The core of your argument—that a Lekhpal (Revenue Officer) lacks the jurisdictional authority to investigate Senior Police Officers—is legally sound. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Police Act, the police hierarchy is independent of the revenue department except in specific magisterial contexts.

1. Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police: Procedural Chaos in Mirzapur

The issue began when a formal grievance (Ref: GOVUP/E/2025/0096028) detailed police misconduct and the defiance of civil court orders. Surprisingly, a Lekhpal—a junior official from the Revenue Department—submitted the final investigation report on the Jansunwai Portal.

This action triggers a vital legal question: By what authority does a junior revenue official adjudicate the conduct of senior police personnel? This procedural anomaly suggests that the system is merely “clearing files” rather than delivering justice.

2. The RTI Inquiry: Demanding the “Rule Book”

To expose this illegality, Ashok Kumar Maurya filed an RTI application (DOCMO/R/2025/61124) with the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO). He specifically demanded:

• Identification: The names of staff who processed and monitored the grievance.
• Legal Authority: The specific Government Order (GO) authorizing a Lekhpal to investigate police matters.
• Internal Oversight: The mechanism for disciplining corrupt staff within the CMO.

3. The “Evasive Tactics” of the PIO and FAA (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

Despite these direct questions, the Public Information Officer (PIO) chose a strategy of deflection. Instead of providing certified records, the PIO simply stated that the matter was “forwarded to the Home Department.”

Furthermore, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed in her quasi-judicial duty. Rather than correcting the PIO’s error, she issued a “proforma order,” claiming the information was already provided via the Jansunwai portal. Consequently, the authorities conflated a “complaint status” with “official administrative records,” which are two distinct legal entities.

---

4. Comparison: Information Sought vs. Evaded

The following table highlights the mismatch between the citizen’s right and the department’s response: (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

Information Sought	Official Response	Actual Status
Authority: GO/Manual allowing Lekhpal to probe Police.	Ignored.	Denied
Accountability: Names of staff who handled the file.	“Forwarded to Home Dept.”	Denied
Discipline: Action Taken Report (ATR) on CMO staff.	Silence.	Denied

---

5. Escalation to the State Information Commission (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

Because the CMO refused to provide the “Rule Book,” the case has reached the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) (Appeal No: A-20251202449). The appellant is now seeking:

1. Full Disclosure: Delivery of all five points of information under oath.
2. Penalties: Maximum financial penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) for intentional concealment.
3. Jurisdictional Clarity: A definitive ruling on whether the Revenue Department can legally “dispose of” police complaints.

6. Why This Matters

If the Commission allows this “Lekhpal-led investigation” model to stand, it renders the IGRS (Jansunwai) portal toothless. Moreover, it creates a dangerous precedent where junior officials from unrelated departments can “white-wash” the misconduct of high-ranking officers.

Key Takeaway: Transparency is not a gift from the state; it is a constitutional right. This battle in Mirzapur serves as a litmus test for the integrity of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh.

---

Would you like me to draft a “Rejoinder” (written submission) that you can present to the State Information Commission to counter the PIO’s expected defense?

To understand why this case has reached the State Information Commission, it is essential to look at the gap between what was legally asked and what was administratively provided. The following breakdown “puts light” on the mismatch between the citizen’s right and the department’s response.

---

1. The Information Gap: A Comparative Analysis

The table below illustrates how the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) bypassed the specific queries. (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

Point	Information Sought by Appellant	Information Provided by PIO/FAA	Status
1 & 2	Names & Designations of staff who processed and monitored the grievance.	Ignored. The PIO only stated the grievance was forwarded to the Home Department.	Denied
3	Manuals/Orders authorizing a Lekhpal to investigate Senior Police Officers.	Ignored. No specific Government Order (GO) or manual was cited or provided.	Denied
4	Disciplinary Mechanism for corrupt staff within the CM Office.	Not Addressed. The response remained silent on internal procedural rules.	Denied
5	Action Taken Report (ATR) on staff disciplined by the CM in the last year.	Not Addressed. No data or report was shared regarding past accountability.	Denied

---

2. Analysis of the PIO’s Response (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

The PIO’s reply dated 17/10/2025 followed a “deflection strategy.” Instead of acting as an information provider, the PIO acted as a post office.

• The Flaw: Under the RTI Act, if the PIO does not hold the information, they must transfer the RTI under Section 6(3). Instead, the PIO simply gave a status update of a grievance, which is a different process altogether.
• The Result: The Appellant received a “process update” instead of “certified documents.”

---

3. Analysis of the FAA’s Order

The First Appellate Authority (Anjna Tripathi) had the legal duty to correct the PIO’s mistake. However, her order dated 03/12/2025 was a “Speaking Order” in name only.

• The Flaw: The FAA claimed that information was “already given” and directed the appellant to the Jansunwai Portal.
• The Legal Error: The Jansunwai Portal contains the outcome of a complaint (the report), whereas the RTI sought the authority (the laws/rules) behind that report. The FAA failed to distinguish between a service and a record.

---

4. The Core Conflict: The “Lekhpal” Question

The most critical part of this case is Point 3. In Uttar Pradesh, there is a growing concern that police complaints are being sent to Revenue officials (Lekhpals) for “disposal” to clear portal backlogs.

• Why this is hidden: If the CMO admits there is no such manual, the reports submitted by Lekhpals on police matters become legally void.
• The Concealment: By refusing to provide the manual, the CMO is effectively avoiding a confirmation that the current grievance redressal system might be operating outside of standard legal protocols.

---

5. Summary of the “Mockery” of RTI (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

The behavior of the PIO and FAA in this case constitutes a “Deemed Refusal.” By providing irrelevant information (grievance status) in place of relevant information (administrative records), they have created a hurdle that only the State Information Commission can now clear.

To ensure your records are complete and for public awareness, here is the structured list of all digital identifiers, contact points, and official links related to your case.

---

## 1. Key Application & Reference IDs (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

These IDs are essential for tracking your case across the different portals of the Uttar Pradesh Government.

• RTI Registration Number: DOCMO/R/2025/61124
• First Appeal Number: DOCMO/A/2025/60213
• Second Appeal Number: A-20251202449
• UPSIC Registration Number: UPICR20240009954
• Grievance Ref (The Root Cause): GOVUP/E/2025/0096028

---

## 2. Contact Directory (Respondents)

This information is used to serve notices and ensure the responsible officers are held accountable by the Commission.

Role	Name	Mobile Number	Email Address
PIO (Section Officer)	Vinod Sharma	9454412736	vsls32165@gmail.com
FAA (Under Secretary)	Anjna Tripathi	9454411282	anjna.11282@gov.in
Nodal Officer	Sanjay Chaturvedi	9454410972	sanjay.10972@gov.in

---

## 3. Official Web Links

These portals are where you can check the live status of your applications and appeals.

• UP RTI Online (Filing/Status): rtionline.up.gov.in
• State Information Commission (UPSIC): upsic.up.gov.in
• Jansunwai/IGRS Portal (Grievance): jansunwai.up.nic.in
• UP Second Appeal Tracking (CATS): upsic.up.gov.in/online_appeal_status

---

## 4. The Hierarchy of Accountability (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

The diagram below shows the legal path your application has traveled, highlighting how each level failed to provide the sought information, leading to the current Second Appeal.

---

## Summary of the “Sought vs. Provided” Conflict (Lekhpal’s Authority to Investigate Police)

• Sought: Internal staff names, monitoring officer details, and the Manual/Order giving a Lekhpal authority over Police conduct.
• Provided: A simple statement that the complaint was “forwarded” and a direction to check the Jansunwai portal.

The core of your Second Appeal is that a portal status is not a certified document and it does not answer the question of legal authority (Point 3).

Would you like me to help you set up an automated calendar reminder for when you should expect the first hearing notice from the Commission?