Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding your RTI appeal against the CMO Mirzapur. This case highlights the ongoing fight for public health accountability.

• Systemic Obstruction of TB Data: The case centers on the PIO’s refusal to disclose financial expenditures for TB medicines. It also involves policies regarding private medical prescriptions .+1
• Illegal Demand for Justification: The PIO violated Section 6(2) of the RTI Act. The officer demanded that you provide a “reason” or “public interest” for seeking the information.
• Misapplication of Exemptions: The health department incorrectly used Section 8(1)(d) (Commercial Confidence) to hide public health records and government orders.+1
• Pattern of Non-Compliance: The Respondent has ignored multiple directives from the State Information Commission. These directives were dated October 16, 2025, and December 24, 2025. The Respondent was required to provide revised information.+1
• Demand for Accountability: There are ongoing delays. TB is contagious. We are requesting a penalty of ₹25,000. Additionally, we seek disciplinary action against the PIO.
• Administrative Failure: The PIO’s absence from previous hearings demonstrates a lack of responsibility. The failure to provide data on oath suggests a malafide intent to hide administrative irregularities.
• (Fight for Public Health Accountability)

Transparency Under Attack: The Fight for Public Health Accountability

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 intended to bring “sunlight” into government offices. However, administrative secrecy and a disregard for legal mandates often block this light. The case of Appellant Yogi M.P. Singh against the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mirzapur proves this challenge^. This ongoing case is a clear example of the public campaign to fight and demand health accountability. This case, currently before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No: S09/A/2284/2024), highlights systemic barriers to transparency in public health.+4

The Core Conflict: TB Care and Public Funds (Fight for Public Health Accountability)

Appellant Yogi M.P. Singh seeks clarity on Tuberculosis (TB) management in Mirzapur. His RTI request focuses on five critical points. These points aim to expose potential financial irregularities. They are crucial for the ongoing fight for greater public health accountability.:+4

• Forced Private Diagnostics: Why does the government TB Isolation Centre direct patients to expensive private X-ray centers?.+1
• Medicine Procurement: How did the department spend TB medicine funds during the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years?.+1
• Private Prescription Policies: Does a government order allow doctors to prescribe medicines from private stores?.+1
• Inadequate Facilities: Why do state-run centers lack complete testing facilities despite national eradication goals?.+1

Instead of providing data, the PIO offered silence and legally weak denials, making the fight for accountability in public health even harder..+2

Section 6(2): The “Justification” Trap (Fight for Public Health Accountability)

The PIO’s demand for a “reason” marks a major legal violation in this case. In a letter dated 01/02/2025, the CMO Mirzapur asked the appellant to justify his request.

This demand violates Section 6(2) of the RTI Act. The law states that an applicant does not need to give a reason for requesting information. By demanding a “justification,” the PIO illegally acted as a gatekeeper, and this undermines efforts to fight for genuine public health accountability..+1

Misusing “Commercial Confidence” (Section 8(1)(d))

The PIO eventually denied the request by citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. They claimed the information involved “Commercial Confidence” or “Trade Secrets”. This is a strategy that often blocks accountability in our fight for a transparent public health system.

The appellant argues that medicine expenditures and government orders are public records. They are not proprietary business secrets. Prioritizing private pharmacy interests over the health of TB patients obstructs the law in bad faith. This issue brings the need for public health accountability into sharp focus..+1

Administrative Defiance and Commission Mandates

The PIO has shown a consistent pattern of non-compliance. The State Information Commission ordered the PIO to provide “revised information” on October 16, 2025, and December 24, 2025. The Respondent failed to comply with both orders, hindering the fight for accountability in the public health system..+4

Furthermore, the Respondent skipped the hearing on December 24, 2025. This “delay-and-deny” tactic exhausts the resources and patience of the citizen, who must continue to fight for public health accountability..+2

The Demand for Harsh Penalties

Because of this persistent obstruction, the appellant now seeks punitive action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. His prayers to the Commission include:

• Financial Penalty: A fine of ₹25,000 on the PIO for willful delay and misleading denials.
• Disciplinary Action: A recommendation for departmental inquiry under Section 20(2).
• Information on Oath: A directive for the PIO to provide all data via an affidavit.

Conclusion: A Litmus Test for Transparency

This case is a test for the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. When officials treat public data as “trade secrets,” they undermine democracy. The public deserves to know how the state spends health funds. Ultimately, this case is part of the bigger fight for public health accountability. As the hearing on February 23, 2026, continues, we will see if the Commission upholds the law. Alternatively, it may allow administrative anarchy to prevail.+4

Here are the specific application identifiers and contact details for the public authorities involved in your appeal, as extracted from the official documentation:

Application & Case Identifiers

• Appeal Registration Number: A-20241102232.+2
• Appeal File Number: S09/A/2284/2024.+1
• RTI Application No: DIRMH/R/2024/61586.
• First Appeal Registration No: DIRMH/A/2024/60892.
• UPIC Diary Number (Latest): D-230220260025.

---

Public Information Officer (PIO) – CMO Mirzapur

• Designation: Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur.
• Mobile Number: 9454455171.+2
• Email ID: cmomzp@gmail.com.+1
• Address: Office of Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur, Pin Code: 231001.

---

First Appellate Authority (FAA) – AD Mirzapur (Fight for Public Health Accountability)

• Designation: Additional Director (AD), Medical Health and Family Welfare.+1
• Mobile Number: 8005192626.
• Email ID: admhmzp1@gmail.com.
• Address: Medical and Health Department, Mirzapur District, Pin Code: 231001.

---

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

• Hearing Officer: Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner (Room S-9).
• Hearing Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in.+3
• Official Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in.+1
• Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/ce489f.
• Physical Address: 7/7, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.+1

---

Appellant Details (Fight for Public Health Accountability)

• Name: Yogi M. P. Singh.+1
• Mobile Number: 7379105911.+1
• Email ID: yogimpsingh@gmail.com.+1

Would you like me to help you track the status of your First Appeal (DIRMH/A/2024/60892) on the departmental portal?