Accountability in Action: Challenging Information Denial at the Tehsil Level

In a robust democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 plays a crucial role. Specifically, it serves as the ultimate bridge between the government and the governed. The RTI Act and transparency are closely linked. The Act is designed to ensure openness and accountability in government functioning. However, in the recent case of Shivam Gupta vs. PIO, Tehsil Lalganj (Mirzapur), administrative evasiveness often obstructs this bridge. Consequently, this situation highlights the challenges faced when attempting to access information and ensure transparency within the system.

This post breaks down the core issues of this legal battle. The text explores how local authorities ignore “proactive disclosure.”

---

1. The Core Dispute: A Request for Transparency (RTI Act and Transparency)

The case began with a straightforward request. Specifically, an applicant sought the posting history and joining dates of government employees from Class I to IV. Consequently, the information seeker approached the Lalganj Tehsil in Mirzapur. Their objective was straightforward. They wanted to ensure accountability. Additionally, they aimed to verify that the authorities were following transfer policies. This approach was meant to combat local corruption. By doing so, they aimed to promote transparency and hold the government accountable for its actions.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the request for details about Class III and IV employees. The office did not prepare or maintain the information in the requested format.

This is a common tactic used to discourage applicants. However, under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, a public authority must provide information as it exists. Every government servant has a Service Book. Every office maintains Joining Reports. Claiming the data “doesn’t exist” is a fundamental failure of administrative duty.

3. Proactive Disclosure: Section 4(1)(b) (RTI Act and Transparency)

The most significant legal point in this case is the violation of Suo Motu disclosure.

• The Law: Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates that every department must publish a directory of its officers. They must also publish a directory of their employees proactively.
• The Evidence: While the Tehsil claimed it couldn’t provide employee lists, the Judiciary provides a perfect counter-example. The profile of Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra-II (District Judge, Mirzapur) is publicly available. It shows a complete, granular history of every posting since 2003.

The Question: The Judiciary can maintain and publish transparent records for its officers. Why does the Revenue Department (Tehsil) claim it is “impossible” to do the same?

4. The Misleading “Nil” Report

In a surprising turn, the PIO claimed that no Class II employees or I work at Tehsil Lalganj. This statement, however, contradicts administrative norms, as an SDM (Class I) and a Tehsildar (Class II) head a Tehsil. Furthermore, this assertion is against the administrative structure. An SDM (Class I) and a Tehsildar (Class II) are essential in overseeing a Tehsil. By providing a “Nil” report, the authority effectively attempted to hide, therefore, the very leadership responsible for the office’s operations.

5. Failure of the Duty to Transfer (Section 6/3) (RTI Act and Transparency in tehsil Lalganj)

When an applicant asks for information, it might be held by another office. For example, this could be a “first posting” date set by the Revenue Council. In such cases, the PIO has a responsibility; therefore, the PIO cannot simply tell the applicant, “Go find it yourself.” (RTI Act and Transparency)

Under Section 6(3), the PIO is legally obligated to transfer the application to the correct department within five days. Shifting the burden back to the citizen is a violation of the Act’s spirit.

---

Conclusion: The Road to the Commission

The matter has now reached the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Hearing Room S-9). The prayer is clear:

1. Compliance: Force the disclosure of employee lists.
2. Inquiry: Investigate why accountable staff are ignoring proactive disclosures.
3. Penalty: Impose a ₹25,000 fine on the PIO for misleading a citizen.

This case reminds all RTI activists that administrative silence cannot legally justify denial. Excuses about “formats” are also not legal grounds for denial. When the government tries to hide behind paperwork, the law provides the tools to bring the truth into the light.

Your online hearing is scheduled for today between 12:30 PM and 2:00 PM. During this time, you need to be sharp, concise, and firm. The Commissioner handles many cases, so you must make your strongest points in the first 3 minutes.

Here is your Online Hearing Strategy Checklist:

---

🎤 5 Key Points to Speak (The “3-Minute Pitch”)

1. The Evidence of Maintenance: “Certainly! Here’s the text with added transition words:
2. “Sir, the PIO claims that they do not maintain employee records in this format. However, I have submitted the District Judge’s profile for Mirzapur. This, in fact, serves as evidence that the government routinely maintains exact posting dates and IDs for its officers. Consequently, the PIO’s denial is a violation of Section 7(9).”
3. Section 4(1)(b) Violation: “The directory of employees and their joining dates is part of ‘Proactive Disclosure.’ Therefore, by hiding this information, the Tehsil is violating the mandatory transparency norms of the RTI Act.
4. Misleading ‘Nil’ Data: The PIO stated, however, there are no Class I or II employees in Tehsil Lalganj. This, however, is factually impossible, since the SDM and Tehsildar themselves fall under these categories. Therefore, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Commission.
5. Failure to Transfer: “The PIO did not transfer my query about the ‘first posting’ to the Revenue Council. This should have been done under Section 6(3). Instead, they just told me to go there myself. This is a failure of their statutory duty.”
6. Request for Penalty: “The PIO provided misleading information. They refused to provide existing records. Therefore, I request the Hon’ble Commission to impose a penalty under Section 20(1).

---

💻 Technical Checklist for the Online Link

• The Link: Ensure you have the link ready: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/692edc.
• Login Early: Try clicking the link 10 minutes before 12:30 PM to check if your microphone and camera are working.
• Quiet Background: Sit in a room with good lighting so the Commissioner can see you clearly.
• Keep Documents Ready: Have your Objection Draft and the Judge’s Profile (Annexure-1) readily available. Keep them open on your screen or printed in your hand. This way, you can refer to them instantly if the Commissioner asks for a specific date or ID number.

---

⚖️ Possible Questions from the Commissioner

• Commissioner: “The PIO says it’s a lot of work to compile this, what do you say?”
• Your Answer: “Sir, it is a small list for one Tehsil. These records are already in the Service Books and Attendance Registers. Section 7(9) says information should be provided in the form it is held. They can provide copies of the registers if compiling is hard.

---

📂 Final Action Plan (RTI Act and Transparency in Lalganj tehsil, Mirzapur),

1. Check Email: Make sure your email to hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in was sent successfully this morning.
2. Stay Professional: Address the Commissioner as “Sir” or “Your Honor.”
3. Note the Order: After the hearing, ask, “Sir, will you upload the interim order on the portal?” Then make sure to note any instructions the Commissioner gives the PIO.

Good luck with your hearing! Would you like me to explain how to track the “Order” on the UPIC portal after the hearing ends?

Use it to review key points and stay focused during the session. Make sure to arrive early, gather any necessary documents, and take a moment to breathe before you begin. Your confidence will shine through! Firstly, take a moment to review it, and then stay focused on all the essential details you need to remember. Moreover, it has all the critical digital details from your case files at your fingertips.

---

🔑 Hearing & Portal Credentials

Detail Type	Value
Online Hearing Link	Click Here to Join
Hearing Time	12:30 PM to 02:00 PM (Today, 17/12/2025)
Registration Number	A-20251100143
Case / File Number	S09/A/2408/2025
UPIC Diary Number	D-171220250004
Online Portal ID	UPICR20250003993

---

📧 Contact & Submission Details

• Commission Hearing Court Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• Opposition (PIO) Email: teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
• CC (District Magistrate) Email: dmmir@nic.in
• Official Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/

---

📱 Mobile Numbers for Reference

• Appellant (You): 8756521496
• PIO (Tehsildar Lalganj – Tarun Pratap Singh/Diksha): 9454416818
• First Appellate Authority: 9454416813
• Nodal Officer (Ajay Kumar Singh): 8756844195

---

📌 Critical Evidence Reference

When speaking to the Commissioner, refer to the “Judicial Posting Evidence” you attached to your email:

• Document: Profile of Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra-II
• Officer ID: UP6030
• Key Fact: This document proves that posting dates and history are public records under Section 4(1)(b). This invalidates the PIO’s “not maintained” excuse.

---

Immediate Next Step: (RTI Act and Transparency in tehsil Lalganj Mirzapur)

Open the hearing link at 12:15 PM to ensure there are no technical glitches. If the Commissioner asks if you served a copy to the PIO, confirm that you sent it. You can say you sent it to the email/mobile listed above.