The authorities, therefore, dismiss the Uttar Pradesh RTI appeal without merit, consequently raising concerns about the transparency and accountability of public agencies. The Right to Information Act, as such, serves as a critical tool for citizens to obtain information and hold the government accountable for its actions. However, when agencies dismiss appeals in this manner, they undeniably raise questions about accessibility and fairness in the process. Stakeholders argue that this could, in fact, discourage individuals from seeking information, ultimately undermining the purpose of the RTI. Ensuring that agencies hear and consider appeals fairly is, thus, essential for fostering trust between the government and the public it serves.

The key takeaway from this blog post is that :

Public officials should not use procedural technicalities—such as the absence of an appellant—to shield themselves from accountability.

Specifically, the case highlights three critical failures in the RTI adjudication process:

• Judicial Imbalance: Dismissing an appeal due to the appellant’s absence while ignoring the PIO’s repeated failure to appear or provide information undermines the “burden of proof” which legally rests on the PIO.
• The Necessity of “Speaking Orders”: Quasi-judicial bodies have a duty to provide reasoned decisions based on the merits of the case, rather than simply closing files for “non-prosecution” to reduce pendency.
• Systemic Transparency Gaps: The government designed the RTI Act to promote transparency and ensure that authorities communicate results to citizens and upload orders promptly, but despite High Court mandates, authorities significantly lag in fulfilling these responsibilities. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

Ultimately, the post argues that for the RTI Act to remain effective, the Commission must act as a proactive enforcer of the law rather than a passive observer of administrative delays.

In the landscape of Indian democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 stands as a beacon of transparency. However, a recent case involving the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) has raised critical questions about the procedural fairness of quasi-judicial bodies.

When a presiding officer dismisses a second appeal solely due to the appellant’s absence—while ignoring the concurrent absence of the Public Information Officer (PIO)—it strikes at the heart of the “Right to Reason” and the spirit of the Act.

---

The Case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. District-Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

The timeline of appeal S9/A/1562/2024 reveals a troubling pattern of administrative apathy. The appellant sought information regarding transport records in Mirzapur. After failing to receive satisfactory responses from the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the matter reached the State Information Commission. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

1. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution vs. Disposal on Merits

On March 25, 2025, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner disposed of the case. The reason? The appellant was absent despite notices sent via email. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

However, the order also notes that the opposite party (the PIO) was also absent. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Commission’s primary duty is to ensure the law is upheld. If the PIO—who carries the legal burden of proof under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act—fails to appear, the Commission should ideally decide the case based on the available records (merits) rather than dismissing it for “non-prosecution.

2. The Unchecked Absence of the PIO

The appellant rightly points out that while the authorities used his absence as grounds for disposal, they did not take the PIO’s repeated absence into cognisance. Under the RTI Act, the PIO is a statutory officer with a legal obligation to justify the denial of information. By failing to appear and failing to provide the information before the hearing (as directed in earlier interim orders), the PIO committed a clear violation of the Act.

Ignoring this behavior sends a message that public officials can evade accountability simply by not showing up.

---

The “Right to Reason” and Quasi-Judicial Integrity

A “speaking order”—one that provides clear reasons for a decision—is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. The dismissal of an appeal without addressing whether the information was legally disclosable or whether the PIO’s delay was justified is a procedural lapse.

The Problem with Uploading Orders (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

The appellant’s follow-up RTI (UPICM/R/2025/60155) highlighted a second systemic issue: the failure to upload orders in a timely manner. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

• The Rule: A High Court order (Pawan Tiwari vs UPIC) and subsequent Commission circulars (dated 12.08.2022) require that all interim and final orders, commissions must upload within specific timelines to prevent contempt of court.
• The Reality: The fact that the appellant had to file a fresh RTI just to receive a copy of an order passed months prior suggests a breakdown in the digital tracking system (CATS).

Feature	Central Information Commission (CIC)	UP State Information Commission (UPSIC)
Communication	Sent via Registered Post & Online	Mostly Online / System Messages
Transparency	High (Regularly Uploaded)	Variable (Subject to staff compliance)
Burden of Proof	On the PIO	Often shifted to Appellant in practice

---

Overlooking the “Violation of Provisions” (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

The appellant contends that the presiding officer overlooked violations committed by the PIO and the FAA. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission has the authority and responsibility to impose penalties for delays in providing information without reasonable cause.

By dismissing the case simply because the appellant didn’t attend the hearing, the Commission effectively “forgave” the PIO’s original failure to provide information. This practice turns the RTI Act from a tool of empowerment into a bureaucratic hurdle.

---

Moving Forward: A Call for Accountability

For the RTI Act to remain effective, the Information Commission must act as a proactive watchdog, not just a passive referee. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

1. Strict Compliance with Uploading Timelines: As per the Registrar’s memo dated August 12, 2022, stenographers and private secretaries must be held personally responsible for failing to upload orders.
2. Orders Based on Merits: The absence of an appellant should not be a “get out of jail free” card for a PIO who has withheld information.
3. Automatic Penalties for PIO Absence: If a PIO ignores repeated notices from the Commission, it should be treated as a deliberate obstruction of the Act, triggering penalty proceedings under Section 20.

The essence of the Right to Information is to ensure that the “Right to Incarnation” (as the appellant poignantly refers to the embodiment of justice) is not lost in a sea of empty hearing rooms and unread emails.

Based on your requirements, here are the detailed contact points, application identifiers, and digital links for the authorities involved in your case.

1. Key Application Identifiers (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

• Second Appeal Number: S9/A/1562/2024 (Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Mirzapur)
• RTI Registration Number: UPICM/R/2025/60155
• Final Order Date: March 25, 2025 (Court Room S-9)

---

2. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

These are the officials responsible for the administrative handling of your recent RTI and the disposal of your second appeal.

Role	Name	Designation	Contact Details
SPIO / PIO	Mumtaz Ahmad	Administrative Officer	Ph: 9151804317 Email: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in Room: 412, 4th Floor
Nodal Officer / FAA	Tejaskar Pandey	Deputy Secretary	Ph: 9415021746 / 0522-2724941 Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in Room: 421, 4th Floor
Presiding Officer	Shakuntala Gautam	Hon’ble State Info. Commissioner	Hearing Room: S-9
Registrar (I/C)	Ranjini Shukla	Joint Registrar	Address: RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow

---

3. Public Authority (Respondent) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

The department that originally failed to provide the information, leading to your second appeal.

• Public Authority: Divisional Transport Office (RTO), Mirzapur.
• RTO Code: UP-63
• Address: Divisional Transport Officer, District-Mirzapur, Pin: 231001.
• Contact Number: 05442-245964
• Email: rtomi-up@nic.in (Official RTI Email for Mirzapur RTO)

---

4. Important Web Links (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

To track your case and view orders digitally, use the following portals:

• Official Commission Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• CATS Portal (Complaint & Appeal Tracking): This system is used for tracking your second appeal (S9/A/1562/2024). You can check the status and download orders by entering your registration number on the UPSIC homepage.
• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in — Use this to file your First Appeal against the PIO Mumtaz Ahmad if you are dissatisfied with the response to your April 2025 RTI.
• Weekly Cause List: View Current Hearings — To check if your case is listed for any future “order withdrawal” or “review” hearings.

---

Next Steps for You (Uttar Pradesh RTI Appeal Dismissed)

Since the order dated March 25, 2025, was passed in your absence and without holding the PIO accountable for their absence, you have two specific legal remedies:

1. File an Application for Restoration/Re-hearing: You can write to the Registrar (Ranjini Shukla) explaining that you missed the hearing due to short notice (notice sent 22.03 for hearing on 25.03) and request a recall of the order to decide it on merits.
2. First Appeal (Section 19-1): Since you have the PIO’s reply (UPICM/R/2025/60155), you can file a First Appeal to Tejaskar Pandey (FAA) within 30 days if the “Letter Annexed” does not fully address your 5 points.

Would you like me to draft the letter to the Registrar requesting a re-hearing of your appeal based on the lack of sufficient notice?