Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA shows that LDA has no belief in set up norms. Not only did LDA overlook the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow, but it also disregarded its FAA, the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission, and the Chief Secretary Office of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This blatant disregard for established protocols raises significant concerns about the operational integrity of the LDA. It appears that the organization is dismissing essential oversight mechanisms designed to protect citizens’ rights and ensure governmental accountability. Consequently, such actions can lead to a breakdown of trust within the community, as stakeholders may feel that their voices are not heard. Furthermore, this negligence undermines the authority of key institutions meant to provide checks and balances, ultimately affecting the implementation of human rights advocacy within the region.

Gross Administrative Apathy: Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA Under Fire in the State Information Commission

Introduction: Administrative Transparency vs Bureaucratic Obstinacy

The Parliament enacted the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 to ensure accountability and eradicate corruption. It designed this law to empower ordinary citizens within a democratic setup. However, a severe blow hits democratic governance when a public authority ignores the law. Bureaucratic hithermore worsens when an agency defies its own departmental senior rank staff and the State Information Commission.

Currently, a glaring instance of such bureaucratic resistance unfolds before the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi. The case proceeds in Hearing Room S-5 under Second Appeal No: S05/A/0296/2025 (Registration No: A-20250300831). Furthermore, this case stands as a classic example of systemic friction involving the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA. Specifically, it highlights how Public Information Officers (PIOs) deliberately obfuscate plain queries. They systematically mislead information seekers and suppress vital communications originating from the highest offices of the nation.

1. The Core Dispute and the Original RTI Reference

The roots of this administrative battle date back to June 2022. At that time, the President’s Secretariat forwarded a high-priority grievance to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, on June 9, 2022, the Chief Secretary’s Office transmitted this reference via email to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Significantly, the grievance contained a serious allegation. It stated that, despite clear directives, the LDA failed to comply with the 2021 statutory mandates of the U.P. Human Rights Commission (UPHRC). This failure, therefore, effectively made a mockery of the human rights apparatus.

To bring this systemic failure to light, the RTI applicant (Yogi M. P. Singh) therefore filed an online RTI application on November 5, 2024 (Registration No: LKDPA/R/2024/60706). Specifically, he sought precise, point-wise details regarding the tracking of that electronic reference within the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA operational ecosystem:

• First, he demanded the name and designation of the LDA official who received the email communication from the Chief Secretary’s Office.
• Second, he requested the official file notings that the accountable public staff of the LDA made on this presidential reference.
• Third, he asked for the names and designations of the public servants who processed this specific file.
• Fourth, he sought the Action Taken Report (ATR) that the LDA compiled regarding the underlying human rights complaint.
• Finally, he questioned the specific administrative reason for failing to intimate the applicant about the action taken. This was especially relevant since His Excellency the President’s Secretariat gave explicit orders to do so.

2. Flaunting the Directives of the First Appellate Authority

Because the PIO failed to deliver any information within the mandatory 30-day statutory window, the applicant preferred a First Appeal on December 8, 2024.

Subsequently, on January 16, 2025, the Additional Secretary acting as the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the LDA passed a conclusive order in Appeal No. LKDPA/A/2025/60262. In this order, the FAA explicitly recorded a damning fact. He noted that the PIO had absolutely no documentary proof or record on file to indicate the dispatch of any information to the applicant. Therefore, the FAA ordered the PIO (Shri Atul Krishna, Deputy Secretary) to provide clear, permissible information within 15 days.

Astoundingly, the PIO chose to treat his own senior departmental superior’s lawful command with absolute disregard. As a result, he set up a major conflict. This deadlock eventually required the intervention of both the Commission and the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA.

3. The Central Issue: Information vs Investigation

As the case escalated to the Second Appeal stage before the State Information Commission, the LDA resorted to classic diversionary tactics. For instance, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) of the LDA issued a letter dated January 20, 2026 (Letter No: 562/SO(P)/OSD/2026). This letter claimed that the department had constituted an internal inquiry committee to probe plot allotments under the Kanpur Road Scheme. Moreover, the OSD took the plea that because the concerned parties were not appearing before the committee with their original documents, the probe was stuck. Hence, they could not finalise the information.

However, this argument brings us to the core legal conflict of the entire matter handled between the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA. Under the RTI Act, ‘Information’ refers to existing records, files, data, and notings that a public authority currently holds. The applicant never demanded the final findings or a progress report of a freshly minted internal “inquiry committee”. On the contrary, he demanded the historical file notings and the names of the staff who sat on the Presidential reference back in June 2022. Ultimately, using a pending internal probe as a shield to deny static administrative records constitutes a colourable exercise of power. In addition, it is a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the law.

4. The State Information Commission Intervenes with a Show-Cause Notice

Taking strong exception to this evasive and obstructive strategy, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi, slammed the LDA’s approach during the hearing on April 22, 2026. Specifically, the Commission observed that the PIO had either failed to provide the information within the mandated timeframe. Alternatively, he had knowingly supplied false, incomplete, and highly misleading replies.

Consequently, the Commission ruled that such behaviour fits the criteria for penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005. Before imposing a financial penalty, the Commission issued a strict Show-Cause Notice to the PIO. They ordered him to appear and justify why he should not face penalties for obstructing justice.

5. Directives from the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA Apathy

Recognising the depth of administrative friction, the Information Commission directed the Divisional Commissioner of Lucknow to intervene administratively. Complying with the Commission’s mandate, the Office of the Divisional Commissioner issued a stern executive order via Letter No: 2832/Jan-Soochana-140/2025-26 on May 30, 2026.

Through this letter, Administrative Officer Piyush Kumar Gupta directed the Deputy Secretary/PIO of the LDA to ensure immediate compliance with the Commission’s April 22 order and report back to the Commissioner’s office immediately. Furthermore, the letter mandated that a competent officer must ensure strict pairvi during the upcoming hearing on July 1, 2026.

Yet, in a shocking display of insubordination highlighting the gap between the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA, the PIO ignored even the direct intervention of the Divisional Commissioner. As a result, the information seeker remained completely empty-handed as of the end of June 2026.

Conclusion: A Fit Case for Maximum Penalty and Disciplinary Action

This narrative lays bare the institutional decay that occurs when individual public servants choose to weaponise delays against the public interest. On the night of June 30, 2026, the applicant successfully submitted his final Written Representation under Diary Number D-300620260083. This document has reached the presiding officer’s desk.

Therefore, the stage is now set for the Hon’ble State Information Commission to crack down on this blatant defiance involving the Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA. To preserve the majesty of the RTI Act, the Commission must reject any further boilerplate status reports from the LDA. Instead, it should impose the maximum statutory penalty of ₹25,000 on the PIO under Section 20(1) from his personal salary. Additionally, it should recommend formal disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2). Unless the Commission enforces individual financial and professional accountability, high-priority references from the highest offices of the land will continue to sit under bureaucratic red tape.

Here are the specific Application IDs, contact details, email addresses, mobile numbers, and official web link details for the concerned public authorities involved in your case:

1. Application & Case Identification Details (Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA)

• RTI Original Application ID: LKDPA/R/2024/60706 (Filing Date: 05/11/2024) PDF+ 1
• First Appeal Registration ID: LKDPA/A/2025/60262 (referred to in systems as LKDPA/A/2024/60262) PDF
• UPIC Second Appeal Number: S05/A/0296/2025 PDF+ 1
• UPIC Registration Number: A-20250300831 PDF+ 1
• Latest Citizen Rejoinder Diary ID: 178D-300620260083 / D-300620260083 (Filed on 30/06/2026) PDF
• Chief Secretary Tracking Reference: 1772/मु०स०/सू०काअ०अ०/2024

2. Contact Directory of Concerned Public Authorities (Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA)

Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)

• Concerned PIO / Deputy Secretary: Shri Atul Krishna Singh PDF+ 1
• PIO Mobile Number: +91-9918001893 PDF+ 1
• PIO Emails: raz.9125@gmail.com / ldartionline@gmail.com PDF+ 3
• LDA Official Authority Email: contactusida22@gmail.com
• First Appellate Authority (FAA) / Additional Secretary: Shri Gyanendra Verma (Mobile: 9918001927)
• Official Web Link: https://www.ldalucknow.in

Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow (Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA)

• Issuing Officer: Shri Piyush Kumar Gupta (Administrative Officer / PIO for Commissioner) PDF+ 1
• Official Office Email: commluc@nic.in
• Official Web Link: http://lucknow.nic.in

Chief Secretary Office, Government of Uttar Pradesh (Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA)

• Official Office Email: csup@nic.in PDF
• Official Web Link: https://up.gov.in

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) (Divisional Commissioner Lucknow & LDA)

• Presiding Court Room S-5 Email: hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in PDF+ 1
• Official R.T.I. E-Portal Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in