NITESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. GNCTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by

(2.) THE appellant Mr. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi has filed the above 13 RTI applications against different Hospitals controlled by the same Public Authority, i.e. Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, on almost similar issues and hence they are heard together today.

(3.) HEARD the submissions made by all the respondent authorities/Hospitals, except the respondent authorities of two Hospitals, namely, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and G.B. Pant Hospital, who have not been represented in the hearing. The appellant/complainant is not present before the Commission for hearing him in these appeals. He was also never present before the First Appellate Authorities during the hearing of the first appeal in all these cases, as reported by all the respondent authorities. As per the respondent authorities, the appellant Mr. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi, is interested only in filing the RTI applications, but not for getting the information, as he never receives the information dispatched by the PIOs because he changes his addresses deliberately, and the said replies/information, are received back by the PIOs, with the remarks of the Postal Department stating as 'Not residing/absconding', etc. They have also submitted that they have sent the desired information to the appellant, in good faith, but he is not receiving them and they have also offered him inspection of the record, for which he never turns up. The PIOs of all the Hospitals, also submitted that they are compelled to divert the services of the professional doctors and specialists to answer the RTI questions on priority, which is causing a serious disruption of the medical services to the public. All the doctors and officers are fearing the onslaught of the RTI Act, especially from this appellant Mr. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi. In this connection, the Commission advised the Public Authority to give a comprehensive report of the RTI applications filed by this appellant and how it paralyzed their medical services. The PIO of Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, presented a brief of the information given to the appellant, in which there are 16 cases decided by this Commission on the same subject. The PIO of the Dada Dev Matri Avum Shishu Chikitsalaya submitted that they did not receive the RTI application of the appellant at all. In this connection, they have also presented the relevant extracts of their diary register to the Commission. They have only received the hearing notice of the Commission. The PIO of the Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital presented a bundle of sheets of information furnished to the appellant in response to this RTI application. All the PIOs of the Public Authority have submitted that the following number of RTI applications are repeatedly received by them: -