Central Information Commission
Hasan Khurshid vs Mcd on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/C/2024/116412
Hasan Khurshid ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Commissioner-City
S.P.Zone, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, City
S.P. Zone, Old Hindu College
Building, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025
Date of Decision : 12.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.05.2024
CPIO 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:Page 1 of 6
"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-
Page 2 of 6It 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 lPO 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 PlO, 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 malafide, 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 false, misleading information, dereliction of duty and causing mental agony to a senior citizen. An inquiry may also be instituted against the APIO/ Administrative Officer and he should be stripped for this post. A heavy fine should also be imposed on him so that the message goes down well and citizens are saved from harassment of such elements in future."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Amit Verma, JSA (on behalf of Shri Manish Kumar, PIO) appeared late in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Complainant contended that his RTI application has been wrongly returned to him on false grounds despite the fact that he has filed correct IPO twice on different dates. He apprised the Commission that the issue on which he sought information pertains to unauthorized lifting of his private car by LI/ City SP Zone, MCD from a protected parking area, without giving any notice to the Complainant. He submitted that his car was in a mint (brand-new) condition and had barely run for 16000 kilometers. This act of the MCD officers was done in collusion with the scrappers for their personal gains and their higher-ups were also involved in protecting the culprits for personal benefits Page 3 of 6 by cannibalizing such 'stolen' cars and by selling various parts of the vehicle. Also, valuable articles kept in the car are taken away by such officers without any notice to the owners or affording an opportunity to remove personal belongings. There was a deliberate attempt to delay the matter by repeatedly refusing to take his RTI application on one pretext or the other as is evident from the case file. PIO initially denied accepting his RTI application saying that IPO is not in the name of 'Commissioner MCD' and when he submitted fresh IPO with the same suggested by the PIO, that too was refused. Thus, the PIO is acting with mala fide intent. There is a large-scale scam that has happened under the Delhi Government which needs to be investigated by independent specialized agency. He prayed for the Commission's intervention in the matter and action against the Respondent.
8. Respondent produced a written submission dated 03.11.2025 before the Commission to enumerate the facts of the case and prayed the Bench to take the same on record. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:
"1. Sh. Hasan Khurshid had filed a RTI application dated 02.05.2025 enclosing IPO bearing No. 51F 934469 of Rs. 10/- in the name of Deputy Commissioner, City SP Zone, MCD, Delhi (Annexure-'A').
2. Vide letter No. D/76/RTI/AC/CSPZ/2024 dated 06.05.2024, he was informed that the IPO was not acceptable and requested to provide the fresh IPO of Rs. 10/- pay to Commissioner, MCD for further process of his RTI application under the RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure-'B').
3. Sh. Hasan Khurshid had again filed a RTI application dated 15.05.2025 enclosing IPO bearing No. 64F 752380 of Rs. 10/- in the name of MCD Commissioner. Delhi (Annexure-'C').
4. Vide letter No. D/104/RTI/AC/CSPZ/2024 dated 17.05.2024, he was informed that the IPO was not acceptable and requested to provide the fresh IPO of Rs. 10/-pay to Commissioner, MCD for further process of his RTI application under the RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure-'D').
Submitted for kind information please."Page 4 of 6
Decision
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that returning of RTI application of the Complainant twice by the PIO on vague technicalities that IPO was not given in the name of Commissioner, MCD depicts that that the PIO is not intending to facilitate information to the Complainant in the spirit of the RTI Act. It is noted with concern that the issue raised in the RTI application hints towards a scam of unauthorized lifting of private vehicles by the concerned officers and thereafter, removal of valuables as also saleable parts for their personal gains in connivance with scrappers. The disclosure of information apparently involves larger public interest, and it nowhere attracts any of the exemption clauses under RTI Act. However, the PIO appears to be shielding the wrongdoers by malafidely returning the RTI application of the Complainant on flimsy grounds deliberately.
10. Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned PIOs (the then and the present) for deliberately not providing any reply with proper information to the Complainant. The act of the concerned PIO, tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. Thus, it is a fit case for initiating proceedings under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. Hence, they (the then PIO and the present PIO) are being called to show cause.
11. In view of the above, mala fide on their part is prima facie established and therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to issue Show Cause Notice to the then PIO and Shri Manish Kumar, present PIO and O/O. Assistant Commissioner, MCD, City SP Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, -110006 for flouting the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIOs shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons. Written explanation of the PIOs should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
12. Shri Amit Verma, JSA, to serve a copy of this order at the correct correspondence address of the present PIO and then PIO for timely compliance of the directions. He shall upload a proof of service on the link given in the CIC's hearing notice.
13. Meanwhile, the Respondent (present PIO, Shri Manish Kumar) is advised to upload a point-wise reply along with information as sought for, with a copy Page 5 of 6 to the Complainant after accessing the same from the concerned officer under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, if need be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The FAA shall ensure compliance with this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o the Deputy Commissioner, City SP Zone, 2nd Floor, Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)