The key takeaway from this blog post is that :
procedural technicalities—such as the absence of an appellant—should not be used to shield public officials 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: Despite High Court mandates, there is a significant lag in uploading orders and communicating results to citizens, which violates the very spirit of transparency the RTI Act was designed to uphold.
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
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.
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.
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 his absence was used as grounds for disposal, the PIO’s repeated absence was not “taken into cognizance.” 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
The appellant’s follow-up RTI (UPICM/R/2025/60155) highlighted a second systemic issue: the failure to upload orders in a timely manner.
- The Rule: A High Court order (Pawan Tiwari vs. UPIC) and subsequent Commission circulars (dated 12.08.2022) mandate that all interim and final orders must be uploaded within specific timelines to avoid 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”
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 power (and duty) to impose penalties if information is delayed 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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)
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)
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
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
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:
- 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.
- 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?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.