The key takeaway from the blog post is that :

There is growing concern regarding First Appeal Disposals Under RTI. The First Appeal process is failing in its legal duty. It should act as a meaningful check on government secrecy.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to evaluate the Public Information Officer’s (PIO) evasive or misleading answers critically. Instead, it acted as a “rubber stamp”. It issued a perfunctory order that validated the PIO. This order did not address the specific merits or legal discrepancies raised by the appellant.

In short: The order highlights a systemic shift. Senior officials prioritize “disposing” of files over ensuring “accountability.” This change forces citizens into a long, unnecessary legal battle at the Second Appeal stage.

Do you want me to draft a formal letter of complaint? It will address the FAA’s failure to provide a reasoned order in this case.

This blog post examines the legal and procedural gaps in the adjudication of RTI appeals. It specifically focuses on the recent order. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed this order in the case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. Mumtaz Ahmed. (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

---

First Appeal Disposals Under RTI: When First Appeals Become a Rubber Stamp for PIO Failures

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was envisioned as a sunshine law. It was designed to pierce the veil of bureaucratic secrecy. This Act ensures accountability. At the heart of this mechanism is the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA is a senior officer within the department. They are tasked with acting as a quasi-judicial filter to correct the errors of Public Information Officers (PIOs).

The recent order (Case No: UPICM/A/2025/60063) came from Shri Tejaskar Pandey. He is the First Appellate Authority of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This issue raises a troubling question. Is the first appeal process becoming a mere formality to protect administrative lapses?

First Appeal Disposals Under RTI: Missing Data and Vague Answers

The appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, sought critical information regarding the digital infrastructure and transparency protocols of the Commission itself. His request was not merely for documents but for the very “mechanism” of accountability.

The points of contention included:

1. Digital Transparency: A request for the CD/recording of a specific court hearing.
2. Technical Accountability: Details on the agency managing online hearings and the specific “mechanism” used to collect data.
3. Data Retention: The timeframe for which court proceedings are preserved.
4. Legal Basis for Conduct: This involves the documentation of rules. These rules mandate submissions in Hindi. They also allow a presiding officer to dismiss objections based on page length.

The PIO’s Evasion and the FAA’s Silence (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

The PIO’s responses were, by all accounts, evasive. When asked for a digital recording, the PIO claimed it was “not available in the form sought.” When asked for the mechanism of data collection, the PIO named a software (CATS-UPSIC). The PIO did not explain the mechanism requested.

More concerningly, regarding the rules for dismissing objections or language mandates, the PIO gave a blanket reference. They mentioned the “RTI Act 2005 and UP RTI Rules 2015.” As the appellant rightly pointed out, these documents contain no such provisions.

The Obligatory Duty of the First Appellate Authority

A First Appellate Authority is not a post office. According to established legal principles and various High Court rulings, the FAA has an obligatory duty to:

• Examine the Merits: Compare the specific question asked with the specific answer provided.
• Pass a Reasoned Order: Explain why the PIO’s denial is valid or invalid.
• Act as a Quasi-Judicial Body: Remain impartial rather than acting as a defense counsel for their subordinate (the PIO).

In the order dated 13.05.2025, the FAA stated: “The information provided by the Public Information Officer is complete… there is no justification in keeping the case pending.” This is a “conclusory” statement, not a “reasoned” one. The statement overlooks the appellant’s specific submission. The appellant claims that the rules cited by the PIO do not actually exist within the texts mentioned.

The Crisis of “Qualified Personnel” and Corruption

The appellant’s frustration reflects a broader systemic rot. He attributes these perfunctory orders to a “crunch of qualified personnel” and “corruption in the government machinery.

While “corruption” in an RTI context is often viewed as the exchange of money, it also manifests as intellectual dishonesty. When an officer refuses to acknowledge that a PIO has provided misleading information, they are corrupting the process of justice. The FAA did not address the discrepancy regarding the 2019 amendments. The appellant even attached these amendments for reference. This suggests a lack of due diligence that borders on professional negligence. (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

The Fallacy of the “Form” Argument (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

One of the PIO’s grounds for denial was that information was not available in the “form” requested (Point 1). Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states that information should be provided in the form in which it is sought. This should happen under ordinary circumstances unless doing so would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The PIO did not claim a resource drain; they simply denied the existence of the recording. In a digital era, the Commission manages “online hearings.” Claiming a recording of those very hearings is “unavailable” strikes at the heart of the Commission’s own transparency.

Why “Disposed Of” Does Not Mean “Resolved” (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

The FAA’s order concludes by disposing of the appeal. However, “disposing” of a case on paper without addressing the underlying grievance is an exercise in futility. It forces the citizen into the Second Appeal stage, further clogging the already overburdened State Information Commission (SIC) in Lucknow.

This creates a “circular trap” for the citizen:

1. Step 1: PIO denies/misleads.
2. Step 2: FAA ignores the merit and validates the PIO.
3. Step 3: Citizen waits months or years for a Second Appeal hearing.

Conclusion: The Road to the Second Appeal

The FAA’s note advises the appellant to approach the State Information Commission within 45 days. While this is the legal recourse, it is a recourse necessitated by a failure of the first level of oversight. (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

For the RTI Act to survive, First Appellate Authorities must stop acting as shields for their departments. They must start acting as guardians of the law. Until then, appellants like Shri Yogi M.P. Singh are left fighting not just for information. They fight for a government that has the basic competence to read its own rules.

For your follow-up or any legal documentation, here are the official contact details. These details are for the public authorities and officers involved in your case at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

---

1. Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Name: Shri Mumtaz Ahmed (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)
• Designation: Administrative Officer
• Room Number: 412, 4th Floor, RTI Bhawan
• Mobile/Phone: 9151804317 / 0522-2724945
• Email: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in

2. First Appellate Authority (FAA)

• Name: Shri Tejaskar Pandey (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)
• Designation: Deputy Secretary
• Room Number: 421 (Note: Your order mentions Room 410, but official records list Room 421 for his office), 4th Floor, RTI Bhawan
• Mobile: 9415021746 / 9454411791
• Email: deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in

3. Nodal Officer (Online RTI) (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

• Name: Shri Tejaskar Pandey
• Mobile: 9415021746
• Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in (General technical helpline)

4. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Headquarters) (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010
• Office Phone: 0522-2724930
• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Online RTI Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

---

Next Steps for Your Second Appeal (First Appeal Disposals Under RTI)

The FAA (Tejaskar Pandey) has disposed of your appeal without addressing the merits. You must now file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

• Deadline: You must file this within 90 days. Your order note mentions 45 days. The statutory limit under Section 19(3) for a Second Appeal to the Commission is 90 days. This period starts from the date of the decision.
• Where to file: You can file it physically at the Lucknow office address above. Alternatively, you can file it online via the UP RTI Online Portal.

Would you like me to draft a specific “Statement of Grounds” for your Second Appeal? It will highlight how the FAA failed to perform his quasi-judicial duty.