberate procedural failure and the continued provision of misleading information, the Appellant seeks the next:
- Recall/Review of the Final Order dated 13.10.2025 and restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing.
- Direction to the PIO to give full and correct information on all six original RTI points. The information should be non-misleading and include the formally requested copies of documents.
- Initiation of Penal Proceedings occurs under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. This action is against the then PIO/BDO. This is due to intentionally providing misleading or incomplete information. It is also for non-compliance with the Commission’s procedural directions.
The Appellant notes a technical issue with the Commission’s online portal. The portal claims the registration number is incorrect. This error prevents the online submission of this urgent Rule 12 application.
Information sought about corrupt information board images of G.P. Lohandi Kala
ADO Panchayat city block must upload legible public information board images. BDO City Block uploaded illegible information board images to conceal corruption
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.