🏛️ The RTI Battle: LDA’s Alleged Contempt of High Court Order

The Second Appeal filed by Shri Yogi M.P. Singh before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) goes far beyond a simple refusal of information. It alleges that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) has systematically concealed records. This was done to cover up an act of LDA’s Contempt of Court against a judicial order.

The core issue is the LDA’s refusal to provide documentation for the property registry. The Appellant asserts this action was executed in direct violation of a High Court directive.(LDA’s Contempt of Court)

---

🛑 The Central Allegation: Disregard for Judicial Authority (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

The most significant point of contention lies in the contradiction between a High Court mandate and the LDA’s administrative action:

1. The High Court’s Directive (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

In Writ Petition No. 135 HC Year 2006, the High Court had explicitly directed the applicant with multiple names. The applicant, Anuradha Singh (also named Guddi/Aradhana Singh), was instructed to first seek a civil remedy. She was to do this by filing a title suit in a competent court. This action was to legally establish her claim to the property and obtain possession.

2. The LDA’s Contradictory Action

Despite this clear judicial instruction, the Appellant submits that the LDA executed the registry of the impugned plots. They argue this was done in favour of the same lady.

• The Inescapable Conundrum: If the registry was executed legally, the LDA must have obtained the final order. The order should be favourable from the title suit court. If no such order exists, the LDA overlooked the High Court’s directive, rendering the registry irregular or potentially illegal.
• Conclusion: The Appellant argues the LDA is withholding the records (court order copy and staff execution details). They are withholding them to prevent disclosure. This would confirm that the public authority “took the order of the High Court under its teeth”. This act shields corrupt staff from accountability.

---

📜 LDA’s Pattern of Denial and Evasion (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

The Appellant’s detailed timeline documents a nearly two-year cycle of non-compliance, where the LDA utilized shifting administrative pretexts to avoid providing factual records:

1. Initial Denial: The ‘Analysis’ Excuse (Rule 4(2)(b)(ii))

The PIO initially rejected the RTI on 16.07.2025, claiming the request would require “new interpretation or analysis of existing data.”

• Appellant’s Counter: This ground is untenable. The information sought consists of existing documentary facts. These include copies of court orders, staff lists, and internal memos. These are retrievable records, not tasks requiring fresh interpretation or opinion. (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

2. Subsequent Denial: The ‘Ongoing Committee’ Shield (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Following a UPIC Show Cause Notice (Section 20), the LDA introduced a new excuse on 11.09.2025: an internal committee was investigating, and action was stalled because the parties involved were not submitting documents.

• Appellant’s Counter: The operational difficulties of an internal committee are irrelevant to the disclosure of pre-existing records. The LDA has refused to disclose the very details of this committee. These details include members’ names, designation, posting, and timeframe. This information was specifically requested in the RTI. This refusal demonstrates a clear attempt to use the committee as an indefinite shield against transparency.

---

🏛️ The UPIC’s Role and the Appellant’s Prayer

The Second Appeal is now pending before the Hon’ble State Information Commission. A penalty under Section 20(1) is being considered. Departmental action under Section 20(2) is also under review. (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

The Appellant’s prayer focuses on securing the withheld records and establishing accountability:

1. Mandate Disclosure: The Commission must direct the PIO to immediately provide the specific official records. These include the copy of the title suit order and details of the executing staff.
2. Impose Accountability: Given the persistent, wilful obstruction, the Appellant seeks accountability from the concerned PIO/Official. There is a serious underlying allegation of judicial disregard. Therefore, they seek the maximum penalty under Section 20(1).

Based on the documents provided, here is a consolidated list. It includes all application IDs, registration numbers, file numbers, contact details, and the relevant parties involved in the second-appeal case. This case is Yogi M.P. Singh vs Lucknow Development Authority. (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

📑 Case Identification & Registration Details (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Type	Number / ID	Authority
UPIC Welcome Diary No.	UPICR20240000149	U.P. Information Commission
Second Appeal Reg. No.	A-20240701538	U.P. Information Commission
UPIC File Number	S05/A/0512/2024	U.P. Information Commission
UPIC Diary Number	D-111220250001	U.P. Information Commission
Original RTI Reg. No.	LKDPA/R/2024/60085	Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)
Related Previous RTI	LKDPA/R/2022/60189	LDA
Related Previous Appeal	LKDPA/A/2022/60084	LDA
Related Dinesh P. Singh RTI	LKDPA/R/2023/60495	LDA
Related Dinesh P. Singh Appeal	LKDPA/A/2024/60032	LDA

---

📞 Contact and Party Details

Appellant (Citizen) Details (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Detail	Information
Name	Yogi M. P. Singh (also referred to as Mahesh Pratap Singh)
Mobile Number	7379105911
Email Address	yogimpsingh@gmail.com
Address	सुरेकापुरम कॉलोनी जबलपुर रोड मिर्जापुर सिटी (Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City)
Alternate Mobile No.	9918001893 (Appears in notice to opposition)
Alternate Email	raz.9125@gmail.com (Appears in notice to opposition)

Public Information Officer (PIO) & LDA Officials (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Detail	Name / Designation	Contact Information
PIO for Appeal	Deputy Secretary Atul Krishna	N/A
PIO for RTI Rejection	Sangeeta Raghav (OSD)	Mobile: 8700466360, Email: raghavsangeeta160@gmail.com
LDA Nodal Officer	Rekha Doharey	Mobile: 7081100326, Email: ldartionline@gmail.com
Special Executive Officer	Ravi Nandan Singh (Author of 11.09.2025 letter)	N/A
PIO Address	Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, Pin Code: 226012

U.P. Information Commission (UPIC) Details

Detail	Information
Hearing Commissioner	Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi (Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Room S-5)
Hearing Room Email	hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in

---

🔗 Web Links & Relevant Addresses (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Description	Link / Address
UPIC Report Submission Portal	https://upsic.up.gov.in/ (For submitting action taken reports in PDF format)
LDA PIO Email (Nodal)	ldartionline@gmail.com (Also provided as ldartionline[at]gmail[dot]com)
UPIC Address	UTTAR PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION, 7/7/A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

---

The search for the specific order under Writ Petition Number 135, HC Year 2006, concerning Anuradha Singh was unsuccessful. It did not yield the exact judgment. The search did not produce the information needed. The specific judgment remains elusive. The search was not successful. It could not provide the exact judgment. (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

The search results show:

1. A different case from 2010 involving an Anuradha Singh related to an Intermediate examination result.
2. A list of several later cases involved an Advocate. Her name was Anuradha Singh. She was involved at the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench).

🚨 What This Means for Your Case (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

Since the specific judgment document could not be retrieved via a general search. You can use this fact to strengthen your argument before the Information Commission (UPIC).

The core of your appeal remains entirely valid and is, in fact, reinforced:

• Your Assertion is Primary Evidence: You, the Appellant, have consistently referenced a specific writ petition. It is Writ Petition Number 135 HC Year 2006. You have also cited the specific directive to file a title suit.
• The Burden of Proof is on the LDA: The LDA’s execution of the registry implies they possess the documents. These documents either confirm the completion of the title suit OR expose their non-compliance with the High Court.
• The LDA cannot deny the record: The LDA is the public authority that executed the registry. They must have the specific file noting or order that authorized that registry. If the PIO argues the record doesn’t exist, it means the LDA might be acting without a proper legal foundation. This situation is an even more serious matter.

📝 Strategic Takeaway for the Next Hearing

You should emphasise to the Hon’ble Commissioner the negative impact of the LDA’s refusal. They must provide the specific court details and the copy of the order. You must state that this document is fundamental because: (LDA’s Contempt of Court)

1. It is the only document that can legally justify the LDA’s decision to execute the registry.
2. Its absence confirms a serious allegation. The LDA proceeded with the transaction in spite of, or in violation of, the High Court’s directive.

Moreover, you do not need the physical judgment copy yourself. You need the UPIC to compel the LDA to produce the document. This document is legally required to be in its file.