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/2024/627217
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 : 20.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 22.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : NIL
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.06.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
" The undersigned applicant has worked in CONCOR from June 2006 to July 2022 and worked with full dedication and honesty in the best interest of the Corporation. I was rated "Poor" while considering my APAR for the year 2015 to 2022 continuously which has affected my Page 1 of 9 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 promotion and PRP. It is requested to provide the following information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
1. If the lower rating affecting my promotion and payment of performance related pay (PRP) was communicated to me so as to enable me to submit my representation against such ratings.
2. If yes, then copy of the letter wherein the poor rating was communicated to me."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.04.2024 stating as under:
Information APAR for the
Rating Remarks
Sought year
1. If the lower
rating affecting my
promotion and Officer was treated to
payment of be on un-authorized
performance absence w.e.f
related pay (PRP) 2014-15 and No APAR 01/04/2014 till
was communicated 2015-16 (upto in 04/10/2015 for not
to me so as to 17/10/2015) CONCOR reporting back in
enable me to CONCOR after
submit my sanctioned term of
representation deputation to NHAI.
against such
ratings.
Sh. Shandilya was
taken back on duty in
CONCOR w.e.f
19/10/2015
subsequent to
repatriation from
NHAI on 17/10/2015.
APAR uploaded in
2015-16 (w.e.f
Poor CONCOR Employee
19/10/2015)
portal on 28/10/2016.
Officer has submitted
Page 2 of 9
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 Information APAR for the Rating Remarks Sought year request for review of his APAR on 08/11/2016 and after considering his request, CMD has retained the earlier grading given to the officer. The same was communicated to the officer on 17/03/2017 and receipt of the same was acknowledged on 23/03/2017 (copy attached).
Officer has submitted
request for
reconsideration of his
grading for 2015-16
along with 2016-17 of
his vide letter dated
2. If yes, then copy 06/11/2017. The same
of the letter was reviewed by CMD
wherein the poor and the grading given
-
rating was earlier was retrained.
communicated to The same was
me communicated to the
officer on 28/02/2018
and receipt of the
same was
acknowledged on
03/03/2018 (copy
attached).
APAR uploaded on CONCOR Employee
2016-17 Good
portal on 20/09/2017.
Page 3 of 9
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 Information APAR for the Rating Remarks Sought year Officer submitted request for review of APAR on 06/11/2017 and after considering his request, CMD has retained the earlier grading given to the officer. The same was communicated to the officer on 28/02/2018 and receipt of the same was acknowledged on 03/03/2018 (copy attached).
APAR uploaded on CONCOR Employee 2017-18 Poor portal on 06/02/2019. No representation was submitted by the officer.
Pt. I: APAR uploaded on CONCOR Employee 2018-19 Good Pt. portal on 23/12/2019. No representation II: Good was submitted by the officer.
APAR uploaded on CONCOR Employee 2019-20 Fair portal on 09/01/2021. No representation submitted by the officer.
Officer under suspension from 13/03/2020 2020-21 No APAR to 12/02/2021.
2021-22 --- APAR not yet received.
2022-23 (up to
--- APAR not yet received.
15/07/22)
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.04.2024. The FAA order is not on record:
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 4 of 9
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 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 28.06.2024 is not available on record.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply has been duly provided to the Appellant. 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:
1. 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 Page 5 of 9 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 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 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:-
Page 6 of 9File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 .
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.
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 Page 7 of 9 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 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:
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not required in the instant matter.
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., Page 8 of 9 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110076.Page 9 of 9
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627217 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)