JUDGMENT
Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.
Facts:
1. Shri Pratap Singh Gandas of Village Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi applied to M.C.D Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi on 17.11.05 asking for action taken reports/status reports in 387 cases submitted from the year 2000 to 2005 Vide his letter of 30.11.2005, Shri Ravi Dass, Engineer-in-Chief, M.C.D., Delhi responded that the 387 letters cited had been addressed to various authorities like Justice Nanavati Commission, President of India, Prime Minister, Lt Governors Office, CVC Office, DOV etc and that the applicant should apply separately for cases relating only to the Engineering Dept MCD for a suitable reply The Addl Commissioner (Engg) First Appellate Authority of the MCD upheld this response in appeal filed by the applicant Shri Gandas on 30.11.2005, by an order of 24.1.2006. The applicant filed both the complaint and Second. Appeal on the same order.
2. Shri P.S. Gandas is present in the hearing on 20.7.2006 together with respondents Dr M.M. Kutty, at present J.S., Ministry of Urban Development and earlier Appellate Authority in MCD, together with Shri Ravi Dass, Engineer-in-Chief. We have examined the file and heard the parties. The cause of action lies in letters most of which were written well before coming into force of the RTI Act.
3. They have been dealt with by the MCD under the Delhi RTI Act and instructions issued by the State Home Department before the enforcement of the RTI Act, 2005 Besides, from a perusal of the letters, presented in the hearing by respondents, it is clear that many of them are letters that were sent only for information to the MCD Appellant/Complainant has argued that these cases should have been transferred within 5 days of receipt of his application for information on action taken by the MCD Under Section 6(3) of the Act, to the public authorities holding the information. The respondents on the other hand have argued that since issues raised in many of the applications were in no way connected with the information held by the MCD, they were unable, in the absence of a cohesive application, to give the attention required to the case.
DECISION NOTICE
4. Under Section 6(3)(a) of the Act, it is indeed the responsibility of a Public Authority, receiving an application, to transfer that to the Public Authority holding information. However, this would have to be seen in light of Section 7(9), wherein it is not difficult to see that seeking to find the concerned Public Authorities as well as the information asked for in respect of 387 applications, all clubbed into one, would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.
5. The Public Authority was, therefore, justified in arguing that the applicant submit separate applications and would have been justified even in requesting a separate application for each piece of information sought in 387 cases, which it has not insisted upon The respondents moreover readily agreed that any information sought by the Appellant / Complainant, which pertains to the MCD, would be provided, if an application were made specifically in such cases.
6. Since the cause of action sought to be remedied through this appeal, pre-dates the RTI Act, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is advised to make separate applications to the concerned Public Authorities, instead of circulating one application to a set of public authorities, hoping to get some information from one or the other. These applications may be made under the specific provisions of RTI Act 2005 to concerned public authorities. The MCD officials present have assured they will give these all the attention mandated under the Act so far as their organization is concerned.
7. As mentioned in an earlier appeal by the same appellant/complainant, the language used in his appeal by appellant Shri Gandas is not in accordance with legal propriety. He is cautioned to be more discreet in expression in any future correspondence with this Commission.
8. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
