Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3041
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Transport Department, GNCTD – Respondent
CIC/TDDEL/A/2024/135382
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: None
The RTI Act does not serve as a grievance-redressal mechanism, and parties must utilize alternative forums for their grievances.
Headnote:Statutory provisions under the RTI Act, 2005 were analyzed, focusing on the appellant's request for information regarding the impounding of his vehicle. The court found that adequate information had been provided in response to earlier representations, highlighting procedural adherence. The primary issue was whether the respondent acted appropriately under the RTI framework. The court emphasized that RTI should not function as a grievance-redressal mechanism, as affirmed in various precedents. Ultimately, the commission ruled that the respondent must acknowledge and respond to the representation dated 25.07.2024 appropriately.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of appellant's rti requests. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedures followed by the respondent. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's ruling on compliance. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final order. (Para 9) |
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/TDDEL/A/2024/135382 Suresh Kumar .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Transport Department, GNCTD, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi – 110054 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Decision : 25.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.08.2024 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 16.10.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.10.2024 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.08.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
“Find enclosed herewith a photocopy of my letter dated 26th Feb 2024, 28th Aug 2023, 22nd Aug 2023 and 25th July 2024.
The above information may please be supplied to are under RTI Act
2005.”
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:- Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Puspraj, Section Officer/Nodal Officer; Shri Ashok Kumar Kaushik, Enforcement Officer; and Shri Vikrant Shokeen, Constable, appeared in person.
4. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he wanted to know action taken on his representations dated 26.02.2024, 28.08.2023, 22.08.2023 and 25.07.2024. However, the same was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
5. The Respondent PIO, Enforcement Officer, through a letter dated 30.06.2025 provided reply to the Appellant stating complete facts of the case, copy of the same is marked to the Commission. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
“1. This is an order on First Appeal dated 16.10.2024 filed by Shri Suresh Kumar against response dated 19.9.2024 on his RTI application dated 21.08.2024. Hearing on First Appeal was earlier fixed on 16.10.2024. But the Appellant did not turn up for hearing on that day. Thereafter the appellant sent a copy of his Second Appeal filed by him at Central Information Commission in file Number CIC/TDDEL/A/2024/135382.
2. The appellant was thereafter called for hearing on his First Appeal again on 20.6.2025 at 3.30 P.M. But he did not turn up even after waiting for quite some time.
3. I have gone through the records and find that the appellant sought information on action taken on his representation dated 22.08.2023, 20.08.2023, 26.02.2024 and 26.07.2024 addressed at incomplete address as Transport Commissioner GNCTD, Delhi about impounding of his car DL3CAB1245 (Hyundai Santro) admittedly under the rules whereby petrol- driven cars older than 15 years are to be impounded. Copies of representations submitted by the appellant reveal that due to incomplete address, some of his referred representations reached to Raj Niwas and some at Delhi Secretariat.
4. Records reveal that the appellant was replies vide letter dated 21.3.2024 enclosing therewith a copy of Seizure Memo dated 27.06.2023. The appellant was informed that the vehicle was scrapped post 90 days of Seizure of vehicle as per rules further suggesting the scrapping Cell for payment/query of the vehicle. PIO responded vide response dated 19.09.2024 enclosing therewith a copy of inputs dated 19.09.2024 received from the concerned section. A copy of said departmental letter dated
21.03.2024 was enclosed with the response.
5. I do not find any infirmity in PIO's response. He can provide information which exists on record. Furthermore, RTI Act cannot be used as some Grievance-Redressal-Mechanism. Reference is invited to CIC-verdict dated 14.12.2011
