PIO, UPSIC refused to provide information concerning suspicious working of research officer who rejected appeals arbitrarily
Most respected sir following four messages sent on the email of the information seeker which is registered to the Uttar Pradesh state information commission during the registration of the second appeals which were sent simultaneously to above messages respectively. Registered email is yogimpsingh@gmail.com
Simultaneous email 1-CATS-UPSIC (noreply-upic@up.gov.in) 7 February 2024 at 15:26 To: yogimpsingh@gmail.com Your application has been rejected by Research officer
Simultaneous email 2-CATS-UPSIC (noreply-upic@up.gov.in) 8 February 2024 at 16:32To: yogimpsingh@gmail.com Your application has been rejected by Research officer
Simultaneous email 3-CATS-UPSIC (noreply-upic@up.gov.in) 8 February 2024 at 17:21To: yogimpsingh@gmail.com Your application has been rejected by Research officer
Simultaneous email 4-CATS-UPSIC (noreply-upic@up.gov.in) 8 February 2024 at 17:22To: yogimpsingh@gmail.com Your application has been rejected by Research officer
Registration Number UPICM/A/2024/60023
Name Yogi M P Singh
Date of Filing 13/02/2024
Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 28/03/2024
Reply :- Disposed of wide letter No.496 dated 22-03-2024
View Document
Nodal Officer Details
Name TEJASKAR PANDEY
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 JAGDISH PRASAD
Phone No 05222724941
Email Id sec.sic@gov.in
* Ground For Appeal Refused access to Information Requested
((Description of Information sought (upto 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
Designation ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Phone No 05222724745
Email Id
PIO Order/Decision Number Details not provided
* PIO Order/Decision Date
Email-ID