🚨 Arbitrary Rejection in RTI: Exposing the Arbitrary Rejection and Deliberate Evasion by LDA

Case File: S05/A/0518/2024 (UP Information Commission), RTI Registration No.: LKDPA/R/2024/60105, Appellant: Yogi M.P. Singh, Respondent: PIO Hemchandra Tiwari, Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). This case raises important issues about Arbitrary Rejection in RTI applications.

The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. PIO Hemchandra Tiwari (LDA) before the UP Information Commission highlights a glaring failure of the RTI Act’s implementation. This failure is evident. There is extreme delay and arbitrary rejection. The Public Information Officer (PIO) may submit misleading documents.

This post breaks down the core issues presented in the appellant’s objection.

---

1. The Fundamental Flaw: Egregious Procrastination

The first and most critical violation is the PIO’s failure. They did not adhere to the statutory timeline mandated by the RTI Act. (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

• RTI Filed: 18th February 2024
• Response Given: 23rd May 2025
• The Delay: Over 15 months (Statutory limit is 30 days).

This 15-month delay in responding to a citizen’s request is a clear breach of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is also a serious breach. Such inaction, unless reasonably explained, warrants the imposition of penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.

---

2. Arbitrary Rejection: Misapplication of Rules (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

After an unconscionable delay, the PIO rejected the application. The rejection was based on a rule against seeking “new interpretation or analysis.” It also prohibited “drawing of inferences.” Furthermore, it opposed “providing advice or opinion.”

What Was Actually Sought?

The appellant’s request was purely for documented, factual information:

1. Action Taken Details (ATR) on four specific representations submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh.
2. The name and designation of LDA staff authorized to handle representations for a specific corruption committee.

The PIO’s Error (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

An Action Taken Report (ATR) is a document of record, not an opinion or analysis. Retrieving existing records falls squarely under the definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. By citing the “interpretation” clause, the PIO has fundamentally misapplied the rule to willfully deny access to routine public records.

---

3. Deliberate Evasion: The Irrelevant Document Tactic

The appellant raised a significant point of objection. This relates to the Respondent’s submission of four recent communications to the Commission. These communications are entirely unrelated to the current appeal. (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

• This Appeal (S05/A/0518/2024) is about: Action Taken Reports on representations and staff details regarding a grievance.
• The Submitted Documents are about: The irregular allotment/registration of Plot Nos. SS-1914 to 1918, a matter under different Appeal Numbers (e.g., S10/A/1318/2024).

This tactic involves an authority attempting to close one file by submitting irrelevant compliance documentation from another file. It is viewed as a willful attempt to mislead the Commission. This creates a false impression of full compliance.

---

Conclusion: A Need for Accountability (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

The appellant seeks not only the prompt release of the factual information requested but also demands that the Hon’ble Commission hold the PIO, Hemchandra Tiwari, accountable for:

1. The egregious 15-month delay in violation of the Act.
2. The arbitrary and unjustified rejection of the request.
3. The attempt to confuse the matter by submitting irrelevant documents.

The Commission has been asked to disregard the misleading communications. It should re-emphasize the direction to the PIO to furnish the correct, point-wise information. Additionally, it should initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

That’s a very good question. Your consolidated representation specifically prays for action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Understanding the potential penalties will strengthen your argument.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) operates under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This is similar to how the Central Information Commission (CIC) operates.

⚖️ Penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

Section 20(1) grants the Information Commission the power to impose a penalty on the Public Information Officer (PIO) if it is of the opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause:

1. Refused to receive an application.
2. Not furnished information within the specified time (30 days).
3. Malafidely denied the request.
4. Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
5. Destroyed information subject to the request.
6. Obstructed the process.

Penalty Component	Details
Daily Fine (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)	₹250 per day of delay, until the information is furnished.
Maximum Limit	The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
Payment Source	The penalty must be paid by the PIO from his salary and not by the Public Authority.
Burden of Proof	The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently lies squarely on the PIO.

---

Specific Relevance to Your Case (15-Month Delay)

In your case, the delay is approximately 457 days (February 18, 2024, to May 23, 2025). (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

• Potential Fine Calculation (Theoretical): $457 \text{ days} \times ₹250/\text{day} = ₹1,14,250$
• Actual Maximum Penalty: The maximum penalty permitted under Section 20(1) is ₹25,000. Your PIO, if found liable, faces this maximum fine. This is because the theoretical fine amount exceeds this limit.

Commissions frequently impose the maximum penalty of ₹25,000. They do so in cases where the delay is much in excess of 100 days. No reasonable explanation is offered.

---

Additional Punitive Action (Section 20(2)) (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

In addition to the monetary penalty under Section 20(1), the Commission also has the power under Section 20(2) to:

• Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them.

The combined factors in your case include an extreme delay (15 months). There was an arbitrary rejection using irrelevant clauses. Additionally, there was an alleged attempt to mislead the Commission with unrelated documents. Due to these factors, you have a strong basis to request the maximum penalty under Section 20(1). You can also request a recommendation for disciplinary action under Section 20(2).

The information sought with clarity falls into three main categories. They all relate to action taken on representations. Additionally, they concern the LDA’s compliance with transparency norms.

The core information requested by the appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, in his RTI application (Registration No. LKDPA/R/2024/60105) to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) is as follows:

🎯 Information Sought (The Unanswered Points)

1. Action Taken Reports (ATRs) on Representations (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

The appellant sought the Action Taken Details (ATRs) by the concerned staff/officer of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) on four separate representations submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh on the following dates:

• Representation 1: Dated 09 December 2023 (Delivered on 16/12/2023).
• Representation 2: Dated 28th January 2023.
• Representation 3: Dated 11th September 2022.
• Representation 4: Dated 13th December 2022.

2. Details of LDA Staff/Committee

The appellant sought specific details regarding the staff involved in handling the grievance (GOVUP/E/2024/0006965):

• The name and designation of the staff of the Lucknow Development Authority will be provided. This staff will entertain the representations of the parties and complainants on behalf of the committee in the matter.
• The details of the members of the said committee.

3. Reason for Document Omission (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

The appellant sought clarification regarding a document submitted for the grievance:

• The reason for not providing a 24-pages PDF document was due to its content. It was sent by the applicant for the committee looking into the matter of corruption under Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2024/0006965.

---

❌ PIO’s Rejection and Justification (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

The PIO, Hemchandra Tiwari, rejected the request on 23/05/2025 (after a 15-month delay) citing:

• Reason for Rejection: “Rule 4(2)(b)(ii)”
• Remark: The information sought should not require carrying out new interpretation or analysis of existing data. It should not involve drawing of inferences or making of assumptions. Providing advice or opinion based on existing data is also not required.

The appellant objects to this request. It requires the retrieval of existing official records, like Action Taken Reports (ATRs) and staff names. This is not a demand for new interpretation. Therefore, the appellant argues that the rule was misapplied to deny the information.

Based on your request, here are the official contact details. You will also find web links for the two primary authorities involved in your appeal. These are the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) and the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA).

📞 Contact Details & Web Links

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

Detail	Information
Official Website	https://upsic.up.gov.in/
Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Office Phone	0522-2724930
General Email	webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
Email for Hearing Court S-5	hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in (As per your documents)

---

2. Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)

Detail	Information
Official Website	https://ldalucknow.in/
Head Office Address	Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Pin Code: 226010
General Phone	0522-2307868
General Email	ldavc@rediffmail.com
PIO Hemchandra Tiwari (Chakbandi Adhikari)	Mobile: 9452852608
Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna Singh	Mobile: 9918001893 (Appears in documents related to your grievance)
Deputy Secretary Madhvesh Kumar	Mobile: 9918005512 (Appears in contact directory)

I can provide a clear list. It includes the Application and Appeal Identification (ID) Numbers that are central to your current case. These include related but potentially irrelevant matters submitted by the LDA.

These IDs are crucial for distinguishing between the different matters and maintaining clarity before the Hon’ble Commission:

🆔 Application and Appeal IDs

1. Your Current Appeal (The Core Subject)

This is the case being heard today, concerning the denial of Action Taken Reports and staff details.

ID Type	Number	Authority
Second Appeal No. (File No.)	S05/A/0518/2024	UPIC (Hearing Court S-5)
Appeal Registration No.	A-20240701671	UPIC
Original RTI Reg. No.	LKDPA/R/2024/60105	LDA Online Portal
Grievance Reg. No. (Related)	GOVUP/E/2024/0006965	GOVUP Portal

2. Irrelevant Appeals Submitted by LDA (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

These are the File Numbers that the LDA’s communications refer to, concerning the irregular allotment/registration of Plot Nos. SS-1914 to 1918. You must clearly state that these are not the subject of the current appeal.

ID Type	Number (as per LDA documents)	Subject
Appeal No.	S10/A/1318/2024	Plot Allotment Case
Appeal No.	S09/A/1768/2025	Plot Allotment Case
Appeal No.	S05/A/0428/2024	Plot Allotment Case

Key Argument Sentence (Refined): (Arbitrary Rejection in RTI)

“Most Hon’ble Sir, my appeal is S05/A/0518/2024, concerning RTI No. LKDPA/R/2024/60105 for Action Taken Reports. The documents submitted by the Respondent refer to completely different appeals, such as S10/A/1318/2024, which is about plot allotments. I pray these irrelevant documents be disregarded.”