Imposition of penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act requires the existence of mala fide, deliberate denial, or contumacious conduct; procedural lapses or technical misunderstandings, if addressed, may not warrant penalty proceedings.

RTI application filed on : 01.05.2024 PIO replied on : 06.05.2024, 17.05.2024

First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.05.2024

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Q.1. On 23.04.24, I sent a notice to Ravi Sharma, LI/ City SP Zone, MCD, by Speed Post (copy enclosed as Anx.1), for wrongfully and illegally lifting my car no. DL2C L8278, from MCD car parking, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, on April 6, 24, by "Removal Order" of Ravi Sharma (copy enclosed as Anx.2), However, the said notice was refused and returned to me by the addressee. What was his malafide intention for doing this act?

Q.2. My car lifted wrongfully is in brand new condition, having run only 16000 kms. What is the status of my car, as I suspect that the scrapper must have removed its vital parts by now including it's Stepeny, which had never been opened?

Q.3. On 26.04.24, I met Mr. P.K. Singh, Asstt Commissioner, gave him an application (copy enclosed as Anx.3). What is the action on this application?

Q.4. The impugned "Removal Order" is technically wrong as in my notice dt. 23.04.24, I have clarified the definition of 'public place'.

Q.5. Kindly inform me as to when will I get my car in perfect condition without removal of any minor/ major part from it. In the dickey of the vehicle some valuable personal belongings/papers had also been kept, and in case some parts/ items have been removed, should I be at liberty to lodge an FIR of stolen property?”

2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 06.05.2024 stating as under:

“IPO of Rs. 10/- 51F 934469. In the name of PIO which is not acceptable. It is "requested please provide the fresh IPO of Rs.10/- pay to Commissioner, MCD for further process of your RTI application under the RTI Act 2005.”

3. The PIO furnished another reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.05.2024 stating as under –

“IPO of Rs. 10/- 64F 752380. In the name of PIO which is not acceptable. It is "requested please provide the fresh IPO of Rs.10/- pay to Commissioner, MCD for further process of your RTI application under the RTI Act 2005.”

4. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds-

It is to bring to your kind notice that on 1.5.24, I sent a RTI application to APIO, MCD, city SP Zone, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, with IPO No. 51F 934469, of Rs. 10/= payable to Deputy commissioner, city 5P zone, MCD (copies enclosed as Anx 1&2), which was wrongfully returned by APIO on a false pretext that the IPO was in the name of PIO, hence not acceptable. However, this was a false reason and in fact it was named not as PIO but Dy. commissioner, which is a fact on record. whereas, again on 14.05.24, I resent the same RTI application with a fresh lPO No. 64F 752380, of Rs. 10/=, marked in favour of MCD commissioner, but the APIO has again returned my second application, falsely and mischievously writing therein that the IPO was in favour of PlO. The copy of the IPO is enclosed as Anx 3 & 4, which clearly shows that it is in favour of MCD commissioner. This phenomenon clearly shows the mala fide, bad intention of the APIO/ Administrative officer, in the light of the maxim, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” for which he should be strictly punished/ prosecuted for deliberately giving fals