Central Information Commission
Rama Kant Shandilya vs Container Corporation Of India Ltd. on 27 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/631835
Rama Kant Shandilya .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The PIO under RTI,
Container Corporation of India
Ltd., CONCOR Bhawan, C-3,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110076 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025
Date of Decision : 26.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 08.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
" I am citizen of India is requesting you to please provide me following information's under the provisions of RTI Act 2005. I was posted in 2019 in RO Nagpur, there I was executing mainly maintenance work of CONCOR-ICD, MMLPP at Nagpur, Raipur, Bhusawal, Mandideep-Bhopal, and Aurangabad. I was the only civil engineer, there was no other civil Page 1 of 9 engineer except me. Annual Maintenance work was awarded to the local contractor M/s J P Enterprises for ICD-Nagpur, ICD-Mandideep-Bhopal, and ICD-Aurangabad after approval from RO-Nagpur.
1. Kindly arrange to provide list of work executed at all these ICD by M/s J P Enterprises based on work order issued by me and also executed work not based on work order too. How much payments was made work wise to contractor.
2. I told to Contractor not to execute any work without work orders but he had executed and payments of such works were paid to him by CONCOR without my consultation and checking. Please provide list of all such works.
3. I am surprise, how the actual works measurements were checked without my consultation and record for hidden items works and exposed items works too. Kindly tell about it and under which rule too.
4. Kindly arrange to provide list of civil engineers working on sensitive post more than 3yers at head quarter not transferred out side area and terminals."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.06.2024 stating as under:
1. The information related with list of works executed by the contractors based on the works orders and not based on the work orders at various units CONCOR. This tantamount to be disproportionately divert the resources of public authority u/s 7(9) of RTI Act 2005.
2. It is grievance and query and thus not covered under the Act.
3. This is a query and hence not covered under the Act.
4. Exempted under section 8(1)(j)
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.07.2024, held as under:
" I have reviewed the appeal filed by Shri Ramakant Shandilya, dated 28.06.2024, against PIO reply vide letter no. CON/A-II/RTI/24/2288 dated 26.06.2024, in response to his online RTI application dated 06.06.2024.
The requested information pertains to a list of work executed at ICD/Nagpur, ICD/Mandideep and ICD/Aurangabad by contractor M/s.Page 2 of 9
Jaypee Enterprises, executed both with and without work order, along with payment details for the said works executed under the applicant's supervision.
Based on the records presented, the Public Information Officer/Area-II provided a pointwise reply in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is observed that the appellant has filed the appeal stating that the information provided is incomplete, misleading or false, but he has not specified the grounds for deeming it so.
Upon reviewing the reply, it is observed that the requested information was adequately addressed and satisfactorily provided. Therefore, no additional information needs to be furnished.
Since the RTI application has been replied appropriately as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and no valid grounds were raised by the appellant to support or establish that the reply is incompleteness, inaccuracy, or impropriety of the reply, the appeal filed by Shri Ramakant Shandilya lacks merit and is hereby disposed off accordingly. "
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri P. Bapu Rao, General Manager (P&A)/APIO and Shri Sanjay Narwade, General Manager (Projects)- participated in the hearing.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.07.2024 is not available on record.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. A written submission dated 24.11.2025 has been received from Shri Ravi Prakash Chaturvedi, PIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 3 of 91. Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR) is a Central Public Sector Enterprise and a Navratna Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Ministry of Railways is the administrative ministry for CONCOR.
2. CONCOR is a Multi Modal Logistics Company with 66 terminals spread all over India and provides logistics services for EXIM and Domestic Cargo which include services for transportation of cargo through containers to and fro the Ports from hinterland by Rail/Road, warehousing etc. It also acts as Custodian of EXIM Cargo on behalf of Customs.
3. CONCOR is a business entity and has to operate in a competitive environment along with about 16 private companies/entities in the same or similar business. In the present era of open economy there is no privilege/advantage available to the company and it has to evolve its own business plans/strategies to sustain in the competitive market to fetch value and returns on capital not only to other shareholders but also to the Government.
4. The matter pertains to the appellant, Shri Rama Kant Shandilya, who while working as DGM (Civil) at Nagpur was found indulged in malpractices by flouting the relating to excavation of murram from the newly constructed MMLP-Mihan Unit without following due procedure. After due inquiry, his services were terminated from CONCOR in July 2022. Since then, he has been habitually filing RTI applications (three in March 2024, two in April 2024, and one in June 2024). Further, it is submitted that Shri Shandilya has been approaching various authorities and filing cases against CONCOR, including proceedings before Lok Adalat and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. As informed by the Legal Department (Annexure-C), the first hearing in Shri Ramakant Shandilya vs. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9622 of 2023 was held on 21.07.2023. The matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court, with the next date of hearing fixed for 30.01.2026. All six RTI applications were duly replied to by the PIO and upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
6. The appellant submitted his 1st appeals (copies enclosed as Annexures) addressed to the Appellate Authority, CONCOR, stating that he has been denied access to requested information under Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(j) and 7(9) of the RTI Act, citing exemptions related to commercial confidence, personal information, and disproportionate diversion of resources. The applicant argues that the information is in the public interest, emphasizing transparency in government activities and citing multiple judicial Page 4 of 9 pronouncements to support his right to access such information.
He requested disclosure of documents, stressing the public's right to know.
7. The Appellate Authority has examined the appeals and replied that CONCOR, being a commercial organization, engages in various contracts and business arrangements, and the related information is a matter of trade and commercial confidence. Disclosure would harm the interests of bidders, contractors, and the Corporation itself. Therefore, the PIO correctly invoked Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(j) and 7(9) of the RTI Act. Hence, further disclosure is not warranted in the public . The PIO's replies were upheld, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Further it is pertinent to mention that the information requested by the applicant cannot be disclosed under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Section 8(1)(d) exempts disclosure of information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, which could harm the competitive position of a third party. This safeguard is essential to protect sensitive commercial information and maintain fair competition.
Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. Several queries raised by the appellant fall within this category.
Section 7(9) further exempts information requests that would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Several queries raised by the appellant fall within this category. Thus, the denial of the requested information aligns with the RTI Act's provisions to safeguard sensitive commercial and personal information, ensuring that the public authority maintains confidentiality and upholds its legal responsibilities. Further, it is mentioned that the larger public interest is also not involved and the information for disclosure of 3rd party information is exempt under the Act.
Moreover, CONCOR is dealing with multimodal logistics related with Export/Import and domestic business where we need to maintain the confidentiality with reference to our business secrets otherwise the same business can grab by the private payers who are doing similar business in this area.Page 5 of 9
The appellant was removed from the services of CONCOR for malpractices as a result, he has been raising RTI queries rather than seeking information.
From the above, it can be seen that the applicant had raised most of the information as queries, grievances such as non-payment of salary, arrears, transfer made on health grounds etc. Besides he also raised some queries related with types of engineers and officials who had passed the bills etc., which are exempted for disclosure under RTI Act. Apart from these, his information are related with grievance nature, such as, allegations that the working of civil were executed without arrears and payment were made to contractors. Some information raised were exempted under Section 7(9) of RTI Act.
Taking into consideration the above, the appeals filed by the appellant may kindly be rejected..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application relates to contract awarded to M/s J P Enterprises. It is worthwhile to mention that information sought in by the Appellant related to work-contract should ideally have been placed in public domain upfront to maintain transparency in the system.
8. Further, the information such as Award letter, Completion Certificate, MB (Measurement Book), Quality Check Report (QCR), Bill of Quantity (BoQ), Registration Certificate of Contractor are also made available to the public on demand as it does not attract exemption as per the RTI Act.
9. The Commission would like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information.
10. Commission in its earlier order dated 29.10.2024 in File No. CIC/DSIDC/A/2023/130549 had given similar directions related to Page 6 of 9 information regarding upfront disclosure of information relating to contracts/agreements, the relevant para is reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is noteworthy that the information sought by the appellant at para (a) to (f) of RTI application is in numeric figures which should ideally be available in public domain upfront to maintain transparency in the system. For ease of reading, name of such tender/award letter documents, inter alia are reproduced below
-
1. NIT.
2. Terms and conditions.
3. Information to bidders (ITB).
4. Minutes of PBC (Pre-bid consultation).
5. Award Letter.
6. Estimated Amount at which tender awarded.
7. Date of start.
8. Date of completion (as per award/NIT).
9. Engineer-in-charge, their name & designation.
10. Supervisor with their name & designation. Usually, the information mentioned above at point Nos. 6 to 10 is included in award letters which should be easily accessible from the website of concerned Public Authority. Further, the information such as completion certificate, MB (Measurement Book), Quality Check Report (QCR), Bill of Quantity (BoQ), Registration Certificate of Contractor are also made available to the public on demand as it does not attract exemption as per the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is invited towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry on 16 December, 2015:AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1 wherein it was held as under:-
"...80. At this juncture, we may refer the decision of this Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311, wherein this court while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non- performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, held :-
".............it may be observed that though the transaction may have a character of a private contract yet the question of great Page 7 of 9 importance behind such transactions as a whole having far reaching effect on the economy of the country cannot be ignored, purely restricting it to individual transactions more particularly when financing is through banks and financial institutions utilizing the money of the people in general namely, the depositors in the banks and public money at the disposal of the financial institutions. Therefore, wherever public interest to such a large extent is involved and it may become necessary to achieve an object which serves the public purposes, individual rights may have to give way. Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio- economic drive of the country..........."
xxxx
82. We have, therefore, given our anxious consideration to the matter and came to the conclusion that the Central Information Commissioner has passed the impugned orders giving valid reasons and the said orders, therefore, need no interference by this Court."
11. Commission has recently heard a case bearing File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2024/114518 in which Public Authority i.e. Delhi Development Authority has disclosed all tender related information upfront on their website including the measurement books, which were in the electronic form besides all the payment details. It was an additional pleasure to see that the PIO, who is an Executive Engineer rank officer, not only knew that such information is on their website but also demonstrated availability of every information on the computer of the court room during hearing. Commission appreciated such proactive disclosure and expects the present Respondent Public Authority to follow the same.
12. In view of the above, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of documents/information related to tenders, award letters etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website without having to resort to RTI mechanism. This will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of such RTI Applications.
Page 8 of 913. Considering the above observations, the Respondent is directed to provide complete point-wise information to the Appellant as per his RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Commission prohibits the PIO from charging fee for such information which is required to be disclosed upfront as per Section 4 of the RTI Act.
14. A copy of this order be placed before Competent Authority for earliest implementation of the above advisory.
15. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Container Corporation of India Ltd., CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110076.Page 9 of 9
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25 (5) of The RTI Act Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)