The following key takeaways summarise the core issues and strategic actions discussed in the blog post. This post covers important aspects of Procedural Games & RTI Act as they relate to the topic.

• Significant Statutory Delay: The PIO of EDD-II Mirzapur has failed to provide information for over 440 days. This is well beyond the 30-day mandate set by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.+1
• Falsification of Official Records: The appellant participated in the hearing on January 12, 2026. However, the Commission’s official order incorrectly recorded both parties as absent.+2
• Suppression of Evidence: The official order completely omitted the appellant’s Written Representation (KOF). It was submitted on January 11, 2026, under Reference No. 45D-110120260011.+1
• Strategic Use of RTI: To counter these procedural irregularities, the appellant filed a new RTI application (UPICM/R/2026/60101). He obtained digital attendance logs and order sheets from the Commission.
• Demand for Penalties: The appellant is seeking the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1). This is due to persistent non-compliance and “utter contempt” for previous directives. They are also pursuing disciplinary action under Section 20(2).+1
• Challenge to “Final Opportunity”: The appellant formally objects to the Commission. They have labeled the February 18, 2026, hearing as a “final opportunity.” He argues that he has been consistently active. Meanwhile, the PIO remains in default.

The Battle for Accountability: Procedural Games & RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 stands as a beacon of transparency; indeed, it was designed to empower citizens. Furthermore, it also holds public officials accountable. However, activists like Yogi M. P. Singh discover that administrative inertia is a major issue. Moreover, various procedural games tied to the RTI Act frequently block the journey toward transparency. His ongoing case against the Electricity Distribution Division (EDD-II), Mirzapur highlights systemic challenges. Consequently, these challenges occur when the Public Information Officer (PIO) does not uphold the letter of the law. Additionally, the State Information Commission also fails its oversight role.

---

1. The Genesis of the Dispute: A 440-Day Delay

This issue started on November 26, 2024. On that day, the appellant filed an RTI application. They sought information regarding administrative irregularities involving a Junior Engineer. Although Section 7(1) of the RTI Act mandates a response within 30 days, that deadline passed on December 26, 2024. As a result, as of February 18, 2026, over 440 days have passed. The requested 05 points of information have not been disclosed. This persistent denial highlights the problematic nature of procedural games within the RTI Act framework. It represents a significant violation of a statutory right rather than a mere delay.+4

2. The Burden of Proof: Section 19(5) ()Procedural Games & RTI Act

Section 19(5) remains a critical but often overlooked aspect of the RTI Act. This section explicitly states that the PIO who denied a request must prove that the denial was justified. In the case of Appeal No. S-09/A/1037/2025, the PIO has offered no “reasonable cause” for the delay. Therefore, if the PIO remains silent, the Commission must make a legal presumption. They must assume the obstruction is intentional and proceed with penal action. Notably, strategic procedural games associated with the RTI Act often make it harder for appeals to succeed.+3

3. The “Clever” Omission: Falsification of Hearing Records

The most troubling aspect of this case involves the official record-keeping of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. During a hearing on January 12, 2026, the appellant argued his case via an online link. Furthermore, he had submitted a Written Representation (KOF) the day prior under Reference No. 45D-110120260011. One should observe that procedural games entangled with the RTI Act can lead to legal record falsification. These procedural manipulations create opportunities for such falsification.+4

Despite these facts, the official order dated January 12, 2026, contains a startling claim:

Both parties are again absent” (उभयपक्ष पुनः अनुपस्थित हैं).+1

By recording the appellant as absent, the Commission effectively neutralized his arguments and, consequently, erased his participation from the legal record. This manoeuvre, therefore, shields the defaulting PIO by creating a false narrative of “non-prosecution.” Moreover, the interaction between procedural games and the RTI Act is evident here.

4. Administrative Contempt: Defying Commission Orders (Procedural Games & RTI Act)

The Respondent PIO has consistently ignored the Commission’s own orders. On November 12, 2025, and again on January 12, 2026, the Commission directed the PIO. They needed to provide the requested information. They also had to submit “Proof of Dispatch” (प्रेषण साक्ष्य). Nevertheless, recent representations show the PIO has treated these mandatory directives with “utter contempt”. He failed to provide any information or a disposal report by the February 18, 2026 deadline.+4

5. Counter-Strategizing: Using RTI to Guard RTI

The appellant made a strategic move to hold the Commission itself accountable. Consequently, they filed a new RTI application (Registration: UPICM/R/2026/60101) on February 18, 2026. He is seeking several key pieces of information. Specifically, these include the use of procedural games with the RTI Act. Indeed, both citizens and officials often use these to assert or guard their rights.

• Digital Attendance Logs: These will prove he logged into the hearing link on January 12.+1
• Order Sheets: These will verify the minutes that the Bench Clerk actually recorded.+1
• KOF Status: This will confirm that the Commission received his written submission before the hearing.+1

This is a unique irony. Indeed, a citizen must use the RTI Act against the Information Commission. Furthermore, this act is needed to prove that the Commission is misrepresenting its own proceedings. As demonstrated above, additionally, procedural games crafted around the RTI Act add complexity to the pursuit of accountability.

6. The Prayer for Penal Action: Section 20(1)

Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission is required to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. The total penalty can go up to ₹25,000 if a PIO malafidely denies information. Given the 440-day delay and repeated non-compliance, the appellant has formally requested:+1

1. The Maximum Penalty: A fine of ₹25,000 recovered from the PIO’s salary.
2. Disciplinary Action: A recommendation for action under Section 20(2) for persistent defiance.
3. Compensation: An award for mental harassment and expenses under Section 19(8)(b).

7. Conclusion: The “Final Opportunity” Fallacy

The Commission has labeled the hearing on February 18, 2026, as the “Final Opportunity” for the appellant. However, this designation is a procedural fallacy. While the appellant has participated consistently, the PIO is the one who repeatedly ignores “last opportunities” to comply.+2

The integrity of the RTI Act rests on the shoulders of the State Information Commissioners. When a record of a hearing is omitted or altered, it damages the democratic fabric of transparency. As this case continues in Room S-09, the focus remains clear: information is a right, and delay is a denial.

---

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

1. Case and Application Identifiers

• UP Information Commission Registration Number: A-20250301434.+3
• Appeal Number: S09/A/1037/2025.+3
• Original RTI Application Number: PUVNL/R/2024/60647.
• Written Representation (KOF) Reference: 45D-110120260011.+1
• New RTI Registration Number (against UPSIC): UPICM/R/2026/60101.+1
• UPSIC Diary Number: D-180220260003.

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Details (Procedural Games & RTI Act)

Authority	Name/Designation	Mobile/Phone	Email Address
EDD-II Mirzapur (PuVVNL)	Manish K Shrivastava (Executive Engineer)	Details not provided	ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
UP Information Commission	Mumtaz Ahmad (Administrative Officer)	915180XXXX	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in +1
Hearing Court S-09	Shakuntala Gautam (Commissioner)	9415021746 (Nodal Officer)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in +1

3. Web Links and Digital Access (Procedural Games & RTI Act)

• Online Hearing Link (Current): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/9188fa.
• Previous Hearing Link (Jan 12): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/335701.
• UP RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in.

4. Appellant Contact Information (Procedural Games & RTI Act)

• Name: Yogi M. P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh).+3
• Mobile: +91-7379105911.
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com.+1

Would you like me to prepare a “Log of Correspondence”? It would summarize every email and application sent to these authorities. This can be presented as evidence during your hearing.