⚖️Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals: The Second Appeal as the Citizen’s Ultimate Recourse Under RTI, 2005

---

A democracy relies on transparency and accountability. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a landmark piece of legislation in this context. It empowers every citizen to hold the government machinery accountable. However, obtaining information is often difficult. Bureaucratic inertia obstructs the process, especially in matters involving the Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals. Public Information Officers (PIOs) and even the First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) cause wilful delays and outright defiance.

The journey of Shri Naresh Kumar Jaiswal against the Revenue Department in Mirzapur offers a potent example. It provides a real-world insight into this struggle. His case culminated in a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. It isn’t just about a single RTI request. It’s about defending the spirit of the Act itself. This detailed analysis breaks down the significance of the Second Appeal. It looks at the failures that led to it. The analysis also examines the remedies sought under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

---

🛑 The Foundation of Failure: Breakdown at the PIO and FAA Levels (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

The RTI Act establishes a clear, time-bound mechanism for dispensing information. When this mechanism breaks down, the citizen must escalate the matter through two distinct appeal stages. Shri Jaiswal’s case highlights a systemic failure at both the primary level (PIO). It also shows issues at the secondary level (FAA) of the public authority.

1. Failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO) (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

Shri Jaiswal filed his original RTI application (DMOMR/R/2025/60201) on 14/08/2025 with Shri Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar, Mirzapur Tehsil. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO must provide the information within 30 days. Alternatively, they must reject the application in the same period.

• RTI Filing Date: 14/08/2025
• Statutory Due Date for PIO Reply: 13/09/2025

The record explicitly states: “Answer of P.I.O. – Not providing Information in Stipulated Time.”

This non-response is a critical legal event. According to Section 7(2) of the RTI Act, if there is no response within 30 days, a legal “refusal” occurs. This situation is triggered by the lack of response. These conditions are a legal requirement. This indicates a failure to provide the information. This deemed refusal is a direct violation of the PIO’s statutory duty. It lays the first ground for appeal. Crucially, it sets the stage for the imposition of penalties. The time interval for filing the first appeal from the Section 6(1) application was 39 days. This clearly indicates the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period.

2. Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The PIO remained silent. Shri Jaiswal exercised his right under Section 19(1). He filed his First Appeal (DMOMR/A/2025/60137) on 22/09/2025 with the First Appellate Authority, Shri Asha Ram Verma, SDM Sadar. The FAA, under Section 19(6), must dispose of the appeal within 30 days. In exceptional cases, they can have up to 45 days to do so.

• First Appeal Filing Date: 22/09/2025
• Statutory Due Date for FAA Order: 22/10/2025 (30 days)

The record confirms the second level of failure: “Answer of First Appellate Authority (FAA) – There is no answer.” (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

The FAA did not pass an order by 22/10/2025. As a result, the citizen’s grievance was not addressed. This included the PIO’s initial dereliction of duty. This inaction constitutes a failure to uphold the appellate mechanism of the Act. It opens the door to the Second Appeal. The time interval between the First Appeal and the filing of the Second Appeal was 56 days. This confirms that the FAA’s statutory period had long expired.

---

📢 The Recourse: Second Appeal Under Section 19(3)

The Second Appeal is filed with the State Information Commission (SIC) or the Central Information Commission (CIC). It is the final and most powerful mechanism for the citizen. It is not a mere repetition of the First Appeal. Instead, it is a request for the Commission to intervene, enforce the law, and sanction the non-compliant officials.(Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

A. The Grounds of Appeal

Shri Jaiswal’s Second Appeal, registered under Appeal Registration Number A-20251101309, rests on three robust and legally sound grounds: (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

1. Failure of PIO (Deemed Refusal): The Tehsildar explicitly violated Section 7(1). This violation necessitates the provision of the requested information.
2. Failure of FAA (Non-Disposal): The SDM Sadar failed to exercise their authority under Section 19(6). This failure promoted the PIO’s unlawful conduct.
3. Wilful Disregard of Law: The combined inaction of both authorities clearly shows neglect. They have a complete disregard for the statutory provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” As the appellant correctly notes, this undermines the entire accountability framework.

B. The Crucial Relief Sought (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

There is the imposition of penalties on the defaulting PIOs. The Commission imposes these penalties, which form the primary relief sought in this Second Appeal.

• Relief Sought: “Impose Penalty on the PIO, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The penalty is for the malafide and willful failure to receive the application. It also includes failing to provide the information or respond within the statutory time limit.”

The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until it receives the application. This penalty continues until the information is provided, with a maximum limit of ₹25,000. This penalty is levied directly on the PIO. It is not levied on the public authority. Also, it is a highly effective tool for enforcing compliance. It also deters future violations. The grounds for penalty include the PIO having, without any reasonable cause. The PIO refused to receive an application for information. Alternatively, they have not furnished …

C. The Power to Recommend Disciplinary Action

While not explicitly listed in the ‘Relief Sought‘ section of the provided document, there is a significant failure. Both the PIO and the FAA are involved in this failure. This failure opens the door for the Commission to take further action. (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

• Section 20(2) of the Act gives the Commission the authority to recommend disciplinary action against the PIO/FAA. This can be done if there is evidence of persistent and unjustified violations of the Act. The non-disposal of the First Appeal by the FAA is a serious matter. It often warrants such a recommendation. The FAA’s role is to act as a crucial check on the PIO.

---

📌 Conclusion: Upholding the Mandate of Transparency (Tehsildar & RTI Second Appeals)

Shri Naresh Kumar Jaiswal’s Second Appeal was filed on 17/11/2025. It was exactly 95 days after his original RTI application. His appeal is a textbook example of a citizen’s persistence in the face of governmental opacity. The case presents a clear-cut scenario of deemed refusal and failure to dispose of an appeal, leaving the Information Commission with a clear mandate:

1. Enforce the provision of information to the appellant.
2. Impose the statutory penalty on the PIO, Shri Vishal Kumar Sharma, Tehsildar, for the willful delay.
3. Reinforce the accountability of the FAA. Shri Asha Ram Verma is the SDM Sadar. He failed to discharge his duty as an appellate authority.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission vigorously pursues cases like this. This ensures that the RTI Act remains a living instrument of democracy. Public officials must uphold the highest standards of transparency and serve the citizenry effectively, regardless of their designation. The Second Appeal is the citizen’s final declaration. They will not accept “anarchy in the working of the public authority”. They demand adherence to the law of the land.

Kanhaiya Lal is seeking information about the person who deleted his father from the revenue records.

Matter concerning deep rooted corruption forwarded by office of president, office of sub divisional magistrate filed it without taking any action

Ashok Kumar Maurya submits appeal against Tehsildar Sadar for not providing information concerning government land grabbing