RTI Appeal Case & PIO: The Right to Information (RTI) Act serves as a powerful tool for citizens to seek transparency and accountability from public authorities. When a citizen feels that the authorities have not adequately addressed their request for information, they can file an appeal. In such cases, the Public Information Officer (PIO) plays a critical role in facilitating the appeal process. They are responsible for providing the requested information, ensuring compliance with the law, and addressing any grievances raised by applicants. Timely responses from the PIO not only uphold the spirit of the RTI Act but also reinforce public trust in government institutions.

🏛️RTI Appeal Case & PIO: Appellant Kiran Singh Challenges “Misleading Information” by PIO

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is often a citizen’s last resort. Kiran Singh has escalated the case against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), focusing on allegations of misleading information and non-compliance.

---

Case Overview and Key Identifiers

This case highlights the procedural challenges and alleged opacity faced by citizens seeking information related to police investigations.

Detail	Information
Appellant	Kiran Singh W/O Narendra Pratap Singh
Respondent (PIO)	Naveen Kumar Singh, ADC, Commissioner of Police, Lucknow
Appeal Registration No.	A-20250200031
File Number	S05/A/0106/2025
Status (as of May 2025)	For further hearing in Hearing Room S-5,

The primary document filed by the appellant is an Objection/Submission (KOF), which serves as a formal complaint regarding the information provided during the proceedings on May 26, 2025.

---

📝 The Three Core RTI Queries and PIO’s Denials (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

Kiran Singh sought information on three distinct points related to a property dispute and police conduct at the Krishnanagar police station. The PIO’s response to each query is the subject of the appeal.

1. The Disputed Private Road Ownership (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

• Sought Information: Details from the sub-inspector’s investigation regarding whether the private road belonged to Shimla Devi or Vidyavati Devi.
• PIO’s Response: Denied, stating the information concerns the Department of Revenue.
• Appellant’s Submission: Argues that the police must provide a reason for declaring the land a “common road” in their reports; otherwise, their entire investigation is baseless.

2. Police Misconduct and Land Grabbing Allegations (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

• Sought Information: The legal provision addressing land grabbing through collusion with police falls under the Civil Procedure Code, following an incident in which the appellant claims police had confined her and family members at Krishnanagar Police Station.
• PIO’s Response: Denied, stating the allegations are baseless.
• Appellant’s Submission: Argues that the police exhibit prejudice and overlook the demand for an inquiry into corruption and irregularities by using the “revenue matter” excuse.

3. Posting Details of Police Personnel

• Sought Information: Posting and joining details (past and present) of police personnel Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki.
• PIO’s Response: Denied, stating the information concerns the police headquarters.
• Appellant’s Submission: Accuses the PIO of violating Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which mandates that the PIO must forward the application to the concerned public authority if they do not hold the information.

---

🚨 Allegations of Misleading Information and RTI Violation

The core of the Second Appeal rests on two critical points highlighted in the appellant’s submission:

1. Ignoring the March 11 Order: The appellant notes that the Commissioner, in the order dated March 11, 2025, had already stated that the information provided by the PIO was misleading. The authorities subsequently issued a notice to the PIO for a hearing before they could take action.
2. The appellant argues that the FAA issued its decision (dated February 5, 2025) after the Second Appeal appellant filed (February 1, 2025) and failed to consider the appellant’s submissions, instead endorsing the PIO’s misleading information.
3. The PIO violates Section 6(3) by refusing to forward the request for posting details to the head office, despite claiming that the information is under their custody, which clearly breaches their statutory duty under the RTI Act.

In total, the appellant alleges a systematic attempt by the respondent to evade providing substantive information and an ongoing failure to comply with the RTI Act, 2005.

---

⚖️ The Road Ahead for the Commission

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) is now faced with deciding whether to

• Impose a Penalty: Rule on the alleged violation of Section 6(3) and potentially penalise the PIO for providing misleading information, as noted in the March 11 order.
• Direct Compliance: Order the PIO to provide the specific, non-exempt information (like posting details) and a reasoned response for the investigation details, as required by the law.

The case is currently listed for a further hearing, emphasising the Commission’s intent to closely examine the PIO’s non-compliance.

The contact details and website link for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) are as follows:

🌐 Official Website and Address (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

The official website is the primary resource for online services, case status, and information. (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

Contact Type	Detail
Official Website Link	https://upsic.up.gov.in/
Physical Address	7/7A, RTI भवन, विभूति खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ, Uttar Pradesh
Office Phone Number	0522-2724930

---

📧 Key Email Contact Details

The UPIC uses specific email addresses for administrative, technical, and RTI-related communication.

Role/Purpose	Email Address
Webmaster/Technical Queries	webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
RTI/Jansoochana Section	jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
Hearing Court (S-5)	hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in (As used in your case documents)

Note: Email addresses are often published both with and without them[dot] to prevent spam. Replace them with the proper characters ‘(‘ and ‘)’ when sending an email. (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

This scenario, where a specific document link (like the KOF submission) is inaccessible (shows a 404 error) but the overall case status page is working, is a common technical issue.

The document remains inaccessible through the direct link because the document storage system (which hosts the PDF files) is technically separate from the main case-tracking database.

💾 Why the Document Link Fails But Case Status Works

The online system for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), called CATS-UPSIC, generally consists of two main components:

1. The Case Tracking Database (Accessible)

The Case Tracking Database is the primary database that stores all textual and structured information about your case, which is what the main “Case Status” search page pulls from.

• The Case Tracking Database stores your name, registration numbers ($\text{A-20250200031}$), file numbers ($\text{S05/A/0106/2025}$), hearing dates, and logs the submission of documents (e.g., “Document-1 Details: View Document” recorded on May 27, 2025)
• Why it Works: This database is usually highly stable. When you search, it shows the metadata (the record of the submission) but not the file itself.

2. The Document Storage Server (Inaccessible)

This server is where the actual PDF file of your KOF or objection is physically stored. The “View Document” link is a specific URL address pointing to this file’s location.

• What it Stores: The actual $\text{objectiondoc.pdf}$ file.
• Why it Fails (404 Error): The 404 error means the specific URL/address to the PDF file has broken; has expired; or the storage server itself is offline or experiencing a temporary routing error. The link from the database to the file is malfunctioning, but the database record itself is fine.

---

🔑 How to Access the Document (or Confirm its Existence)

If the direct document link has broken, you cannot access the file through the case status page, but the Commission keeps the document as part of the official record.

The solution is to bypass the broken link and confirm the document’s existence through official channels:

1. Check the Cause List (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

The Cause List (Weekly Hearing List) is a public document that shows which cases are scheduled. If your case ($text{S05/A/0106/2025}$) appears on the list, it indicates that the Commission’s registry has processed your file, including the KOF document, and has scheduled it for hearing.

• Action: Search for the “Current Weekly Cause List” on the UPIC website.

2. Request a Certified Copy from the Registry (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

If you need a copy of your submitted KOF document, you must approach the Commission’s Registry Section (रजिस्ट्री अनुभाग) directly.

• Action: Submit a formal application with the Registry, citing the File Number ($text{S05/A/0106/2025}$), and request a certified copy of the document you submitted on May 27, 2025, which the system should log.

3. Use the Email as Proof (RTI Appeal Case & PIO)

The most reliable confirmation that you successfully sent the document is the email you sent to the official court email addresses: hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in.

• Please bring a printout of the KOF document along with the sent email (showing the date and time) to the next hearing. The bench will accept the physical copy of the document you submitted via email as the primary proof.

The Commission staff accesses the document through their internal system, which logs and tracks the file, but a technical error breaks the public online link.