Central Information Commission
Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 24 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/697709
Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
National Highways Authority of
India, Project Implementation
Unit, RTI Cell, A-208, Kamla .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nagar, Agra-282005,Uttar
Pradesh.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Date of Impugned Order 25.03.2022
Date of First Non-Compliance Hearing 15.01.2026
Interim Order w.r.t disposal of 16.01.2026
Non-Compliance Petition
Date of Second Non-Compliance 12.02.2026
Hearing
Order w.r.t disposal of Second 23.02.2026
Non-Compliance Petition
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
1. The instant matter is being pursued by the Commission in compliance
with the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P.(C)
Page 1 of 8
38860/2025 in the case titled "Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad v/UOI dated
01.12.2025, which resulted in an out of turn basis hearing by overriding
the matters awaiting listing in due course on their turn. The operating
portion of the order is reproduced below:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to direct
the respondents to comply with the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the
respondent No.3/Registrar, Central Information Commission New Delhi.
3. Sri Prakash Shukla, learned counsel holding brief of Sri R.K. Jaiswal, learned
counsel put up his appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. Nothing has been
brought on record by him that under what circumstances, the authorities are
not complied with the order passe by the respondent No.3.
4. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of permitting the
petitioner to move appropriate application as per procedure prescribed before
the respondent No.3/Registrar, Central Information Commission New Delhi
within a period of three week from today along with certified copy of this
order. In case, the petitioner does so, the respondent No.3 will pass
appropriate orders in the matter most expeditiously and preferably within a
period of six weeks thereafter."
In compliance with the above-mentioned directions, the instant Non-
Compliance petition is listed for hearing and disposal today.
ORDER
2. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance petition dated 09.12.2025 of CIC's order dated 25.03.2022 in the above matter.
3. The above-mentioned Appeal of the Appellant was disposed of by the Commission on 25.03.2022 wherein the following observations and directions are given:
"The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records observes that reply provided by the CPIO is rather vague and largely fails to address the query raised by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. In addition to it, the complete denial of information sought by the FAA by quoting Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act was also not appropriate.Page 2 of 8
The primary essence of the instant case is the nature of the information sought that is primarily the Schedule of Rates means any schedule included in the Contract which, in respect of any section or item of the Services to be carried out, shows the respective rate (Fee) of payment for performance of that service and which may also include lump sums, other sums, quantities and prices. It may be seen as an integral part of the activity of the public authority, at the expense of the public exchequer should ordinarily be available in the public domain.
In this regard, attention of the parties is drawn towards a full bench decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000964 dated 03.09.2009 on the imperativeness of transparency in similar forms of contractual agreements; the operative portion of the averred decision is reproduced hereunder:
"17. The position taken by the respondents that the confidentiality arrangement they had entered into with the private entity as part of the PPP Agreement must be respected, the RTI Act notwithstanding, is entirely untenable. Any public document must stand the scrutiny of the RTI Act for a plea of confidentiality to be sustained.....
-18. Planning Commission which has a separate Department /Section dedicated to Public Private Partnerships and is known to have prepared the Model PPP Agreements for the Government has categorically stated that any plea of confidentiality of those documents (PPP Agreements) was insubstantial and deserved to be rejected. Comptroller & Auditor General of India also advised the Commission that there was no room for confidentiality in matters such as PPP Agreements.
XXX
-20....Such private parties frequently win the right to participate in the PPP Agreement in open competition, or are selected for their exclusive and extra- ordinary competence in specified areas of activity. In either case, it is necessary that there is complete transparency about whether the selection of the Private Partner by the Government was made correctly and carefully and, that all aspects of the issue environmental, social and human included - were seriously considered by the Government in making the choice. A matter of such critical importance to the country cannot be negotiated and settled behind the back of its people. The third-party cannot take recourse to the argument of its vital commercial and technical details being disclosed to its rivals for the simple reason that it is the consideration of these very details that won him the competitive bidding in the first place. It is important and crucial that the choice of the Private Partner by the Government is not cloaked in undue secrecy.
25.... These Agreements would involve commitment of the Government's financial and physical resources. If PPPs were not the mode of project execution, the entire operation would then be conducted by the Government and would have been subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. and all information thereof would be disclosable. It would be vain to argue that functions which were earlier transparent when performed by Government Page 3 of 8 exclusively, should become opaque now that these are to be performed through PPP. This will amount to reversal of transparency and would be antithetical to public interest.
26. It is, therefore, imperative that the PPP Agreements are made to embrace transparency rather than be kept cloaked in secrecy."
Now, adverting to the rationality of aforesaid ratio, even if 'confidentiality' is considered as the sole premise of the denial of the information in the instant case, fact remains that in a contract entered into by the Government, there is little room for advocating opacity vis-à-vis the provisions of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, having due regard to the objection raised by the FAA in disclosure of information, the Commission is constrained to ascribe a liberal interpretation to the contentions of the CPIO, and in doing so, Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act appears to be the only relevant exemption clause applicable in the facts of the instant case.
Yet, the said exemption clause does not have a square applicability when it concerns the disclosure of the contract agreement unless it contains such information disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of the third party.
Having considered the totality of circumstances and question of law in the preceding paras, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised categorical reply along with relevant available information in response to instant RTI Application after procuring the same from the concerned record holder and also redacting such information disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of the third party as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act such as inter alio any details of the financial infrastructure of the third-party suppliers and/or the technical specifications adopted by the said contractor in performance of such services be that may include widening of project. The severance of the records, wherever required, will be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with the provision of Section 10 of the RTI Act. The information as directed above shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the CPIO as well as the Appellant is advised to exercise due diligence and ensure in future to be well acquainted with the facts of the case in hands before participating in the hearing proceedings with the Commission."
4. The Appellant vide his letter dated 09.12.2025 reported non-compliance of the above order stating that:
"This application is being presented for the compliance of order dated 1.12.2025 passed by Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in Writ C 38860 of 2025. And same is being annexed herewith as Annexure 1.
It is very humbly being stated that the petition was presented for the compliance of Final order passed by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Page 4 of 8 dated 25.03.2022 in File no CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/697709 as it was not complied by the CPIO. The CPIO is liquidating the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Commission. The operative portion of the order is being quoted below:
"Having considered the totality of circumstances and question of law in the preceding paras, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised categorical reply along with relevant available information in response to instant RTI Application after procuring the same from the concerned record holder and also redacting such information disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of the third party as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act such as inter alia any details of the financial infrastructure of the third-party suppliers and/or the technical specifications adopted by the said contractor in performance of such services be that may include widening of project. The severance of the records, wherever required, will be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with the provision of Section 10 of the RTI Act."
The the CPIO while arguing the case took a view that his office does not contain the information and if the information were available the same might have contained third party information, that is why the Hon'ble Commissioner passed the order to procure the information. The CPIO is liquidating the order and mandate of RTI Act and despite the apparent order the CPIO denied through his letters not to furnish the information which is on record. Thus The CPIO is liable to be punished as per the law. Earlier the applicant has received the letter of the CPIO (Annexure 2) saying the information was not available with him and thus cannot be supplied. The copy of the letter is also being annexed herewith. And the same is being quoted reiterating the same by the Commission's letter which is also being annexed (Annexure -3), while the information sought (SDR) is part of contract as per policy of NHAI. The approach of the compliance office of the commission and the CPIO are tuning to avoid the mandate and spirit of the RTI Act. You requested to initiate the penal actions for non-compliance of the final order passed in CIC/NHAIN/A/2020/697709 and to furnish information sought."
5. The Registry of this Bench vide letter dated 02.01.2026 has issued hearing notice to both the parties.
Page 5 of 8Relevant facts emerged during hearing on 15.01.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Absent.
6. Both the parties did not participate in the hearing.
Interim Decision:
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the Uttar Pradesh Government has declared January 15th a public holiday on the occasion of Makar Sankranti and both the parties are supposed to attend the hearing through their respective VC centers in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
8. In view of the above, the Commission finds it expedient to provide a fair opportunity to both the parties by adjourning the instant matter. Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to re-issue Non-Compliance hearing notice to the Appellant and as well as the Respondent and re-schedule the hearing in the instant case on 12.02.2026.
The Non-Compliance petition is hereby adjourned.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing on 12.02.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Shiva Purval, APIO-cum-Manager (T), attended the hearing through VC.
9. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application despite directions passed by the Commission vide its order dated 25.03.2022
10. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application regarding SOR of NH-2 Prayagraj-Agra widening project is not available with PIU Agra. He added that PIU Agra has implemented the project of widening the averred highway from Agra to Etawah only and this information is available on NHAI website. He further submitted that requisite information pertaining to SOR of NH-2 Page 6 of 8 Prayagraj-Agra widening project is not under their jurisdiction and therefore no information is available with NHAI. Accordingly, in compliance with the direction passed by the Commission vide order dated 25.03.2022, a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.04.2022, stating as under:
"The information sought by the application i.e. SOR of NH-2 Prayagraj-Agra- widening project is not available in PIU-Agra."
11. He added that the record holder of requisite information pertaining to SOR of NH-2 Prayagraj-Agra widening project, is PWD which is a different Public Authority and is under the jurisdiction of the concerned State and the same has been informed to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.03.2025, stating as under:
"It is pertinent to mention here that original record holder of SOR (Schedule of Rate) is PWD and not NHAI."
12. He added that PWD generally keeps the information pertaining to SOR on their website.
Decision with respect to Second Non-Compliance hearing:
13. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that in compliance with the direction passed by the Commission vide order dated 25.03.2022, a suitable reply based on available records has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 05.04.2022, wherein the Appellant was informed that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application regarding SOR of NH-2 Prayagraj-Agra widening project is not available with PIU Agra, as they have not executed the work of entire stretch. Instead they were the project implementing authority for only the Agra- Etawah section.
14. The Respondent vide letter dated 29.03.2025, further informed the Appellant that the record holder of requisite information is PWD which is a different Public Authority under the jurisdiction of the concerned State. The Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the matters which is outside the purview of Central List.
Page 7 of 815. The Appellant is reminded of the fact that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication. However, the Appellant is at liberty to approach PWD of the concerned State for the requisite information by filing a fresh RTI Application.
The Non-Compliance petition is closed accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 The FAA, National Highways Authority of India, Regional Office-UP West. 3/248, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010,Uttar Pradesh.
Page 8 of 8Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)