Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur: Inside an RTI Fight Over Electricity Theft Notices

Explore the ongoing dispute surrounding Section 135 misuse and its implications for Executive Engineer Mirzapur. This contentious issue has consequently sparked significant debate among stakeholders, revealing, in fact, a deeper narrative of accountability and transparency in public service. Moreover, the allegations of misuse of authority raise serious concerns about the integrity of governance and its impact on the local community. Furthermore, uncover the truth behind the obstruction of Right to Information (RTI) requests, which has unfortunately hindered efforts to seek clarity and justice in these matters. As citizens passionately fight for their rights to access information, the need for vigilance and reform in administrative practices becomes increasingly evident. Ultimately, understanding the nuances of this case is essential for advocating for more robust mechanisms that not only uphold democratic principles but also promote ethical conduct in public office.

Introduction

Section 135 misused and Executive Engineer Mirzapur — these two phrases sit at the heart of a two-year-old dispute. Currently, the case is pending before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 exists to make public authorities accountable to citizens; however, nearly two years after a routine electricity inspection in a small Mirzapur village, this case tells a different story. Specifically, it illustrates how the office of the Executive Engineer, Mirzapur, allegedly used a technical excuse, provided selective answers, and relied on verbal assurances instead of proper documentation. The applicant posed a straightforward question: did officials misuse Section 135 against the wrong individuals while the actual defaulter’s connection remained untouched? This post meticulously walks through the core issues in Appeal No. S09/A/1037/2025, ultimately examining what RTI obstruction looks like when it intersects with an allegation of Section 135 misuse.

How It Started: An Inspection and Two Notices Under Section 135

The story begins on 26 October 2024. A Junior Engineer from the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, subsequently conducted a checking exercise at a residential premises in Dugauli. Following this, officials then issued a provisional assessment notice alleging electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Crucially, they did not issue it against the person whose name appears on the property’s active electricity connection. Instead, they served it on two other residents of the same premises.

This is precisely where the allegation of Section 135 misused by the department takes shape. Accordingly, the applicant filed an RTI application on 26 November 2024 to get to the bottom of it. He specifically sought five distinct pieces of information: details of the actual connection holder’s account, any connection registered in his wife’s name, his outstanding dues, whether his connection was ever legally disconnected, and the posting history of the inspecting engineer. Ultimately, the goal was simple; he wanted official records to demonstrate whether authorities had, in fact, targeted the wrong people under Section 135 while the actual defaulting consumer’s connection remained untouched.

The Recurring Excuse: “We Need a Connection Number”

For over a year, the Public Information Officer at the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, consistently provided the same standard response to nearly every point. Specifically, the department claimed it could not retrieve connection details without a “connection number” from the applicant. At first glance, this appears to be a reasonable administrative requirement. However, in practice, it transformed into the primary tool for stonewalling a request that could potentially expose how officials applied Section 135, and to whom.

The applicant eventually exposed the flaw in this excuse. Specifically, he obtained the department’s own One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme document. Notably, the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, had generated this document internally, using only the consumer’s name and address. Furthermore, it revealed an active account with dues exceeding ₹4 lakh. Thus, if the department’s own billing system can locate detailed account information using just a name and village address, the RTI excuse falls apart. This single piece of evidence, therefore, undercuts the central defence the Executive Engineer, Mirzapur, offered across multiple written replies.

Selective Disclosure: What Was Answered, What Wasn’t

The case progressed through several Commission hearings. Over time, the PIO’s replies grew more detailed, but only selectively so. The Commission issued two orders, dated 12 May 2026 and 23 June 2026. Both directed the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, to resolve the applicant’s objections fully and supply proof of dispatch. In response, letters dated 7 July 2026 and 7–9 August 2026 finally confirmed the connection number, the consumption load, and an outstanding balance figure.

Yet two points remained conspicuously unanswered. First, did a second connection exist in the defaulting consumer’s wife’s name? The department simply claimed, however, that her name “was not in office records.” It gave no indication that it had searched connection records by address or family unit. Second, had officials ever legally disconnected the original connection for non-payment? If so, on what application? The department stated, moreover, that no such application copy was “available.”

These aren’t peripheral details. Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 requires a distribution licensee to disconnect supply after notice when dues remain unpaid. A connection with over ₹4 lakh in arrears stayed connected, and no disconnection application exists on file. This raises a legitimate question: why did the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, instead pursue other residents of the same premises under Section 135? This is the very allegation of misuse driving this case.

A Portal Marked “Disposed” — While Nothing Was Resolved

One troubling thread in this case is procedural rather than substantive. On 20 June 2026, the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, updated the RTI portal to mark the request as “Disposed Of.” Officials made this update simply by re-attaching an earlier, already-rejected written response. They did not address any of the Commission’s specific directions from its order of 12 May 2026.

Marking a case as resolved solves nothing when the underlying grievance stays open. The core question of whether officials misused Section 135 remained unanswered. This kind of update does more than cut a corner; it creates a false paper trail suggesting compliance. Without a vigilant appellant tracking the case closely, the matter could quietly disappear from the Commission’s radar.

When Phone Calls Replace Paperwork

RTI non-compliance cases often show the same pattern: officials substitute informal phone calls for the written responses the law actually requires. In this case, a representative of the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, called the applicant multiple times. He sought clarification and offered assurances that information would follow. Call logs documented the exact timestamps and durations. But none of these calls ever produced a written or emailed reply.

Section 7 of the RTI Act requires a reasoned, written response within a defined statutory period. A phone call does not satisfy that requirement, however well-intentioned. It also creates no auditable record for either the applicant or the Commission to rely on later. The Executive Engineer’s covering letter to the Commission claimed that “information has already been dispatched.” Yet no corresponding email ever reached the applicant’s registered address. That gap between claim and proof becomes the issue itself.

Why “Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur” Matters Beyond One Village

Readers might dismiss this as a narrow, local dispute over one electricity bill. But look at the pattern: a technical excuse delayed disclosure, officials answered some points while ignoring others, a portal falsely showed the case as resolved, and phone calls stood in for written accountability. This is a recognisable template of bureaucratic obstruction. It plays out across RTI cases nationwide, especially wherever Section 135 theft allegations intersect with unequal enforcement.

The applicant’s response makes this case instructive. He refused to accept each evasive reply at face value. Instead, he cross-referenced the department’s own internal documents against its stated excuses. He built a documented chronology across multiple hearings. He kept pressing the Commission to enforce its own orders against the Executive Engineer, Mirzapur. That persistence, not just the underlying facts, often separates an RTI request that dies quietly from one that eventually forces disclosure.

Conclusion

The allegation that officials misused Section 135 at the Executive Engineer’s office, Mirzapur, remains just that: an allegation. Documentary inconsistencies support it, but no formal finding has confirmed it yet. RTI obstruction rarely announces itself outright. It hides behind procedural language, partial compliance, and the slow attrition of an applicant’s patience. This case still awaits a ruling from the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. It offers a clear window into how these tactics operate, and why sustained, well-documented follow-up remains an applicant’s most effective tool against them.

Case & Application Identifiers (Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur)

Type	Number/ID
RTI Registration No. (original application)	PUVNL/R/2024/60647 (filed 26/11/2024)
Appeal No. (before Commission)	S09/A/1037/2025
Commission Registration No.	A-20250301434
Latest Diary No.	D-120820260025
Earlier Diary No.	D-220620260161
Earlier Diary No.	D-110820260149
Notice No. (hearing notice, 28/07/2026)	202607S09N300910
Portal Welcome/Login ID	UPICR20240000149
PIO’s Letter Nos. referenced	26 (07/07/2026), 5371 (07/08/2026), 5409 (11/08/2026), 6707 (04/11/2024)

Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) (Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
Hearing Venue	Room S-9, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
Presiding Officer	Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner
Hearing Email	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
Case Tracking Portal	https://upsic.up.gov.in
Online Hearing Link (23/06/2026)	https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/1ab94b
Online Hearing Link (12/08/2026)	https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/ca8822

Respondent — Public Information Officer / Executive Engineer, EDD-II, Mirzapur

Field	Detail
Office	Public Information Officer / Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II (EDD-2), Fatah, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
PIO Name	Manish Kumar Srivastava
Office Address	Vidyut Vitran Khand, Fatah, Mirzapur, Pin – 231001
Office Email	ee.2mirzapur@puvvnl.in
Signing Officer (letters)	R.K. Yadav, Executive Engineer

Other CC’d Government Authority (Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
District Magistrate, Mirzapur	dmmir@nic.in

Appellant’s Own Registered Contact Details (Section 135 Misused & Executive Engineer Mirzapur)

Field	Detail
Name	Yogi M.P. Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh)
Mobile	+91-7379105911
Email	yogimpsingh@gmail.com
Address	Mohalla Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal, District Mirzapur, Pin – 231001

Other Individual Contact Referenced

Field	Detail
Suyash Chaturvedi (departmental representative who called)	Mobile: 070072 82030 / 7007282030