---

🏛️ The RTI Application: Seeking Transparency from Information Commission

Yogi M P Singh, an RTI applicant, filed a request (Registration No. UPICM/R/2024/60633) with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), the body responsible for upholding the RTI Act. Ensuring transparency within the Information Commission is crucial for the effective implementation of the act. Applicants often seek this transparency by requesting information disclosures from the Information Commission itself.

The applicant filed the application after marking the previous Second Appeal (S-02/A/1334/2024) as “Final order passed and case disposed of.” He sought detailed information on the disposal of his case:

1. A copy of the hearing notice issued to the appellant.
2. The reason for not uploading the final order on the UPIC website. The search was displaying “no data is available.”
3. Confirmation on the necessity of uploading quasi-judicial orders on the website, backed by supporting government circulars or memos.
4. A copy of the Final Order passed by the presiding officer.
5. Details on whether the hearing was offline or online. It also included the reason for not conducting it online and a copy of any online hearing link sent.

---

📝 The SPIO’s Reply: Mixed Response and the Rules of the Game reflects Transparency from Information Commission

The State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the UPIC provided a point-wise response, dated 07.11.2024.

• Request 1 (Copy of Hearing Notice): The SPIO denied the request for a copy of the notice. They cited Rule 4(2)(b)(vi) of the UP RTI Rules, 2015, which states that information available through other law/rule provisions is not payable under RTI. Instead, they directed the applicant to the existing system for file inspection and obtaining certified copies of records.
• Requests 2 & 3 (Uploading the Final Order): The SPIO stated that they uploaded the point-wise order on the website of the Commission. They did not provide a specific reason for the “no data available” message the applicant saw. Furthermore, they did not provide any supporting circulars/memos about the non-necessity of uploading orders. Proper transparency from the Information Commission in explaining such errors was lacking, making this part of the reply arguably incomplete and non-specific to the applicant’s query about the error message.
• Request 4 (Copy of the Final Order): The sender enclosed a copy of the final order. They sent it with the reply, addressing the primary concern of the applicant.
• Request 5 (Online/Offline Hearing): The SPIO enclosed a personal report dated 06.11.2024 to address the mode of hearing. It explained the reason for not conducting it online, ensuring transparency from Information Commission in handling such cases.

The final response concluded by informing the applicant of their right to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act within 30 days if dissatisfied.

---

gavel The Final Order: Case Disposed Due to Sufficient Information

The enclosed final order, passed by Hon’ble State Information Commissioner Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh on 23.10.2024, provided the resolution for the original Second Appeal (S-02/1334/A/2024). Achieving transparency, as outlined by the Information Commission’s final order, remains a pivotal part of their mandate. This transparency involves thorough information provision by the Information Commission in their rulings.

Case Status Details	Outcome
Appellant Absence: Shri Yogi MP Singh did not appear for the hearing.	Reason for Disposal: The Commission reviewed the written statement from the opposing PIO.
PIO’s Action: The opposing PIO’s representative submitted a written statement.	Key Finding: The information provided by the opposing PIO regarding the original application was found to be “prima facie complete and sufficient.” This completeness conveyed a significant aspect of transparency from Information Commission processes.
Decision: The case was disposed of as there was “no justification for keeping the matter pending” before the Commission.	Effect: The appellant’s second appeal was settled based on the information provided by the original Public Authority. This made the appeal redundant.

Export to Sheets

---

💡 Key Takeaways for RTI Applicants

• Right to Reasons: The applicant’s legal arguments reference Lord Denning and the principle of “Right to reason is essential.” These highlight the legal importance of public authorities giving a clear basis for their decisions—especially quasi-judicial ones.
• Time Limit (Section 7(1) of RTI Act): The applicant correctly cited the need for a reply within the stipulated 30 days under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
• Certified Copies vs. RTI: The SPIO’s use of the UP RTI Rule (which restricts information obtainable through other existing laws) directs the applicant toward the certified copy process. This is a common procedural clarification in the RTI framework for records that are part of an existing file.
• Appeal is the Next Step: Despite receiving the crucial final order, the applicant can still file a First Appeal. This would challenge the SPIO’s lack of specific reason for the website error (Points 2 & 3). It would also challenge the denial of the hearing notice copy under the RTI application. This is a real truth of Transparency from Information Commission

More than two dozen second appeals rejected by research officer of UPSIC now saying returned to appellant for rectification

It appears you are asking for the contact information for UPIC.

Based on the context of the previous query (PIO/FAA) and the search results, UPIC most likely refers to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (उत्तर प्रदेश सूचना आयोग), which handles the Right to Information (RTI) in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Here is the contact information for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC):

🇮🇳 Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) Contact

🏢 Headquarters Address

• 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.¹

📞 Main Office Phone Number

• 0522-2724930²

📧 Email (Webmaster/General)

• webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in3(Replace [at] with @ and [dot] with . to use)

🔗 Official Website

• https://upsic.up.gov.in/

---

Contact for RTI-Related Roles (PIO & FAA)

Role	Name (Title)	Email
Jan Soochna Adhikari (PIO) (Public Information Officer)	Shri Mumtaz Ahmed, Administrative Officer	jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
Pratham Appeeliya Pradhikari (FAA) (First Appellate Authority)	Shri Tejaskar Pandey, Deputy Secretary	(Contact usually through the main phone or written correspondence)