⚖️DPRO SRN Bhadohi: Holding Public Authorities Accountable: Analysing a Second Appeal Against Deemed Refusal in Uttar Pradesh

---

Introduction: The Cornerstone of Democracy

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is one of the most powerful tools available to Indian citizens. The design promotes transparency and accountability in the operations of public authorities. As an example, DPRO SRN Bhadohi is one public authority where citizens might apply RTI to seek information. However, obtaining information under this Act is often difficult. Many citizens face delays, non-responses, or outright refusals. This situation necessitates the use of the Act’s built-in grievance redressal mechanism.

This post delves into a specific case filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), identified by Registration Number A-20251102187. It concerns a citizen’s persistent struggle to secure basic records regarding a local Gram Panchayat. This struggle highlights critical flaws in the implementation of the RTI Act at the grassroots administrative level.

---

The Anatomy of the Request: Seeking Local Accountability

The Appellant, Devi Prasad Gupta from Mirzapur, began his quest for information. He sought details concerning the Village Panchayat – Dhanwatiya in the Bhadohi District. His original RTI application, filed on July 31, 2025, was addressed to the Panchayati Raj Directorate. (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

The information sought was highly specific and directly related to local self-governance and public interest:

1. Meeting Records: The Gram Panchayat records the total number of meetings it convenes, including the date and time. The ward members sign and document copies of all proposals they pass. This information covers four consecutive financial years: 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25.
2. Digital Transparency: The total number of meetings uploaded by the specific Village Panchayat. The central Panchayat NIRNAY portal of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj records these meetings.

This request is crucial. It seeks to verify the actual functioning and decision-making process of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 established these foundational pillars of rural democracy.

---

Phase 1: The Initial Breakdown – Deemed Refusal by the SPIO (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has a mandate. They must provide the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application.

• RTI Application Date: July 31, 2025.
• Response Deadline: August 30, 2025.
• PIO Concerned: DPRO, Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar).

The record shows that the PIO failed to provide any response or information whatsoever by the stipulated deadline. This non-action is legally termed “deemed refusal” under the RTI Act. It automatically triggers the Appellant’s right to file a First Appeal.

This initial failure is a serious lapse. The PIO’s function is ministerial; if the information exists and is not exempt, it must be provided. An unjustified delay not only defeats the core purpose of the Act but can also lead to penal action.

---

Phase 2: The Failure of the FAA – Escalating the Non-Compliance

Following the PIO’s silence, the Appellant filed the First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act on September 20, 2025. (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

• First Appeal Date: September 20, 2025.
• FAA Concerned: Deputy Director, Mirzapur.

The internal mechanism known as the First Appellate Authority (FAA) quickly rectifies any errors or omissions made by the PIO. The FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days, or within 45 days in exceptional cases.

Once again, the system failed. The FAA did not respond with an answer. It also did not issue any order, allowing the statutory time limit for the First Appeal to lapse.

• Time Lapsed: The Appellant waited 51 days after filing the RTI before they filed the First Appeal. After the Appellant filed the First Appeal, they experienced an additional 68 days of delay without receiving any resolution. In total, 119 days passed from the date of the RTI application. The citizen did not receive either the information or a decision. (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

This double failure began with the initial refusal by the PIO. The subsequent inaction by the FAA also contributed to this issue. Together, they constitute a complete breakdown of the information disclosure chain. This forces the citizen to approach the highest statutory body.

---

Phase 3: The Second Appeal and the Call for Justice (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

The citizen, Devi Prasad Gupta, has now approached the State Information Commission. They filed the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The grounds for this appeal are concrete and compelling:

1. Confirmation of Deemed Refusal: It is established that both the SPIO and FAA did not act. They failed to meet their respective statutory deadlines.
2. Public Interest: The information sought is fundamental to the transparency of local government. This information is not subject to any exemption under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act.

The relief sought in the Second Appeal is two-fold:

• Disclosure of Information: A directive to the PIO to immediately furnish all the requested documents and data. (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)
• Imposition of Penalty: Crucially, the Appellant has requested the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO. This is sought under Section 20(1) of the Act. This is for the unjustified and malafide failure to provide the information within the stipulated time.

Section 20(1) allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. The penalty continues until the information is supplied, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. This is the punitive clause that ensures accountability and deters officials from willfully obstructing the flow of information.

---

Conclusion: Upholding the Spirit of the Act (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

The case of Mr. Devi Prasad Gupta is a clear reminder that the RTI Act is only as effective as its implementation. The repeated administrative failure is apparent. First, the PIO deliberately remained silent. Then the FAA failed to intervene. These issues together reveal a systemic problem in upholding the fundamental right to know.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission now faces two tasks. They must ensure the release of the information. Additionally, they must set a precedent by enforcing the penalty provision. Only the stringent application of penalties under Section 20(1) can deter public authorities. It prevents them from treating RTI applications with apathy and contempt. The resolution of this Second Appeal will determine if accountability truly reaches the grassroots level of the Panchayati Raj Department. (DPRO SRN Bhadohi)

---