Here are the key takeaways:

from the analysis of the situation regarding the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC):

• The “Ghost Order” Dilemma: A final order was passed by Court Number 9 on March 25, 2025, yet it remains inaccessible to the public and the appellant. This lack of publication prevents the enforcement of the ruling and stalls the legal process.
• Institutional Irony: There is a fundamental contradiction when a Transparency Ombudsman (the UPSIC) operates opaquely. By failing to upload orders, the very body meant to end government secrecy is practicing it.
• The “Right to Reason” Violation: In quasi-judicial proceedings, providing the reasoning for a decision is legally mandatory. Withholding the written order denies the appellant the “right to reason,” making the judgment effectively invisible and unchallengeable.
• Systemic Enforcement Failure: Despite the CATS (Complaint and Appeal Tracking System), the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Transport Department has still not provided the original information. This suggests that the Commission’s orders may lack the necessary “teeth” to compel lower-level officials to comply.
• Standardization Gap (CIC vs. SIC): Unlike the Central Information Commission, which has a robust mechanism for uploading and mailing orders via registered post, the UPSIC lacks a transparent, time-bound protocol for notifying citizens of final outcomes.
• The 20-Year Stagnation: The situation serves as a grim indicator that after two decades, the RTI Act 2005 is being undermined not just by uncooperative departments, but by the administrative lethargy of the Commissions themselves.

This situation highlights a paradoxical reality: the very institution designed to enforce transparency—the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)—is being accused of operating behind a veil of procedural inefficiency.

When a “Transparency Ombudsman” fails to upload its own orders or communicate results to an appellant, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, transitions from a tool of empowerment to a symbol of bureaucratic frustration.

---

The Transparency Paradox: When the Ombudsman Fails the Citizen

A Critical Analysis of the UPSIC and the Struggle for Accountability

The Right to Information Act was heralded as the “Second Independence” for Indian citizens. It promised a shift from the colonial culture of secrecy to a democratic culture of openness. However, 20 years later, the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. Divisional Transport Officer, Mirzapur, serves as a grim case study of how systemic lethargy at the Commission level can stifle the spirit of the law.

1. The Breakdown of the Quasi-Judicial Process

The core of the grievance lies in the proceedings of Court Number 9, presided over by the Honorable State Information Commissioner. On March 25, 2025, a final order was reportedly passed. Yet, weeks later, the order remains a “ghost document”—neither uploaded to the official portal nor dispatched to the appellant.

A State Information Commission functions as a quasi-judicial body. In the Indian legal framework, “Right to Reason” is an indispensable pillar of justice. An order that is not shared is an order that cannot be analyzed, challenged, or enforced. By withholding the written word, the Commission effectively freezes the case, leaving the appellant in a state of legal limbo.

2. The Failure of the Digital Infrastructure (CATS)

The UPSIC utilizes the Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS). While the digital naming suggests efficiency, the reality experienced by applicants is one of “Status: Received” but “Action: Pending.

• Non-Uploading of Orders: In an era of Digital India, the failure to upload a final order within 48 to 72 hours of its pronouncement is inexcusable.
• The “Empty” PIO Response: The original Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Transport Department has reportedly failed to entertain the RTI application despite Commission interventions. This suggests a lack of “teeth” in the Commission’s enforcement mechanism.

3. UPSIC vs. CIC: A Study in Contrasts

The appellant rightly points to the Central Information Commission (CIC) as a benchmark. At the central level, orders are generally:

1. Uploaded promptly to the public domain.
2. Dispatched via Registered Post to all parties involved.

In contrast, the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission appears to lack a standardized, time-bound mechanism for notifying information seekers. This discrepancy creates a “postal lottery” where justice depends on which state you reside in, rather than the uniform application of a federal law.

4. The Human Cost of Institutional Apathy

For a citizen like Mr. Singh, who has pursued a case from July 2024 through March 2025, the “disposal” of a case without receiving the order feels less like a resolution and more like a dismissal.

When the Commission does not hold itself to the same standards it demands of other public authorities, it loses its moral authority. The “root cause” mentioned by the appellant is valid: The RTI Act cannot achieve its goal if the gatekeepers of information are themselves non-transparent.

5. Critical Questions for the Commission

To restore faith in the system, the UPSIC must address the specific points raised in the 6(1) application filed on April 4, 2025:

• Where is the Order? Provide the physical copy of the March 25th ruling.
• Why the Delay? Explain the technical or administrative bottleneck preventing the upload.
• What is the Policy? Disclose the official notifications or circulars that govern the maximum time allowed for an order to reach an appellant.

---

The Path Forward: Reclaiming the RTI

The Right to Information is not just about getting a document; it is about the accountability of the state. If the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission remains silent, it sends a message to every PIO in the state that deadlines are suggestions and transparency is optional.

The Commission must adopt a “Digital-First” mandate where no case is marked “Disposed” on the system until the PDF of the signed order is attached to the record. Only then can the RTI Act of 2005 fulfill its promise of being a sunlit path to good governance.

Based on your records and the current official directory, here are the contact details for the key public authorities and officers involved in your case.

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary authority responsible for the non-uploading of the final order from Court Number 9.

Designation	Officer Name	Phone Number	Email ID
Administrative Officer (PIO)	Mumtaz Ahmad	9151804317 / 0522-2724945	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
First Appellate Authority	Tejaskar Pandey	9415021746 / 9454411791	deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in
Secretary, UPSIC	Abhay Singh (IAS)	0522-2724941	sec-upic@up.gov.in
General Helpline	RTI Bhawan Support	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

• Location: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.

---

2. Transport Department (Respondent Authority)

The original PIO who has not yet entertained the RTI application despite the Commission’s earlier notices.

Designation	Location	Email ID
Divisional Transport Officer (RTO)	Mirzapur	rtomi-up@nic.in
Asst. Regional Transport Officer (ARTO)	Mirzapur	artomi-up@nic.in
Transport Commissioner (Head Office)	Lucknow	tc-up@nic.in

• Mirzapur Address: Office of the Divisional Transport Officer, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh – 231001.

---

3. Relevant Digital Links (Wavelinks)

You can use these portals to track the status or file further non-compliance complaints.

• UPSIC Case Tracking (CATS):Official UPSIC Portal
  • Note: Use your appeal number (S9/A/1562/2024) to search for the digital copy of the order.
• UP RTI Online:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Helpdesk Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
• UP Chief Minister Helpline (IGRS):Jansunwai Portal
  • This is often effective for reporting administrative apathy when a Commission order is ignored.

---

Suggested Next Step

Since the order from 25th March 2025 is missing and the PIO is not cooperating, would you like me to draft a Non-Compliance Complaint addressed to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) under Section 18 of the RTI Act to highlight this specific failure?