Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the Lions Club land scandal: (Lions Club Land Scandal)

• Financial Disparity: The State Government leased 62,606 square feet of prime urban land. This land is worth millions of rupees. It was leased to a private club for a nominal fee of only ₹50 per year.
• Breach of Agreement: The original 1980 lease required a public “Children’s Garden.” However, the land now hosts a private commercial school. This school charges high admission fees.
• Bypassing Local Authority: The Municipality Board of Mirzapur officially voted to cancel the lease. However, the state-level Urban Development Department (Section-6) unilaterally overruled them. They extended the lease until 2040.
• Bureaucratic Evasion: The Public Information Officer (PIO) in Lucknow delayed the RTI process for 177 days. Then, it was transferred to the district level. The appellant calls this a “circular accountability gap” to hide state-level file notings.
• Demand for Penalties: The appellant is seeking the maximum statutory penalty of ₹25,000. This is against PIO Shri Ravindra Singh for deliberate obstruction. It also includes withholding of the 5 specific points of information.

Lions Club Land Scandal: State Power vs. Local Autonomy

The fight for transparency in Uttar Pradesh has reached a boiling point in Mirzapur. A prime urban land parcel of 62,606 square feet sits at the centre of a massive financial controversy. The Lions Club Land Scandal is unfolding in public view. Currently, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is hearing this case under Appeal No. S-09/A/1383/2025. This scandal reveals a disturbing trend. Specifically, state-level bureaucrats are allegedly overriding local decisions to favour private interests.

---

The Scandal: A Multi-Crore Asset for ₹50 (Lions Club Land Scandal)

The financial gap in this case is shocking. First, the state leased public land worth millions of rupees to the Lions Club for a tiny fee at the heart of the Lions Club Land Scandal. They set this nominal rent at just ₹50 per year.

Originally, the government granted this 30-year lease in 1980 for a social purpose. The agreement required the club to build a Shishu Udyan (Children’s Garden). It also required building a school for the children of low income people. However, the current reality looks very different:

• Commercialisation: No public garden exists on the site today.
• High Fees: The Lions School now operates as a commercial business. It charges high tuition and admission fees from students.
• Illegal Extension: The original lease expired in 2010. Despite documented violations, the state government extended the lease until 2040 at the same cheap price. It is worth noting that this extension is a central part of the ongoing Lions Club Land Scandal.

---

The Death of Local Autonomy (Lions Club Land Scandal)

This scandal highlights the systematic bypass of the Municipality Board of Mirzapur City. As the rightful owner of the land, the Board passed several resolutions to cancel the lease. They wanted to reclaim the property. The club breached the agreement. This breach is a focal issue in the Lions Club Land Scandal.

In response, the Nagar Vikas Vibhag (Section-6) in Lucknow intervened. The department unilaterally overruled the local board’s decision. Consequently, this action directly challenged the “autonomy” of local bodies guaranteed by the 74th Constitutional Amendment. These events are closely connected to what is now widely referred to as the Lions Club Land Scandal.

---

Evasion through RTI Transfers 9Lions Club Land Scandal)

The state has used a “bureaucratic ping-pong” strategy to hide the truth. When the appellant filed RTI requests, the PIO employed several evasive tactics. Clearly, evasion has become a defining feature in how the authorities handle the Lions Club Land Scandal.

• Statutory Delay: The PIO ignored the RTI application filed on 02/02/2025 for nearly six months.
• The 177-Day Gap: The PIO waited until 29/08/2025 to transfer the request. This delay lasted 177 days past the legal deadline.
• Misdirection: The state transferred the matter to the Mirzapur District Magistrate. However, district officials do not hold the Secretariat file notings. Only the Lucknow office knows why the state overruled the local board. This reason is a crucial aspect of the Lions Club Land Scandal.

---

The Demand for Justice

The Appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, is now asking the Commission to punish this obstruction. Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission can fine a PIO up to ₹25,000 for such delays^. On the subject of the Lions Club Land Scandal, the demand for accountability has never been more urgent.

The core demands include:

1. Immediate Disclosure: The Commission should order the Lucknow Secretariat to release the original files. These files contain the rationale for bypassing the Mirzapur Municipality, directly related to the Lions Club Land Scandal.
2. Impose Penalties: The Commission must hold PIO Shri Ravindra Singh accountable for the 177-day delay. Such delays further complicate the Lions Club Land Scandal.
3. End the Evasion: The Commission should reject the transfer to the district office. This transfer was a tactical move to hide information held in Lucknow. It is emblematic of the evasive actions typical in the Lions Club Land Scandal.

Conclusion: A Test for Transparency

The Lions School lease scandal is a major test for the Rule of Law in Uttar Pradesh. A state department should not give away public assets for the price of a cup of tea. Only transparency can cure such actions. The Lions Club Land Scandal serves as a cautionary tale. Such actions undermine public trust.

The State Information Commission will hear this matter today, February 11, 2026. The public is watching. Will the state continue to shield this scandal, or will the truth finally emerge regarding the Lions Club Land Scandal?

---

Case Identifiers:

• Appeal No: S-09/A/1383/2025
• Registration No: A-20250600374
• Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh

The following information is crucial. It includes the contact details and application identifiers for the public authorities involved in your case. This is based on the provided documents and official records.

1. State Government Authority (Respondent)

The primary respondent is the State Government office in Lucknow, which is allegedly withholding the decision-making files.

• Office Name: NAGAR VIKAS VIBHAG ANUBHAG 6 (Urban Development Department, Section 6)
• Public Information Officer (PIO): Pankaj Kumar Singh (Section Officer)
• Alternate PIO/Under Secretary: Ravindra Singh (NV-6)
• Mobile Number: 9454419927
• Email Address: nagarvikassection6@gmail.com
• Address: Public Information Officer Office, NAGAR VIKAS VIBHAG ANUBHAG 6, Lucknow, PIN: 226001

2. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Adjudicating Body)

This is the commission currently hearing your second appeal.

• Presiding Commissioner: Smt. Shakuntala Gautam (State Information Commissioner)
• Hearing Room: S-09
• Official Email (Room S-09): hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• General Commission Phone: 0522-2724930
• Web Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

3. Local Public Authority (Transfer Office)

The PIO in Lucknow transferred your application to this district-level office. You have formally objected to this transfer as an act of evasion.

• Public Authority: District Magistrate Office, Mirzapur
• District Magistrate: Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (I.A.S.)
• DM Mobile: 9454417567
• DM Email: dmmir@nic.in
• Local PIO: Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur

4. Case Identifiers & Online Links

Use these numbers to track your case on the official RTI and UPSIC portals.

• Appeal Number: S-09/A/1383/2025
• Appeal Tracking System (CATS) ID: A-20250600374
• Original RTI Registration: DOUDV/R/2025/60046
• Transferred RTI Registration: DMOMR/R/2025/80069
• Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/8cbe45

Would you like me to assist you? I can help track the latest status of the transferred registration number (DMOMR/R/2025/80069) on the state RTI portal.