## Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC: The Battle for Accountability in the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

Corruption and the Right to Reason in UPIC are central to the case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. PIO, Tehsildar Lalganj (Appeal No: S09/A/1948/2024). This case serves as a stark study in administrative obstruction and the systemic denial of constitutional property rights. This dispute is not merely about a land record entry from 2006. It is a battle against a “culture of silence.” The word “death” is weaponized to shield corrupt officials from the reach of the law. When institutions designed to deliver transparency become instruments of evasion, every citizen’s constitutional rights are at risk.

---

### 1. The Genesis of the Dispute: A Fraudulent Exclusion

On January 5, 2006, officials enforced an inheritance process over the appellant’s grandfather’s property. During this quasi-judicial process, they deliberately excluded Sadhana Tiwari, a Class-1 legal heir, from the records. They issued no written order. They recorded no reason. The exclusion was silent, swift, and — as the evidence now shows — entirely deliberate. (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

Under the Hindu Succession Act and the U.P. Revenue Code, a Class-1 heir holds an indefeasible right to property. Depriving a child of these rights requires a written, legally sound reason. Without it, there is not only a procedural lapse. It is also a direct violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This provision guarantees that the state cannot strip any person of their property without legal authority. Ignoring it is not a clerical error — it is a constitutional offence.

---

### 2. The Right to Reason in UPIC vs Administrative Evasion

The appellant’s primary demand is simple: Why did officials exclude the legal heir? Indeed, the Right to Reason in UPIC proceedings is not optional. In numerous judgments, the Supreme Court of India has emphasised this importance. It forms an indispensable part of any sound judicial and administrative system.

The PIO’s Defiant Stand (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded on April 1, 2026. They explicitly stated that the “Right to reason is… not provided” under the RTI Act, 2005. This stance flagrantly violates Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. That provision mandates that public authorities give reasons for their administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to all affected persons.

---

### 3. Weaponising “Death” to Escape Accountability

When pressed for details of the staff responsible for the 2006 entry, the Tehsildar’s office provided names. However, they strategically omitted all actionable data. (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

• The Deceased Shield: The PIO named Lekhpal Shiv Prasad Yadav, RI Surendra Agrahari, and Tehsildar Santosh Dubey. He stated they are “retired and dead”.
• Suppression of Service Records: The office withheld the Permanent Addresses, Tenure of Posting, and Retirement Dates of these individuals. As a result, it blocked the appellant from registering a First Information Report (FIR).
• The Missing Links: The PIO refused to identify the Supervisory Officers (Naib Tehsildar/SDM). The PIO also refused to identify the Office Clerks who monitored and processed the file. Instead, the PIO focused only on those who can no longer face questioning.

---

### 4. Evidence of Systemic Perjury

Moreover, the administrative rot extends into the appeal process itself. Rather than cooperating with the Information Commission, the office actively worked to obstruct it. The appellant documented a clear trail of procedural fraud: (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

1. False Disposal: On December 5, 2025, the PIO’s office recorded a fraudulent “Disposed” status in the tracking system.
2. The ConcThe Admission: Two weeks later, on December 19, 2025, the PIO appeared before the Commission. The PIO requested more time, citing “SIR work.”
4. The Conclusion: Taken together, these acts do not represent isolated lapses. Instead, they reveal a coordinated strategy to exhaust the appellant and bury the truth. Contradiction proves a consistent intent to mislead the Information Commission and delay justice.

---

### 5. The Supervisory Failure of the SDM and Tehsildar (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) supervises the Tehsildar, who serves as the administrative head. Notably, in a quasi-judicial process, the absence of a “speaking order” signals a total failure of monitoring. A “speaking order” is an order with stated reasons. Every quasi-judicial decision must trace back to a responsible officer. When officials break that chain of accountability, the supervisory hierarchy must answer for it. The current administration is avoiding the critical question: under whose oversight did this corruption occur? They fail to produce the Original Note Sheet and Mutation Case File. By doing so, they conceal protections given to the supervisory chain of command. This chain allowed a legal heir to be stripped of her rights.

### Conclusion: Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC — The Demand for Justice

These proceedings have evolved beyond a property dispute. They now call into question whether the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission will defend the RTI Act. The proceedings also question if the issue of “death” will be used as an excuse to avoid transparency. The Commission is at a critical crossroads. It must choose to uphold constitutional accountability and restore public trust. Alternatively, it could permit ongoing procedural abuses that shield systemic corruption. The institution’s credibility and future depend on this decision.

### Actionable Relief Sought: (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

Imposition of Maximum Penalty: The Commission must impose a fine of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1). This penalty is for the 400-day delay. It is also for the deliberate suppression of information.

Summoning of Archives: The Commission must order the production of the Original Service Books. They must also request the 2006 Mutation Files. This is necessary to extract addresses for an FIR.

Directed Disclosure: A mandatory order requires the office to identify all supervisory officers. This includes the Naib Tehsildar and SDM. They oversaw the 2006 mutation process. This addresses an FIR.

• Accountability for Perjury: The Commission must initiate disciplinary action against the PIO for providing false “Disposed” statuses.

Almost two decades of delay have denied justice. Corruption and the refusal to honour the Right to Reason within UPIC undermine constitutional rights and public trust. The Commission’s decisive action is now required to uphold the law, restore justice for the appellant, and reestablish accountability.

Based on the documents and portal snapshots provided, here are the specific identification and contact details for the public authorities and officials involved in your case:

1. Case and Application Identification

• Appeal Number: S09/A/1948/2024
• Registration Number: A-20241002356
• Notice Number: 202603509N300092
• UPIC Diary Number (Latest Rebuttal): D-060420260006

---

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) Contact Details (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

The current PIO is identified as Tarun Pratap Singh (previously represented by Tehsildar Diksha).

• Office Address: Public Information Officer, Office of Tehsildar, Lalganj, District-Mirzapur, PIN-231001
• Mobile Number: 9454416818
• Official Email Address: teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
• Other Related Emails (CC’d in correspondence):
  • SDM Lalganj: sdm-Lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
  • DM Mirzapur: dmmir@nic.in
  • Invalid/Failed Email: teh-lalganj.mi@gmail.com (Address not found/non-existent)

---

3. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission Details (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

• Commission Address: 7/7/A, RTI Bhavan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
• Hearing Room: S-9 (Court of Smt. Shakuntala Gautam)
• Official Hearing Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• Departmental Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/

---

4. Web Links for Case Tracking and Hearings (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

• Case Status/Registration Link: www.upsic.up.gov.in (Use Registration Number A-20241002356)
• Specific Online Hearing Link (for 06/04/2026): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/b53b04

---

5. Other Concerned Individuals (Respondents) (Corruption & Right to Reason in UPIC)

• Representative for Hearing: Sri Vidya Shankar Maurya (Lekhpal, Tehsil Lalganj)
• Presiding Officer (Commission): Shivam Rawat
• Link State Information Commissioner: Rajendra Singh