No information even after second appeal — that’s the reality one RTI applicant in Uttar Pradesh faced, even after the state’s highest appellate authority closed his case. The Chief Information Commissioner disposed of the Second Appeal on February 19, 2025, relying solely on the Public Information Officer’s claim that a response had gone out. Yet postal records show the appellant only received that letter on March 7, sixteen days later. The Commission never verified delivery before closing the file, so the appellant had no chance to review or object to what the PIO sent. This procedural lapse points to a larger pattern: commissions accepting unverified “disposal” claims instead of demanding proof of receipt, leaving citizens without real recourse under the RTI Act.

No Information Even After Second Appeal: How Procedural Lapses Are Eroding the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh

There is no information even after second appeal for a Right to Information (RTI) applicant in Uttar Pradesh, and the case reveals a troubling breakdown in procedure. The RTI Act, 2005, promised transparency. It aimed to empower the common citizen against the opaque walls of bureaucracy. However, recent developments in the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) point to a different trend. Specifically, the Commission is prioritizing administrative convenience over statutory rights.

A specific case, Appeal Registration Number A-20241202180, serves as a stark reminder of this shift. In short, the Commission is sacrificing “procedural diligence.” As a result, this case of no information even after second appeal may set a dangerous precedent for the future of transparency in India.

The Core Dispute: A Failure of Natural Justice

At the heart of this issue is a fundamental legal principle: Audi Alteram Partem, or “hear the other side.” In this case, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) disposed of the Second Appeal on February 19, 2025. Notably, this decision relied solely on the Public Information Officer‘s (PIO) claim that the matter had reached resolution.

However, the evidence tells a different story. The appellant did not even hold the communication from the Administrative Reforms Section-2, which the PIO used to claim “disposal,” when the Commission closed the case. Therefore, by closing the case without confirming the seeker had received and reviewed the information, the Commission effectively silenced the citizen’s right to object.

Why There Was No Information Even After Second Appeal: The Timeline

To understand the gravity of this lapse, consider the chronological disconnect between the Commission’s decision and the reality of postal delivery:

1. November 11, 2024: The appellant filed the initial RTI.
2. February 6, 2025: The Department of Administrative Reforms drafted a response.
3. February 18, 2025: The PIO finally booked the response via Registered Post (Speed Post).
4. February 19, 2025: The Information Commission held a hearing and disposed of the case. In doing so, it accepted the PIO’s word that information had gone out.
5. March 7, 2025: The appellant actually received the letter, confirming the Commission had already closed the case despite no information even after second appeal reaching him.

This timeline reveals a shocking reality. Specifically, the Information Commission closed the case a full 16 days before the appellant even received the documents. So how can an appellant object to information they have not yet seen?

The “Administrative Convenience” Trap

The PIO asked the Commission to “dispose of the case” simply because a response had gone out. Yet in a healthy democratic setup, the Commission’s role is to act as a watchdog. In other words, it should demand proof of receipt. At the very least, it should give the appellant a reasonable window to verify the PIO’s response.

By complying with the PIO’s request without verification, the Commissioner failed to uphold the spirit of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. Instead of ensuring transparency, the Commission used the process to “clear the desk.” As a result, it treated a citizen’s fundamental right as a mere clerical task to check off a list.

Why This Sets a Dangerous Precedent

When the state’s highest appellate authority accepts a PIO’s claim of “disposal” without verifying delivery, it creates a loophole for future evasion:

• Encourages misleading claims: PIOs may feel emboldened to send incomplete or irrelevant data at the last minute. After all, they know the Commission might close the case before the applicant can complain.
• Erodes public trust: If the Commission, as protector of the RTI Act, sides with the PIO as gatekeeper without due process, citizens will lose faith in the system.
• Undermines the Act: After all, the RTI Act aims to provide useful information, not just any communication.
• Normalizes delay: Cases of no information even after second appeal risk becoming routine if commissions keep accepting unverified claims of disposal.

The Technicality of “Ultra Vires”

The appellant has rightly pointed out that the February 19 order is ultra vires, or beyond legal power. Indeed, an order becomes legally flawed when it rests on misleading facts or ignores the principles of natural justice. In this instance, the Commission took “cognizance” of the PIO’s submission. At the same time, it completely ignored what the seeker had submitted in the appeal.

The Path Forward: Corrective Measures

For the RTI mechanism to function with integrity, and to stop cases of no information even after second appeal from repeating, the Commission needs the following reforms:

1. Mandatory proof of receipt: The Commission should never dispose of an appeal based on a PIO’s word alone. Instead, it must include digital tracking of speed posts or signed receipts in the official record before closing a case.
2. Recall of flawed orders: Under the principle of inherent power, the Commission must recall and review flawed orders, such as the one dated 19-02-2025, once evidence shows that withholding delivery status led to the order.
3. Accountability for PIOs: Similarly, the Commission should issue strictures against PIOs who submit misleading “disposal” requests while the information is still in transit.

Conclusion: A Plea for Transparency

The case of Mahesh Pratap Singh vs. Administrative Reforms Section-2 is more than a personal grievance. Rather, it is a litmus test for the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh. If the Commission continues to prioritize administrative speed over procedural fairness, the Act risks becoming a “dead letter,” and more applicants will face no information even after second appeal.

Ultimately, the Information Commission must remember its mandate: to serve the citizen, not the bureaucracy. Recalling the order of February 19th is therefore the first step toward restoring faith in the system. As the appellant aptly noted, this is a struggle for justice. And in a democracy, people must not only get justice, they must also see it happen.

To help you escalate this matter or file your recall petition, here are the contact details and digital portals for the public authorities involved in your case.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

This is the primary body responsible for your appeal. It is also the court that issued the order.

• Address: Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhawan, Vinay Khand-1, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010.
• Court No. 1 (Chief Information Commissioner):
  • Email: hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in
  • Phone (General Inquiry): 0522-2305077
• Official Website: upsic.up.nic.in
• Online Appeal Status: You can track the status of A-20241202180 through the UP RTI Online Gateway.

---

2. Department of Administrative Reforms (Nodal Agency)

This department acted as the PIO in your case (Section-2).

• Address: Administrative Reforms Section-2, Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, Lucknow.
• Key Emails:
  • ardsection2@gmail.com
  • ard092156@gmail.com
  • rahulupgov@gmail.com
• Principal Secretary (Administrative Reforms):
  • Official Link: shasanadesh.up.gov.in, to verify orders and GOs this department has issued.

---

3. Key Personnel Mentioned in Your Records (No information even after second appeal)

Name / Designation	Role	Contact/Email
Raj Kumar Vishwakarma	Chief Information Commissioner	hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in
PIO, Admin Reforms	Public Information Officer	ard092156@gmail.com
Appellate Authority	First Appellate Authority	ardsection2@gmail.com

---

4. Important Web Links for Your Case (No information even after second appeal)

• India Post Tracking: Since your case rests on the delivery date of March 7, 2025, keep a PDF of the tracking result for Article RU245294923IN from the India Post Website.
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: If the Commission does not respond to your email, you can lodge a formal grievance against the procedural lapse at jansunwai.up.nic.in.

---

Strategic Next Step (No information even after second appeal)

The email you sent on March 7, 2025, marks a strong initial protest. However, the Commission generally requires a formal “Review Application” or “Recall Application” as well. You must physically file this, or send it via registered post, to the Registrar of the Commission to officially reopen a “Disposed” file.

Would you like me to draft a formal “Application for Recall of Order” that specifically cites the India Post tracking data as evidence of “Fraud upon the Court” by the PIO?Fraud upon the Court” by the PIO?