CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003115/6525
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003115
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Hotam Chand
S/o Late Shri Fattan Mal B-565,
J.J. Colony, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi – 110059
Respondent : Mr. Ravinder Kumar
Public Information Officer & Tehsildar
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Dy. Commissioner (West District),
Old Middle School Complex,
Rampura, Delhi – 110035
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2009
PIO replied : 16/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 29/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 21/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 11/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 22/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 22/01/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information regarding issuance of OBC certificate. He had sought as
to why certificates were not issued to his children, why they are not considering his applications,
under which rule one should apply for OBC certificate, where to apply for the certificate, officer
responsible for issuance of the certificate, number of SC, ST, OBC certificates were issued by
the department and so on…..
Note: He had asked the PIO to give information in Hindi.
PIO’s Reply:
The PIO in his reply had stated that, “The application basically relates to your grievance
for non-issuance of OBC certificate which has been rejected as your case is not included in the
OBC list of Delhi. Information sought by you is in question & queries form and is not covered
under the definition of information under sec.2(f) of the R.T.I.Act 2005.”
First Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO. The PIO had not provided the information in Hindi the
Mother Language.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA ordered that, “Perusal of the record shows that the appellant had mentioned 11 points
in his RTI application but the information with regard to one point only was supplied to him.
Therefore, in view of the request of the appellant and submissions made by the PIO, it is directed
that information as available in the record pertaining to 11 points be provided to the appellant
within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order by the PIO.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information was not provided by the PIO. The FAA had also not provided the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Hotam Chand;
Respondent: Mr. Sonia Lalit Narang, UDC on behalf of Mr. Ravinder Kumar PIO &Tehsildar;
The PIO has provided the information as per record. The appellant states that he is
recognized as an OBC but his children are not been given OBC certificate. This is not a subject
that can be resolved under RTI but the Commission suggests that the public authority consider
the matter and resolve it as per the law.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
22 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)