PIO, UPSIC refused to provide information concerning suspicious working of research officer who rejected appeals arbitrarily

4 second appeals arbitrarily rejected by research officer of U. P. state Information Commission reflects negative approach 

Your RTI Appeal filed successfully.

Please note down the details of registration.

Registration Number :UPICM/A/2024/60023

Name :Yogi M P Singh

Date of Filing :13-02-2024

Request filed with :Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

 Contact Details  

Telephone Number :05222724941


Online RTI Appeal Form Details

Public Authority Details :-  

* Public Authority Uttar Pradesh Information Commission 

Personal Details: -

* Name Yogi M P Singh

Gender Male

* Address Mohalla Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office

Districts Mirzapur

Pincode 231001

State Uttar Pradesh

Educational Status Literate

Phone Number Details not provided

Mobile Number +91-7379105911

Email-ID yogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com

Citizenship Indian

* Is the Applicant Below Poverty Line ? No

First Appeal Details u/s 19(1) :-

Registration Number UPICM/A/2024/60023

Date of Filing 13/02/2024

Concerned Appellate Authority Nodal Officer

Phone No Details not provided.

Email Id Details not provided.

* Ground For Appeal Refused access to Information Requested

((Description of Information sought (up to 500 characters)

* Prayer or Relief Sought According to subsection (2 B iv) of section 4 of the UTTAR PRADESH RIGHT TO INFORMATION RULES, 2015 categorically states that  Any request for obtaining information under the Act should fulfil the following conditions: The information sought should not involve answers to the question ‘why’, thus asking for reasons why a certain act was done or not done; or

It is quite obvious that the concerned public information officer denied the information by taking the recourse of 4th point of subsection 2 b of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh right to information rules 2015. According to this provision no queries can be put up before the public information officer and such information is exempted from disclosure under the rule framed by the government of Uttar Pradesh.

Here prayer has been made by the appellant in the form of the second appeals before the Uttar Pradesh state information commission. The acceptance of the appeal or rejection of the appeal is the decision taken by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission through concerned staff so if the rejection has been made by the Uttar Pradesh state information commission during the processing of the appeal then right to reason allows the applicant to seek the reason of the rejection from the concerned public authority. 

Admission and rejection both are integral part of a decision and admission is a positive aspect of a decision a rejection is a negative aspect of decision. Arbitrary decisions without reasons always open the gate of corruption so in the interest of Justice such practices can never be promoted in the working of the transparency ombudsman whose job is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities by being instrumental in providing information to the information seekers.

The right to give reasons or the right to a speaking order is one of the most important rights individuals have when they come up against the state in various administrative procedures. Due to this reason, this right has also been considered as the third principle of natural justice.

To prevent the negation of their decisions due to arbitrariness, the administrative authorities have to give convincing reasons for their actions. This prevents the functionaries from acting unfairly, unjustly and arbitrarily.

When administrative authorities give reasons for their actions, they are on the alert and have to carefully formulate objective reasons for their actions, which minimises the chances of abuse of powers by such authorities. Absence of such requirements, results in a wide scope for abuse of their discretion and creates a feeling of injustice and suspicion towards the state. Hence, this process of reasoning greatly limits the discretionary powers in the hands of government officials and furthers social welfare.  

Subsection 1 d of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005 states that It shall be obligatory duty of public authorities to provide reasons of its decisions.

Supporting document ((only pdf upto 1 MB)) Supporting document not provided

RTI Application Details u/s 6(1) :-

Registration Number UPICM/R/2024/60073

Date of Filing 09/02/2024

PIO of Public Authority approached MUMTAZ AHMAD


Phone No 05222724745

Email Id

PIO Order/Decision Number Details not provided

* PIO Order/Decision Date

Registration Number UPICM/A/2024/60023
Name Yogi M P Singh
Date of Filing 13/02/2024
Status RTI APPEAL RECEIVED as on 13/02/2024
  Nodal Officer Details  
Telephone Number 05222724941

An anti-corruption crusader. Motive to build a strong society based on the principle of universal brotherhood. Human rights defender and RTI activist. Working for the betterment of societies and as an anti-corruption crusader for more than 25 years. Our sole motive is to raise the voices of weaker and downtrodden sections of the society and safeguard their human rights. Our motive is to promote the religion of universal brotherhood among the various castes communities of different religions. Man is great by his deeds and character.


Your view points inspire us

  1. Arbitrary rejection of the appeal can never be justified.

  2. How can information be denied by public information officer by taking recourse of questionnaire?

Previous Post Next Post