Key takeaways

1. Procedural Injustice

The central issue is the arbitrary disposal of a second appeal. The Commission allegedly passed a final order while a formal objection (KOF – Know Our Files) was already pending in the system, effectively ignoring the appellant’s right to be heard.

2. Administrative Failure in Document Tracking

There is a clear “sync-gap” between the filing of documents and the judicial process:

• An objection was filed on February 14, 2025.
• The hearing occurred on March 20, 2025.
• The court seemingly failed to acknowledge the document during the hearing, raising questions about whether digital submissions are reaching the presiding officers in time.

3. Lack of Proactive Disclosure

Despite the case being “disposed of,” the final order was not uploaded to the public portal. This forces the information seeker into a vicious cycle: having to file a new RTI application just to obtain the results of their previous RTI appeal.

4. Demand for Systemic Accountability

The appellant is seeking specific details that could expose internal negligence, including:

• The exact time documents reached the court.
• The names and designations of the staff responsible for processing the file.
• The formal standard operating procedure (SOP) for handling digital objections on the UPIC portal.

5. Impact on Vulnerable Seekers

The post emphasizes that for citizens from vulnerable backgrounds, such administrative lapses aren’t just technicalities—they are barriers to justice. When the Commission prioritizes “closing files” over “providing information,” it undermines the core spirit of the RTI Act 2005.

Justice Delayed or Justice Denied? The Crisis of Accountability in Information Commissions

The Right to Information Act, 2005, was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. It was designed to empower the common citizen—especially those from vulnerable sections of society—to hold public authorities accountable. However, recent developments in Case No. S09/A/2193/2024 (Sadhana Tiwari vs. SSP Mirzapur) raise a troubling question: Have our Information Commissions become a graveyard for transparency instead of its guardian?

The Core Conflict: Arbitrary Disposal vs. Due Process

At the heart of the current grievance is a procedural anomaly that strikes at the root of natural justice. In the case of appellant Sadhana Tiwari, a Know Our Files (KOF) objection was submitted on February 14, 2025 (Diary No. D-140220250421), specifically to address issues in the ongoing second appeal.

Despite a scheduled hearing date of March 20, 2025, the case was reportedly disposed of with a final order, seemingly ignoring the citizen’s formal objections. When a quasi-judicial body like the Information Commission disposes of a matter while an active objection (KOF) is pending in the system, it signals a breakdown in administrative synchronization.

A Breakdown of the Administrative Lapse

The appellant has raised five critical points through a fresh RTI application (Registration No. UPICM/R/2025/60191) to uncover the truth behind this “arbitrary disposal.” These points highlight the structural gaps in the UPIC:

1. The “Lost” KOF Document

The appellant is seeking the exact date and time the KOF reached Court S-9. In a digital age, if a document submitted on February 14th does not reach the presiding officer by March 20th, it suggests either a technological failure or a deliberate administrative bottleneck.

2. Personnel Accountability

By asking for the name and designation of the staff who processed the diary number, the appellant is invoking Section 5 of the RTI Act. Identifying the “custodian of information” is the first step in determining whether the oversight was a clerical error or a systemic attempt to bypass the appellant’s arguments.

3. The Mystery of the Final Order

As of the latest updates, the final order passed by Court S-9 on March 20, 2025, remains unavailable to the seeker. This lack of “proactive disclosure” (required under Section 4 of the RTI Act) forces citizens to file new RTIs just to see the results of their old cases—a redundant loop that wastes public resources.

---

The Vulnerability Gap: Who Does the Commission Serve?

The appellant identifies as belonging to a vulnerable section of society. For such citizens, the RTI is not just a tool for inquiry; it is a shield against administrative high-handedness. When the Information Commission—the final court of appeal for transparency—acts in a manner that feels “arbitrary,” it creates a chilling effect.

If a citizen from a district like Mirzapur cannot trust that their submitted documents (KOF) will be read by the Commissioner, the very foundation of the Act is shaken.

The Technological Paradox: Portal vs. Practice

The UPIC uses an online portal for filing and tracking. However, the appellant’s fourth point asks for the “mechanism to process documents.” This is a crucial inquiry. Does the portal automatically alert a presiding officer when a KOF is filed? Or do these digital submissions sit in a virtual “pending” tray while the physical court proceeds to close cases?

The delay in uploading final orders (Point 5) suggests that while the “front-end” of the RTI process is digitized, the “back-end” remains tethered to slow, traditional bureaucracies.

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission must realize that it is not merely a department of the government; it is a quasi-judicial authority. Its interest should not lie in “closing files” to reduce pendency statistics, but in “providing information” to ensure justice.

The PIO, Mumtaz Ahmad, and the Nodal Officer, Tejaskar Pandey, now have 30 days to provide clarity. The answers to these five points will determine if the UPIC is truly “instrumental” in providing information or if it has become another layer of the very red tape it was meant to cut.

Transparency is not a favor granted by the Commission; it is a right owned by the citizen.

---

What can you do next?

If you are facing similar issues with the disposal of appeals without due consideration of your KOF or objections:

• Draft a Complaint: File a formal complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act regarding the PIO’s failure to provide the order copy.
• Request an Inspection: Use your right to inspect the case file at the Commission to see exactly where the KOF was stalled.

Based on your recent RTI application and the grievances regarding the processing of your Second Appeal at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), here are the official contact details and portal links for the relevant public authorities.

1. Primary Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission¹

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• RTI Online Portal (UP State): rtionline.up.gov.in
• Office Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010.²

---

2. Concerned Officers & Contact Details

As per the Commission’s latest directory, the following officers are responsible for handling your specific queries:

Role	Name & Designation	Contact Number	Email Address
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Shri Mumtaz Ahmad, Administrative Officer	9151804317 / 0522-2724930	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
Nodal Officer / First Appellate Authority	Shri Tejaskar Pandey, Deputy Secretary	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Technical Help Desk	Technical Support Team	0522-7118629	onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in

---

3. Key Identification Details for Your Case

You should quote these details in all future correspondence with the Commission:

• Case Registration Number: A-20241200797
• Case File Number: S09/A/2193/2024 (Court S-9)
• KOF Diary Number: D-140220250421
• New RTI Registration Number: UPICM/R/2025/60191

4. Direct Links for Case Tracking

• To Check Case Status: Online Case Inquiry
• To View Weekly Cause List: Cause List Portal
• To File a Complaint (u/s 18): Submit Complaint Online

---

Next Step for You:

Since your case was disposed of despite a pending objection, would you like me to help you draft a formal Letter of Complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) specifically citing the administrative failure to link your KOF (Diary No. D-140220250421) with the judicial hearing?