Central Information Commission
Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs Rail India Technical & Economic ... on 25 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/RITES/A/2024/630904
Vipin Kumar Tyagi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
RITES Ltd. Shikhar, Plot
No.01, Sector-29,
Gurugram - 122001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 06.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 09.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.06.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"This information is most likely to be available in office of RITES Ltd., RITES Bhawan, 1, Leisure Valley Road, Sector-29, Gurugram, Haryana - 122001.Page 1 of 6
This information is being sought regarding Reinforced Earth Walls (RE Walls for brevity) for project titled as - "Two Lane ROB Composite Span for Obligatory Span, 24 M PSC Approach Span in lieu of Level Crossings at LC-15C/3E between Ghasara Chhahhoond Road to Nagla Khaga-Achalda Village Road Station in Etawah, Ghasara to Kanpur, Achalda on Section Tundla to Kanpur of North Central Railway Allahabad". In reference to the same, I would like to seek following information:
1) Kindly state the date of submission of design and drawings for RE Walls for approaches for aforesaid ROB project with the consultant, i.e., RITES Ltd. Kindly state the date of approval of design and drawings of RE wall (ready for construction) by the consultant. Also state the completion date of RE walls for approaches for ROB for this project."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.05.2024 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant is not available with RITES Limited."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.06.2024, held as under:
"I have called for the records from the CPIO and perused the documents related to this appeal.
On perusal of the appeal & request of the applicant, it is noted that the applicant in his RTI application has sought certain information relating to project "Two Lane ROB Composite Span for Obligatory Span, 24 MPSC Approach Span in lieu of Level Crossing at LC-15/C/3E between Ghasara Chhahhoond Road to Nagla Khaga-Achalda Village Road Station in Etawah, Ghasara to Kanpur, Achalda on Section Tundla to Kanpur of North Central Railway, Allahabad." to which CPIO vide letter dated 06.05.2024 has informed that the information requested by the applicant is not available.
Since the applicant has made allegations of refusal of access to information by the CPIO, I am of the considered view that this issue may be re-examined by CPIO and he may provide a fresh reply. Accordingly, I direct CPIO to re-examine the matter and take up with the concerned Division and provide the correct information, if available and provide a reply to the Applicant within 30 days."Page 2 of 6
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with Shri Monu Kumar Tyagi in person. Respondent: Shri Krishna Mohan Pasi, Additional General Manager, appeared in person.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the Respondent CPIO despite directions of the FAA in its order dated 12.06.2024.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 10.07.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. Brief Background:
Mr. Vipin Kumar Tyagi had filed an RTI application dated bearing no. RITES/R/E/24/00043 dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure-1).
2. Disposal of RTI application:
The said RTI application dated 08.04.2024 was disposed by CPIO RITES on 06.05.2024 with comments "The information sought by the applicant is not available with RITES Ltd." (Annexure - 2).
3. Filing of First Appeal before FAA:
The applicant, thereafter, filed first appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA). In his first appeal, the Applicant supplemented additional information to make his disposed RTI Application more specific (Annexure-3).Page 3 of 6
4. Disposal of First appeal by FAA:
The FAA disposed the First Appeal vide its Order dated 012.06.2024 (Annexure 4) directing the CPIO to re-examine the matter and take up the same with the concerned division and provide the correct information if available, however, this Order of FAA was not received by CPIO and as such Order of FAA was not complied.
5. Filing of second appeal before CIC:
Aggrieved, the Applicant filed Second Appeal before CIC and the date hearing is 16.07.2025.
The matter came to the light of CPIO RITES when notice of hearing dated 24.06.2025 was received from CIC (Annexure 5). Accordingly, information is collected from the concerned division and the reply of RITES in compliance to the First Appeal Order dated 12.06.2024 is as below:
6. The submission to 2nd Appeal/ complaint:
Reply of RITES to RTI application dated 08.04.2024 in compliance to FAA's Order dated 12.06.2024 is as below:
"As per clause 5.4 of the GCC of the contract agreement (Annexure 6), the right to use the designs, drawings, and related documents lies with the client, i.e. DFCCIL and hence, the information sought vide RTI under reference cannot be furnished and the Public Authority through its CPIO hereby seeks exemption from disclosure of this information under provisions of Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information contains details of commercial confidence and trade secrets and other information that would harm the competitive position of a third party. There is no doubt that the nature of the information requested is commercial in nature. The potentiality of such disclosure affects the firm's competitive position and its commercial interest Page 4 of 6 considerably. Moreover, there is no public interest involved in the disclosure of the sought information. Since the disclosure of the information would harm the trade secrets/ intellectual property/ competitive position/commercial interest of a third party, hence RITES seeks exemption from disclosure of any information sought in these paras."
It is our humble submission that we are committed to comply with all the provisions of the RTI Act in letter and spirit and ready to comply with any Orders/directives in the aforesaid matter.
The Respondent during the hearing assured to provide the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant sought dates of submission, approval and completion of design and drawings for RE Walls relating to a ROB project executed by RITES Ltd. The CPIO vide reply dated 06.05.2024 stated that the information was not available. The FAA, however, directed the CPIO on 12.06.2024 to re-examine the matter and obtain information from the Division concerned. Despite this, no reply was furnished within the stipulated time, and it is only after receipt of the CIC hearing notice, the Respondent attempted to justify denial by citing Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission observes that the information sought pertains only to dates of submission, approval and completion, which are purely factual in nature. Such information cannot be construed as intellectual property, commercial confidence, or third-party information. The denial of such basic data is wholly unjustified and contrary to the principles of transparency under the RTI Act.
9. The Commission further notes that in matters of public contracts and infrastructure works, time is of the essence. Citizens have a legitimate right to know whether projects are executed within approved timelines, as delays have Page 5 of 6 direct financial implications and public impact. Suppression of such information undermines accountability and goes against the very spirit of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the Commission directs the present CPIO to furnish a revised, point-wise reply to the Appellant, providing the exact dates sought in the RTI application, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
10. The Commission also warns the concerned CPIOs (then and present) to remain cautious in future and not deny information mechanically without proper justification. Any such conduct in future may attract penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
11. The Commission further issues an Advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Respondent public authority (RITES Ltd.) to ensure maximum disclosure in contract-related matters, particularly regarding tender timelines, approvals, execution and completion, as these do not fall within the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. A copy of this order may be placed by the CPIO before the competent authority for its compliance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, RITES Ltd. Shikhar, Plot No.01, Sector-29, Gurugram - 122001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)