Central Information Commission
Pratik Ahuja vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 26 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/MORLY/A/2024/612043
Pratik Ahuja .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Railway, Research
Designs & Standards Organisation,
Manaknagar, Lucknow - 226011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025
Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 28.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"(1) Is there any policy of RDSO to procure the materials/power supply Items/traction equipments like transformers and etc. for 2x 25 kv system where there are no approved or developmental source at the opening of the tender? If No, then under what rule / guideline/exemption the supply Page 1 of 6 items like V Type Transformer, SCOT type transformers and auto transformers would be procured by railways through contractors in EPC contracts?
(2) Please supply us the copy of the letter/ order/policy vide which vendor namely, M/s Aluminum Industries Ltd bearing CIN No U27203KL194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperooralappuzha District, PO Mannaralappuzha, Kerala-689622 who falls under the approved source of RDSO vendor directory, was granted exemption/wavier of third party electrical test pertaining double pole Vacuum Circuit Breaker (VCB) and Vacuum Interrupter (VI). (3) Please supply us the names and details of the vendors who have been given exemption/wavier off from conducting any third party prototype tests as per RDSO specification no TI/SPC/PSI/LVCBIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VCB and double pole VI, as on 28.05.2022 (4) Please provide us with the copies/reports/noting sheets of the quality audits conducted with respected to double pole VCB and VI at premises of M/s Aluminum Industries Lad bearing CIN No U27203KL 194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperocralappuzha District, PO Mannaralappuzha, Kerala-689622 with effect of his RDSO approval from year 2013 till 31.03.2023 Also provide the list of officers/officials who conducted the said quality audits?
(5) Please supply us the following test type reports submitted by M/s Aluminum Industries Ltd bearing CIN No U27203KL194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperooralappuzha District, PO Mannaralappuzhs, Kerala-689622 with respect to two pole VCB:
a) Special Endurance Test as mentioned in clause 12.2.14 of the RDSO specification no T/SPC/PSI/LVCRIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VCB.
b) Out of phase switching test as per clause 12.2.12 of the RDSO specification no TI/SPC/PSI/LVCHIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VCB.
c) Capacitor switching test as per clause 12.2.3 of the RDSO specification no TI/SPC/PSI/LVCBIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VCB
d) Line charging test as per clause 12.2.10 of the RDSO specification no TI/SPC/PSI/LVCBIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VCB.
(6) Please supply as the following test type reports submitted by M/s Aluminum Industries Ltd bearing CIN No U27203KL194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperooralappuzha District, Page 2 of 6 PO Mannaralappuzha, Kerala-689622 with respect to two pole Interrupter:
a) Making and breaking test for Interrupter (Test Duty 1, Test duty 2, Test duty 24, Test Duty 2h, Test Duty 3, Test Duty 4b and Test Duty 6) as per clause 12.2.26 of the RDSO specification ne TI/SPC/PSI/LVCHIN/0120 dated December 2013 with respect to double pole VI (7) Please inform the time period for which M's Aluminum Industries Ltd bearing CIN No U27203KL194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperooralappuzha District, PO Mannaralappuzha, Kerala-689622 remained as a development/part II source with respect to Double pole VCB and VI in the records of RDSO vendor directory.
(8) Please also inform us the date on which M/s Aluminum Industries Ltd bearing CIN No U27203KL194PLC000057 having registered office at Switchgear Division, Kuttamperooralappuzha District, PO Mannaralappuzha, Kerala-689622 was granted the status of approved/part I source with respect to Double pole VCB and VI in the records of RDSO vendor directory."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2023 stating as under:
"1. The procurement guidelines are not Issued by RDSO.
2. Disclosure sought is related to third party, which may harm their competitive position, hence, in terms of Section 8 (d) of the RTI Act, the same is denied.
3. Disclosure sought is related to third party, which competitive position, hence, in terms of Section 8 (d) of the RTI Act, the same Is denied.
4. Disclosure sought is related to third party, which may harm competitive position, hence, in terms of Section 8 (d) of the RTI Act, the same is denied.
5.Disclosure sought is related to third. which harm may their competitive position, hence, in terms of Section 8 (d) of the RTI Act, the same is denied.
6. Disclosure sought is related to third party, which may harm their competitive position, hence, in terms of Section 8 (d) of the RTI Act, the same is denied."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.02.2024, held as under.
Page 3 of 6"1. It is reiterated that the RDSO does not govern procurement policy; its purview is limited to the development of specifications for controlled items and vendor development. Beyond these functions, it lacks the mandate or jurisdiction to decide policies related to procurement.
2 to 6. (i)The information sought pertains primarily to a specific third- party firm. According to Clause 8(d) of the RTI Act, disclosure is permissible if the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such revelation. However, information encompassing commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property-disclosure of which would adversely impact the competitive standing of a third party-may only be disclosed if larger public interest necessitates: It. Consequently, the pivotal decision in this case revolves around whether disclosing the sought information serves the larger public interest.
(ii) The appellant has requisitioned the test reports of a product developed by a third party and submitted them to the RDSO in good faith. These test reports, pertinent highly technological product, are Inherently proprietary and bear no direct connection to the public Interest. Disclosing these reports, along with the associated approval process, would entail divulging the R&D involved in product development, thereby secrets revealing trade intellectual property or without serving any public Interest.
(iii) The appellant relies on a Mumbai High Court judgment (M/S Shonkh Technology International VS State Information Commission on 01 July 2011), wherein the court directed disclosure of an agreement between a third party and the state government. Notably, that case involved the provision of a service (making Smart Cards for vehicle registration and driving licenses) affecting the public at large, leading the court to uphold that disclosure served the larger public interest. It is evident that the facts in that case were substantially different and distinguishable from the present matter.
7 & 8. It is also noted that purported information appearing in Points no. 7 and 8 in Para E (1) page 4 of 11 of your appeal were not part of the original RTI application. Hence, appeals don't lie against them.
In light of the aforementioned facts, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby rejected."
Page 4 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Kaushal Kumar, Director (TI)/CPIO along with Shri R K Pal, ADE present through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.03.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 18.08.2025 from the Appellant where he expressed his desire to withdraw the instant Appeal in the following words:
"...2. That I do not wish to pursue the Appeal further and wish to withdraw the same.
3. It is a humble request that I may allowed to withdraw File No. CIC/MORLY/A/2024/612043 and the case may be closed."
Decision:
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the cases and considering the averred submission of the Appellant that he wishes to withdraw the instant case, dismisses the instant case as withdrawn.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Railway, Research Designs & Standards Organisation, Manaknagar, Lucknow - 226011 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)