The following are the key takeaways regarding the RTI case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. UP Information Commission. This summary is derived from the detailed blog post. It also draws on the associated legal documents. The particular focus is on Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC.

1. The Core Dispute: Digital Presence vs. Manual Records

• The central conflict involves a virtual hearing on January 12, 2026. The official order sheet erroneously recorded the appellant as “absent” during this hearing.
• The appellant has produced a “Digital Alibi.” This includes an email sent at 12:54 PM on the hearing date. The email proves he was waiting in the Microsoft Teams lobby.
• Prior to the hearing, the appellant had already submitted a comprehensive written statement on January 10, 2026.

2. Failure of the RTI Process at Initial Stages (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

• Specific Information Denied: The appellant sought five points of information. Most importantly, he wanted the digital server logs and Teams participant lists to prove his presence.
• Inadequate PIO Response: The PIO (Mumtaz Ahmad) provided a report. It merely repeated the “absent” status from the contested paper order sheet. He did not extract electronic metadata.
• FAA Oversight: The First Appellate Authority (Tejaskar Pandey) dismissed the appeal on March 5, 2026. The authority ruled the response “complete” without addressing the technical failure to provide digital logs.

3. Escalation to Second Appeal

• Registration: A Second Appeal was officially registered on March 19, 2026, under number A-20260301603.
• Primary Grounds: The appeal is based on “Misleading Information” and the “Suppression of Digital Logs” by the commission’s staff.
• Demand for Accountability: The appellant wants penalties under Section 20(1) imposed. They accuse the PIO of providing false or misleading information.

4. Legal and Procedural Demands (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

• The appellant demands a formal correction of the record for the hearing dated January 12, 2026.
• There is a specific prayer for the Commission. They need to produce the certified digital server logs. This will confirm the appellant’s login attempt.
• The case highlights a broader issue. Should electronic evidence from the Commission’s own servers override manual clerical entries in the digital age?

Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC: When Digital Proof Meets Manual Error

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission currently faces a major test regarding digital transparency. Appellant Yogi M. P. Singh is challenging a critical discrepancy between physical records and electronic truth. This case shows how a manual error can stop digital participation in the system. It specifically references recent Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC.

The Central Conflict: A “Digital Alibi”

The dispute involves a virtual hearing held on January 12, 2026. Although the appellant claims he was present and ready, the official order sheet lists him as “absent”. Consequently, he has produced specific evidence. He aims to prove his attendance and active interest. Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC can be central to such disputes. They create discrepancies between real-world activities and official records.

• Real-time Proof: He sent an email at 12:54 PM on the hearing day. This email confirmed he was waiting in the Microsoft Teams lobby since 12:00 PM.
• Prior Submission: He filed a detailed written statement on January 10, 2026. This shows he was actively preparing for the case well in advance.
• Waiting Log: He remained logged into the digital lobby for the scheduled duration of the hearing.

The RTI Request for Server Logs

To resolve this error, the appellant filed RTI application UPICM/R/2026/60101 on February 18, 2026. He specifically asked for the following five points to establish a digital footprint. Clearly, eliminating Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC would strengthen transparency.

1. Written Status: A certified copy of the status of his Written Representation is filed through the CATS portal. The reference number is 45D 110120260011.
2. Attendance Logs: A certified copy of the Online Hearing Attendance Log or participant list for the January 12 session.
3. System Records: Confirmation if the Digital System of the Commission recorded his login for the provided link.
4. Minutes of Meeting: A certified copy of the Daily Order Sheet is available. The Bench Clerk for Room S-09 recorded these minutes.
5. Submission Review: Confirmation if his Written Submission reached the Commissioner during the hearing.

Administrative Resistance and the Appeal (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

However, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Mumtaz Ahmad, provided a report that ignored the digital logs. Instead, the PIO relied on a response from the hearing room that merely cited the contested order sheet. Furthermore, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Tejaskar Pandey, dismissed the appeal on March 5, 2026. He claimed the PIO’s response was “complete” without checking the actual server metadata or technical logs^. In this context, Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC were overlooked rather than thoroughly addressed.

The Second Appeal for Accountability

Because of this rejection, Yogi M. P. Singh filed a Second Appeal (A-20260301603) on March 19, 2026. He is now demanding the following relief from the Commission. His second appeal also highlights ongoing Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC.

• Direct Access: He wants the Commission to provide the actual digital server logs that prove his login attempt.
• Record Correction: He demands that the Commission fix the hearing record for January 12, 2026. It should show he was not absent.
• Legal Penalties: He seeks an inquiry and penalties against the PIO under Section 20(1) for providing misleading information.

This case remains a vital example of the struggle for transparency in the digital age. In summary, Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC serve as a warning for administrative modernisation.

Based on the official records and your recent filing, here are the structured details for the application IDs, contact information, and web links related to your case:

1. Application and Appeal Identifiers (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

• Original RTI Registration Number: UPICM/R/2026/60101.
• First Appeal Registration Number: UPICM/A/2026/60029.
• Second Appeal Registration Number: A-20260301603.
• Original Case Number (Hearing Room S-09): S-09/A/1037/2025.
• CATS Reference Number for Written Representation: 45D 110120260011.

---

2. Public Authority Contact Details (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

Role	Name & Designation	Mobile Number	Email Address
SPIO	Mumtaz Ahmad Administrative Officer	9151804317	jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
FAA	Tejaskar Pandey Deputy Secretary	9415021746	deputysecretary-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
Nodal Officer	Tejaskar Pandey	9415021746	As provided above
Bench Clerk	Shivam Rawat Ahlamad (Court S-09)	1840002126	N/A

---

3. Web Link and Portal Details (Manual Administrative Errors in UPIC)

• RTI Online Uttar Pradesh (Main Portal): https://rtionline.up.gov.in.
• Specific RTI Application Status Link: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/allstatus.php?regno=vMsL7kzcugsj8bUrKq%2B8tQ0E.
• Specific RTI Appeal Status Link: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/allstatus.php?regno=vMsL7kzcqT8xuRnpWxB0IAZm7g0%3D.
• UP Information Commission (UPSIC) Official Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in.
• Online Hearing/Virtual Meeting Link (General): https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/335701.
• Notice Download/SMS Log Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu?viewNoticeSms/d65f20.

---

Next Step: You have all the digital identifiers and contact emails. Should I draft a formal follow-up email to the Nodal Officer (Tejaskar Pandey)? This email would request an urgent status update on your Second Appeal.