Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the legal and administrative struggle of Shri Yogi M.P. Singh specially against atrocity of police:

1. Core Land Dispute and Police Interference objected by Yogi

• The conflict involves Plot No. 220 (0.6110 hectares) in Village Saraijeet Rai, Mauaima.
• For five years, local police at P.S. Mauaima have blocked the appellant’s efforts to repair a collapsed roof.
• Police claim they cannot act due to a pending civil suit, Case No. 3853/2022, despite the absence of a formal court stay or injunction.

2. Disregard for Administrative Orders by police raised by Yogi

• On June 23, 2025, the SDM of Phoolpur ordered the police to take action regarding the construction.
• A Lekhpal report from June 22, 2025, explicitly confirmed that no judicial stay order existed for the property.
• The police have allegedly ignored these directives, claiming the SDM’s order was not found in their records.

3. Legal Grounds for Accountability (Yogi)

• The appellant is utilizing Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. This section requires authorities to provide specific “reasons” for administrative decisions. It also applies to instances of silence.
• The appellant argues that the PIO is providing misleading information. The PIO uses the “sub-judice” status of the land as an excuse not to answer for administrative failures.

4. Human Rights and Discrimination raised by Yogi

• The obstruction has forced the family to perform sacred funeral rites under the open sky four times. The appellant cites this as a violation of Articles 21 and 25 (Right to Dignity and Religion).
• The appellant alleges Selective Enforcement (Article 14). He claims police stopped his construction. Meanwhile, other stakeholders on the same plot were allowed to build permanent structures.

5. Demands Before the Information Commission

• The appellant seeks the name of the specific officer responsible for ignoring the SDM’s order.
• He is asking the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO. This is under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The request is due to providing evasive and delayed information.

Would you like me to focus on the specific legal arguments regarding Section 4(1)(d) for your upcoming hearing?

Administrative Silence and Human Rights: The 5-Year Struggle of Yogi M.P. Singh

This post examines the intense legal battle between Shri Yogi M.P. Singh and the Prayagraj Police Commissionerate. It explores the vital intersection of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This involves administrative accountability. It also pertains to the fundamental right to live with dignity.

---

The Core Conflict: Plot No. 220 and Police Inaction

A property dispute regarding Arazi No. 220 (area 0.6110 hectares) in Village Saraijeet Rai, Mauaima sits at the heart of this case. For five years, Yogi M.P. Singh has struggled to repair a collapsed roof on his ancestral land. However, local officers at P.S. Mauaima consistently block his efforts.

The police justify their interference by citing a pending civil suit, Case No. 3853/2022. Yet, the appellant argues that the police are overstepping. They are acting as a “Parallel Court” because no formal judicial injunction exists to stop the work.

---

The SDM’s Order: A Directive Ignored

A critical turning point occurred on June 23, 2025. On that day, the SDM of Phoolpur ordered the police to take necessary action regarding the construction. Furthermore, a Lekhpal report from June 22, 2025, confirmed that no stay order existed for the property.

Despite this clear command, the police did not protect the construction. In RTI proceedings, the Public Information Officer (PIO) even claimed the station records did not contain the SDM’s letter. Consequently, the appellant views this as an evasive tactic to hide negligence.

---

Legal Ground: Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act

The appellant bases his legal strategy on Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. This law mandates that authorities must provide reasons for their administrative decisions to affected citizens.

Currently, the appellant demands answers to two vital questions:

• Why did the police ignore the SDM’s direct order?
• Which specific officer decided to stay silent on the directive?

The PIO repeatedly cites the “sub-judice” status of the land dispute. However, the appellant calls this a “deliberate attempt to mislead” the Commission. He seeks an Action Taken Report (ATR) on the administrative order, not a judgment on the land title.

---

Human Rights: Rites Under the Open Sky

The most painful part of this case involves human rights violations. The appellant has informed the State Information Commission and the NHRC of a tragic reality. Because police blocked his construction, his family has performed sacred funeral rites under the open sky four times.

This situation violates two fundamental rights:

• Article 21: The Right to Life and Dignity.
• Article 25: The Right to Freedom of Religion.

---

Selective Enforcement and Article 14 (Yogi)

In addition to these issues, the appellant alleges Selective Enforcement. He claims that while police stopped his work, they allowed other stakeholders on Plot 220 to build permanent houses. Therefore, he argues this “Pick and Choose” policy violates the Right to Equality (Article 14).

---

Current Status: The Commission’s Review

State Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam presided over the hearing on February 11, 2026. The appellant (Appeal No: S-09/A/2249/2025) has filed a formal rejoinder to challenge the PIO’s claims.

Specifically, the appellant asks the Commission to:

1. Reject the PIO’s “sub-judice” excuse for administrative silence.
2. Force the PIO to name the officer who ignored the SDM’s order.
3. Impose a penalty under Section 20(1) for misleading information.

Timeline Summary

Date	Event
22/06/2025	Lekhpal reports that no court stay exists on Plot 220.
23/06/2025	SDM Phoolpur directs police to take action.
30/07/2025	PIO uploads the initial response to the RTI portal.
01/12/2025	SIC directs the PIO to provide point-wise information.
20/01/2026	ACP Phoolpur resends the report citing the civil suit.
11/02/2026	The Commission reviews the appellant’s formal rejoinder.

Conclusion: The Demand for Accountability

The case of Yogi M.P. Singh proves that the RTI Act is more than just paperwork. It is a tool to uncover the reasons behind government inaction. When silence hurts a citizen’s dignity, the struggle becomes a fight for constitutional justice.

The final decision will show how strictly the Commission enforces Section 4(1)(d). It will determine if police can continue to use pending litigation to avoid direct accountability.

Based on the documents provided, here are the specific application identifiers, contact details, and web links for the public authorities involved in your case:

Application & Case Identifiers

• SIC Appeal Number: S-09/A/2249/2025.
• SIC Registration Number: A-20251000262.
• RTI Registration Number (Recent): SSPPY/R/2026/60014.
• RTI Registration Number (Previous): SSPPY/R/2025/60508.
• SIC Notice Number: 202601S09N200404.
• Civil Court Case Number: 3853/2022 (Additional Civil Judge Room No. 8, Allahabad).

---

Contact Details for Public Authorities

Authority / Office	Mobile / Phone	Email Address
State Information Commission (Room S-09)	Not provided	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
Nodal Officer (RTI), CP Prayagraj	9454401015	adlspgangaparaldpolice@gmail.com
ACP Phoolpur (Umesh Sharma/Vivek Yadav)	7985007310	co-phoolpur.ah@nic.in
Assistant Commissioner (Other)	Not provided	acfirstprg123@gmail.com
Commissioner (Prayagraj)	Not provided	commall@nic.in

---

Official Web Links

• UP State Information Commission Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/.
• Online Hearing Link (S-09): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/8cbe45.
• Case Status Tracking: www.upsic.up.gov.in (using your registration number).