The Lions Club Lease Scandal: How a ₹50 Land Deal Exposed Administrative Evasion and the Fight for RTI Accountability

The Lions Club Lease Scandal has thrust Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, into the centre of a major legal battle — one that exposes deep tensions between local governance, state authority, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. At the heart of this controversy is a multi-million rupee plot of public land, leased for a mere ₹50 per annum. Appellant Yogi M.P. Singh stands firm, refusing to let statutory deadlines go ignored.

The Lions Club Lease Scandal is currently under review by the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No: S09/A/1383/2025). As a result, it serves as a stark reminder of how “jurisdictional ping-pong” can be used deliberately to obstruct transparency. To better understand the complexities involved, it is necessary to examine the origins of the dispute.

---

1. The Lions Club Lease Scandal: Land, Leisure, and Alleged. The Lions Club Lease Scandal began with a land lease granted to the Lions Club in Mirzapur City. The land was originally meant to become a public garden for local children, but it remains undeveloped decades later. Instead, serious allegations of unauthorised commercial activities have emerged on the site.

The “Nominal” Problem
The most striking fact is the financial arrangement: valuable public land was leased for only ₹50 per year. The Municipality Board recognised lease breaches and a lack of public benefit, prompting a resolution to cancel the lease.

State Intervention
In a move that the appellant characterises as “arbitrary and unconstitutional,” the Government of Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Vikas Vibhag) allegedly overruled the local municipality’s decision. Rather than reclaiming the land for public use, the state took the opposite course. Instead, it extended the lease for another 30 years, effective until 2040.

---

2. The RTI Battle: Breaking the “Circular Accountability Gap”

Seeking to understand the rationale behind this extension, Yogi M.P. Singh filed an RTI application on February 2, 2025. Specifically, he requested five distinct points of information. These included the lease extension copy, file notings, and, most critically, the justification for overruling the local municipality. class in administrative delay:

• Step 1: The applicant submits an RTI request; the PIO has 30 days to respond. In this case, the PIO failed to reply within the required 30-day window. (Lions Club Lease Scandal)
• Step 2: After missing the deadline, the PIO in Lucknow took almost 6 months—specifically 177 days—to act. Rather than addressing the RTI, the PIO transferred the request to the district office in Mirzapur, which is not standard procedure if the records are at the state level.
• Step 3: The applicant, receiving no satisfactory reply, filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA is required under the RTI Act to address the first appeal, but in this case, it did neither, thereby violating Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.

---

3. Jurisdictional Evasion: The “Ping-Pong” Tactic

A key theme is the appellant’s rejection of the PIO’s attempt to transfer the case to Mirzapur, a common tactic in complex RTI cases that shifts responsibility to offices without the required records.

Why Lucknow is the Sole Custodian (Lions Club Lease Scandal)
The appellant contends the decision to overrule Mirzapur Municipality was made by Nagar Vikas Vibhag at the state level. Thus, only the Lucknow Secretariat holds the relevant ministerial notings and approvals; district offices cannot provide them.

Transferring the request to a district office lacking access to state secretariat files is problematic: the appellant calls this ‘intentional misdirection’ and a tactic to hide information.

---

4. Statutory Violations and the Demand for Penalties

Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission has the power to impose penalties on PIOs who withhold information without reasonable cause. Given this provision, the appellant has made a forceful prayer for the maximum statutory penalty against the Lucknow PIO for the egregious 177-day delay. The Lions Club Lease Scandal makes clear that the fight is not just about land — it is about the integrity of the RTI process itself. When a PIO ignores a deadline by nearly half a year, that alone is a serious violation. Furthermore, when that same PIO attempts to transfer the burden to a subordinate office, it undermines the very foundation of the Act.

---

5. The Road Ahead: The April 8, 2026 Hearing

State Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam has responded firmly, addressing the repeated absence of the PIO and issuing a clear directive: (Lions Club Lease Scandal)

1. Direct Disclosure: The PIO must provide clear, point-wise information to the appellant before the next hearing.
2. Personal Appearance: Both the appellant and the PIO are required to be present in Hearing Room S-9 on April 8, 2026.
3. Written Statements: The Commission has already received the appellant’s “Knowledge of Facts” (KOF) and forwarded them to the hearing officer for review.

---

Conclusion: The Lions Club Lease Scandal as a Litmus Test for Transparency

The Lions Club Lease Scandal is far more than a local land dispute. It is a litmus test for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission’s ability to hold high-level state departments accountable and uphold the promise of transparent governance.

If the State Government can unilaterally overrule local autonomous bodies to grant multi-million rupee favours for ₹50 — as alleged in the Lions Club Lease Scandal — the public has a fundamental right to see the “why” and “how” behind that decision. Indeed, such decisions cannot go unscrutinised. Therefore, as the hearing on April 8, 2026 commences, all eyes are on the Commission. Ultimately, the question is whether it will quash the misdirection and compel the transparency that the RTI Act promises.

• Document every delay: Use timelines of statutory defaults to build a case for penalties under Section 20.
• Highlight Public Interest: Cases involving the use of public land for nominal fees carry a high degree of public interest, which can strengthen an appeal.

Based on the provided documents, here are the identification and contact details for the parties involved in the second appeal:

Application and Case IDs (Lions Club Lease Scandal)

• Appeal Number: S09/A/1383/2025
• Appeal Registration Number: A-20250600374
• RTI Application Registration Number: DOUDV/R/2025/60046
• Notice Number: 202603S09N300294
• Diary Numbers: D-110220260027 and D-070420260119

Concerned Public Authority (Respondent) (Lions Club Lease Scandal)

Public Information Officer (PIO), Nagar Vikas Vibhag (Section-6)

• Officer Name: Ambrish Kumar Srivastava
• Address: Office of the Public Information Officer, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Anubhag-6, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, PIN – 226001
• Mobile Number: 9454419927
• Email: nagarvikassection6@gmail.com

Appellate Authority Information (Lions Club Lease Scandal)

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

• Address: 7/7/A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
• Hearing Officer: Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner (Room S-9)
• Official Email for Submissions: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• Official Web Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/

Appellant Contact Details (Lions Club Lease Scandal)

Yogi M. P. Singh

• Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City, District – Mirzapur, PIN – 231001
• Mobile Number: 7379105911
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com