Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding your RTI appeal. This appeal represents part of a broader Struggle for Transparency within public institutions.

• Long-Term Bureaucratic Delay: The case involves a significant timeline of inaction. It starts with an RTI application filed on November 4, 2024. The PIO ignored this application for over a year.
• Systemic Non-Compliance: The PIO did not meet the statutory deadline under Section 7(1). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also failed to meet their deadline under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
• Allegations of Shielding Corruption: A central issue is the non-cooperation of CMO Prayagraj. This non-cooperation involves CMS Bhadohi in an investigation into illegal private practice at a nursing home.
• Critical Information Suppressed: The department has withheld point-wise information on five specific areas, including the official tenure details of Dr. A.K. Shrivastava.
• Legal Recourse Demanded: The appellant submitted the Knowledge of Facts (KOF) on February 10, 2026. They are seeking maximum penalties under Section 20(1). They are also demanding disciplinary action under Section 20(2) against the responsible officers.
• Commission’s Final Directive: After multiple missed hearings, the Commission issued a mandate. They required a personal appearance for February 11, 2026. This step was taken to finally resolve the “Transparency Deficit”.

Struggle for Transparency: A Citizen Challenges Bureaucratic Apathy

Transparency serves as the bedrock of a healthy democracy. However, the reality on the ground often tells a different story. The RTI Act of 2005 aims to empower every citizen to hold the government accountable. Yet, Appeal No. S09/A/1350/2025 proves that “Transparency Deficits” still block the truth. This case now sits before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission in Lucknow. It reminds us how bureaucratic delays directly undermine the law. Indeed, this situation exemplifies the ongoing struggle for transparency in public administration.

---

Chronology of a Denial: A Year of Silence (Struggle for Transparency)

The journey began on November 4, 2024. The appellant sought five specific points regarding departmental conduct. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO must respond within 30 days. Instead, the PIO ignored this mandatory deadline. This silence forced the appellant to seek higher intervention in their ongoing struggle to secure transparency from officials.

The appellant filed a First Appeal on December 7, 2024. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to act on this appeal. This inaction established clear grounds for further legal escalation. Finally, the Commission registered a Second Appeal on January 17, 2025. Despite the Commission’s involvement, the department continued its pattern of evasion.

---

Core Issues: Shielding Malpractice

The appeal raises three critical concerns. The department currently refuses to address them, highlighting an ongoing struggle for better transparency in government practices.

1. Masking Medical Misconduct

The appellant seeks the “Action Taken Report” against Dr. Pradeep Kumar. Shri Jaichand Maurya filed the original complaint against this doctor. By withholding this report, the department hides potential medical negligence from the public. Transparency in these matters is essential for public safety and trust. This scenario highlights the struggle citizens encounter for transparency in healthcare oversight.

2. Obstruction by District Health Leadership (Struggle for Transparency)

The CMO of Prayagraj and CMS of Bhadohi reportedly blocked the investigation. The nursing home falls under the CMO Prayagraj’s jurisdiction. The appellant alleges these officials failed to cooperate with the inquiry. This failure suggests a mechanism designed to shield corruption within the health department. It clearly reflects the broader struggle for increased transparency.

3. Hiding Official Tenures

The RTI request demands exact tenure dates for Dr. A.K. Shrivastava. This includes his roles as Joint Director, Additional Director, and Director at DG Karmik. These details verify the legality of decisions made during his term. Withholding basic administrative data like tenure suggests a fear of public scrutiny. It shows that citizens must continue their struggle to achieve transparency in governance.

---

The Commission’s Intervention

Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam has presided over multiple hearings in Room S-9. The PIO consistently failed to provide the “point-wise information” ordered by the court. During the hearing on August 14, 2025, both parties remained absent. The Commissioner then issued fresh notices to ensure compliance as part of addressing the ongoing struggle for transparency.

The Commission noted that both parties were absent again on December 2, 2025. The Commissioner ordered the PIO to provide all five points of information. She warned that the Commission would decide the case on its merits if silence continued. The Commission finally mandated a personal appearance for February 11, 2026.

---

The Knowledge of Facts (KOF): The Final Argument

Frustrated by the PIO’s silence, the appellant submitted a detailed KOF on February 10, 2026. This document places legal violations firmly on the official record. The case tracking system confirms that the hearing officer received this submission. In addition, the KOF highlights the persistent struggle demanding full transparency from the involved department.

The KOF prays that the Commission:

• Invoke Section 20(1): Impose a daily penalty on the PIO for willful denial.
• Recommend Disciplinary Action: Act against the FAA for deliberate inaction.
• Compel Disclosure: Force the department to answer all 5 points immediately, thereby ending the ongoing struggle regarding transparency.
• Uphold Accountability: Ensure the department respects the spirit of the RTI Act.

---

Conclusion: A Test for the RTI Framework (Struggle for Transparency)

This case tests the efficacy of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. Senior officials must not ignore the human rights of citizens. Bureaucratic apathy cannot be allowed to undermine transparency. When the PIO ignores multiple notices, the Commission must act decisively. This is crucial in the context of this prolonged struggle for transparency.

The hearing takes place today, February 11, 2026. We wait to see if the Commission will penalize the erring officers. True democracy requires that the cost of hiding the truth becomes too high to pay. Clearly, the outcome will reveal the real impact of citizens’ struggle for transparency across all levels of government.

It appears there is a slight misunderstanding. The email addresses for the UP Information Commission and the Health Department (DGMH) are clearly listed in the records. This is based on the official notices and the submissions you provided.

Your hearing is today, February 11, 2026. Having these IDs and web links in one place will help you track compliance. You can also send your final “Knowledge of Facts” if necessary.

1. Public Authority & Commission Web Links

• UP Information Commission (UPIC):
• Directorate General of Medical and Health Services (DGMH):
• UPIC Case Status Tracker:

---

2. Official Email Addresses

• Commission Hearing Room S-9: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• PIO (Medical & Health Services): add.karmik@gmail.com
• Your Registered Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com

---

3. Application & Registration Identifiers

• Appeal Number: S09/A/1350/2025
• Registration Number: A-20250101421 (also listed as A-2025010112)
• KOF Submission ID: 112D-100220260077 (filed on 10/02/2026)
• Notice Number: 202601S09N300580

---

4. Respondent (PIO) Contact Details (Struggle for Transparency)

• Mobile Number: 9415087567
• Address: Public Information Officer, Office of the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, PIN: 226001