Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply — the story of an RTI on one sanitation worker’s appointment in Prayagraj Nagar Nigam, and why Section 20 penalty is now due. This case highlights the complexities surrounding the recruitment and appointment processes within local municipal bodies. The Right to Information (RTI) query revealed serious discrepancies and a lack of transparency in how the sanitation worker was appointed, raising questions about fairness and adherence to due process. Despite two show-cause notices issued to the concerned authorities, there has been no satisfactory response, leading to frustration among the public and stakeholders. The implementation of Section 20, which provides for penalties in case of wilful disobedience or failure to provide information, is now imperative to ensure accountability and reinforce the citizens’ right to access information.
Key Takeaways
- The RTI revealed issues with the appointment of a sanitation worker in Prayagraj Nagar Nigam, highlighting a lack of transparency.
- Despite two show-cause notices from the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, the Public Information Officer failed to respond, leading to further investigation.
- The RTI applicant asked for specific recruitment details, but the officer provided unhelpful and evasive responses.
- The case underscores the importance of Section 20 of the RTI Act, which allows for penalties for non-compliance.
- This situation illustrates the need for accountability within public authorities when responding to RTI queries.
Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply: How Prayagraj Nagar Nigam Ignored the RTI Commission
Second Appeal No. S10/A/0501/2025 — Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, Hearing Room S-10
Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply. Those six words sum up this entire RTI appeal. First, the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission asked the Public Information Officer of Prayagraj Nagar Nigam to explain why it should not penalise him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Then it asked again. Both times, the PIO said nothing. So how did a simple question about one sanitation worker’s appointment end up here? It is, unfortunately, part of a wider pattern of accountability failures in Prayagraj Nagar Nigam.
The RTI question behind Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply
On 25 December 2024 I filed an online RTI application (Reg. No. NGNPR/R/2024/60192) with the Public Information Officer, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It contained five points:
- The date of recruitment and the vacancy advertisement under which the Nigam appointed one named individual from my own village, Chilh in Mirzapur, as Safai Karmachari (Sanitation Staff).
- Advertisement details of all vacancies in the Nigam over the last ten years.
- The number of recruitments in the last ten years — daily-wage, ad hoc and permanent, separately.
- The recruiting authorities for those recruitments.
- The number of outsourced staff working in the Nigam.
Point 1 asks about one appointment; Points 2 to 5 supply the context. If advertisements and a selection process existed, the Nigam should find them easy to produce.
The PIO’s reply: eleven words
The reply came from Zone-8 (Jhusi). For Point 1 it said the person is “working in Ward No. 45 of Zone-8 Jhusi since 2023.” For Points 2 to 5 it said only “not sustainable from Zone-8.”
However, “since 2023” is neither a date of recruitment nor an advertisement. It is an evasion dressed as an answer.
Similarly, “not sustainable from Zone-8” is not a lawful ground for refusal. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is explicit: if another office holds the information, the PIO must transfer the application there within five days. Yet the PIO transferred nothing. As a result, four of my five questions simply vanished.
Timeline: from a Section 20 warning to Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply
I filed a second appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission on 12 May 2025. What followed is a case study in how a public authority can ignore a statutory body — much like the nine-month silence described in PIO Prayagraj Silenced RTI.
19 June 2025 — The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information.
4 September 2025 — First show-cause notice. Shri Rakesh Kumar, State Information Commissioner, recorded that the PIO had neither complied with the June order nor filed a written statement. He held that the PIO was “not serious” about the Commission’s orders and therefore ordered a show-cause notice under Section 20: why should the Commission not impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day (up to Rs. 25,000), and why should it not recommend disciplinary action?
28 January 2026 — Second and final show-cause notice. The Commission noted that the first notice had reached the PIO by registered post on 24 October 2025 and by e-mail as well. Moreover, the PIO’s representative stood in court that day. Still, the PIO had filed no reply. Consequently, the Commission ordered a final show-cause notice on the same terms.
8 June 2026 — The Presiding Officer was on leave, so the hearing moved to September.
3 September 2026 — Finally, the matter came up before Shri Virendra Pratap Singh, State Information Commissioner.
Throughout, I filed a written statement before every one of those six hearings. In contrast, the PIO answered neither show-cause notice.
The “status report” that answered a different question
Shortly before the June 2026 hearing, the Nigam’s panel advocate filed a status report (Letter No. 607/Swasthya Vibhag/2026 dated 30 May 2026) and asked the Commission to close the appeal.
What did it contain? Service and educational papers of a completely different person, relating to the promotional post of Safai Nayak (supervisor). In other words, the report covered a different person, a different post and a different cadre. A Safai Karmachari is a base-level sanitation worker, whereas a Safai Nayak is a supervisor. Furthermore, the report did not touch Points 2 to 5 at all.
A report that substitutes unrelated papers for the information actually sought does not amount to compliance — a pattern I have examined before in RTI Case Study in Procedural Fairness: When “Compliance” Isn’t Compliance. Therefore, a request to close the appeal on the strength of such a report deserves refusal.
What the silence suggests
The Nigam refuses to place on record a vacancy advertisement, a selection proceeding and an appointment order for one sanitation worker — documents that would take minutes to copy if they existed. That reluctance suggests the appointment bypassed the prescribed procedure. Admittedly, that is an inference rather than a finding. Even so, the Commission may draw it when an authority responds for twenty months with everything except the document asked for.
Why Section 20 exists, and what the Commission’s own orders say
The RTI Act is not only a right to ask; it is also a scheme of consequences, as the Department of Personnel and Training’s RTI portal reminds every public authority. Section 7(1) fixes 30 days, and Section 6(3) fixes five days for a transfer. Ignoring both carries a price under Section 20(1): Rs. 250 for every day of delay, up to Rs. 25,000, payable by the PIO personally. Section 20(2) goes further and lets the Commission recommend disciplinary action under the officer’s service rules.
The Commission’s two orders in this appeal track that scheme almost word for word. On 4 September 2025 it wrote that the PIO “does not appear serious” about its orders. On 28 January 2026 it recorded proof of delivery, noted the representative’s presence, and used the word “final.” In other words, the Commission has already done the work of finding non-compliance. Only the last step remains.
What I asked the Commission to do
- First, reject the 30 May 2026 status report as non-responsive and refuse closure.
- Second, direct the PIO to furnish a point-wise reply to all five questions within 15 days, free of cost under Section 7(6), including certified copies of the advertisement, selection proceedings and appointment order.
- Third, since the record now reads Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply, impose the Section 20(1) penalty — Rs. 250 per day, up to Rs. 25,000 — and recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2).
- Fourth, award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for fifteen months of repeated proceedings.
- Finally, keep the appeal open until I actually receive the information.
Lessons for other RTI applicants
Three practical points emerged. First, file a short written statement before every hearing; the record then shows your diligence against the PIO’s silence. Second, when a PIO says the information “does not pertain” to his office, cite Section 6(3) at once and ask where he transferred the application. Usually he did not. Third, the same Nigam is fighting a parallel appeal over its Transfer Policy implementation, heard on the same day in the same court; read the two together and the pattern is hard to miss.
Why Two Show-Cause Notices & No Reply matters beyond this case
Section 20 of the RTI Act is not decorative. It exists so that a PIO who ignores an applicant cannot also ignore the Commission. In this case the Commission issued a show-cause notice and got silence. It then issued a final show-cause notice and got silence again — with the PIO’s own representative standing in court. What remains, therefore, is for the Commission to impose the penalty it twice threatened.
Under Section 19(5), the PIO carries the burden of justifying a denial. Twenty months on, he has not discharged it. In short, if two show-cause notices and no reply do not attract a penalty, it is hard to see what would.
Indradev Yadav is an RTI applicant from Chilh, Mirzapur. Court S-10 of the U.P. State Information Commission, Lucknow, heard the appeal on 3 September 2026. All documents referred to are on the Commission’s record. the Commission’s record.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.