Central Information Commission
Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corp Of ... 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/DFCCI/A/2024/604379
Vipin Kumar Tyagi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DFCCIL, New Tundla
Station/EDFC, Village - Bhakti
Ghari, Tehsil -Tundla,
District - Firozabad, UP - 283204 .... ि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 : 30.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 24.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"This information is being sought regarding Reinforced Earth Walls (RE Walls for brevity) for project titled as - "Two Lane ROB Composite Span Page 1 of 6 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 completion date of aforesaid ROB project. Also state the completion date of RE walls for approaches for ROB for this project.
2) Kindly state the area of RE walls for approaches executed for this ROB project. Kindly state the name and address of contractor, DFCCIL officers, design consultant, Proof-Checking consultant, independent consultant associated with the RE walls approaches and ROB for this aforesaid project.
3) Kindly state the name and address of specialized RE wall agency who prepared and secured approval of design and drawings for RE wall for aforesaid project. Kindly state the date of approval for these design and drawings. Kindly state the name and address of the consultant who approved the design and drawings of RE wall.
4) Kindly state the description of soil reinforcing material and panel connectors used for RE wall for this project. Kindly specify name and address of specialized RE wall agency who supplied these geosynthetic material. Kindly state whether these geosynthetic materials have been accompanied by Manufacturer Test Report and ISO 9001 certification. In case of affirmation, kindly provide copy of these certifications.
5) Kindly state the name and address of the specialized RE wall agency who was responsible for supervision and quality control of the casting of panels, compaction, laying of geosynthetic material and erection of RE wall. Kindly state whether DFCCIL has obtained performance guarantee from the specialized RE wall agency for stability and safety of RE wall for 20 years as per MORT&H recommendations in case of affirmation, kindly provide a copy of the performance guarantee.
6) Kindly inform whether any ground improvement below RE wall was envisaged in the approved design and drawings for low bearing capacity.
In case of affirmation, whether the envisaged ground improvement has been executed as per the approved drawings. Kindly state whether geotechnical tests have been carried out after ground improvement for Page 2 of 6 ascertaining the improved bearing capacity. In case of affirmation, kindly provide copy of these test reports.
7) Kindly state the internal angle of friction, unit weight and optimum moisture content of the reinforced soil used in RE wall structure and reinforced fill used in region of ground improvement below RE wall. Kindly state whether geotechnical test reports for soil properties and compaction for these reinforced soils were maintained. In case of affirmation, kindly provide copy of the same."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2023 stating as under:
"1.0 Physical work against the said ROB with RE wall is completed and the ROB is opened to traffic on dated 10.04.2023.
2.0 The area of RE wall for the said ROB is 2110.83 Sqm. For the balance point information cannot be share as per RTI clause 8g & 8j.
3.0 The information cannot be share as per RTI clause 8g & 8j.
4.0 The information cannot be share as per RTI clause 8d.
5.0 As per contract clause, the execution of RE wall is in the scope of contractor. DFCCIL has not engaged any specialized agency for the same. Work has been carried out as per contract agreement. For the balance point information cannot be share as per RTI clause 8g, 8j & 8d.
6.0 The work has been carried out as per design submitted by contractor & proof checking by the consultant. For the balance point information cannot be share as per RTI clause 8d.
7.0 The work has been carried out as per design submitted by contractor & proof checking by the consultant. All the related documents against the questionary asked are available in DFCCIL office field lab. The applicant may visit DFCCIL Tundla office and can see the documents in any working day, with prior intimation."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 3 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 along with Shri Monu Kumar Tyagi in person. Respondent: Ms. Sangita Bharti (Adv.); Shri S.K. Panda, AGM/CPIO; Shri Praveen, Junior Executive; appeared in person and Shri B.D. Sharma, Junior Product Manager, appeared through video conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that proper, pertinent and complete pointwise information was not provided by the Respondent Authorities. He contended that information sought falls under the definition of information specified under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 but still the same was denied without application of mind. That the CPIO has miserably failed to provide cogent reasons for denial of information as required under RTI Act.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated that parts of the information could not be shared citing Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the First Appeal had been disposed of by Shri Sandeep Chauhan, General Manager, Coordination, though he was not the designated FAA. The Respondent's counsel sought adjournment, which was declined by the Commission.
7. On being queried by the Commission, the Respondents confirmed that the project in question had been completed and opened to traffic.
Decision:
8. 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 information regarding execution of Reinforced Earth Walls (RE Walls) in respect of a ROB project between Ghasara and Achalda villages on the Tundla-Kanpur section of DFCCIL. The CPIO vide reply dated 24.11.2023 disclosed limited information and denied the rest by citing Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, without furnishing cogent reasons or any demonstration of applicability of these exemptions.
Page 4 of 69. The Respondents reiterated their stand during the hearing but were unable to establish how disclosure of information relating to contracts executed with public funds and technical approvals for safety-critical structures could fall under exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the information sought squarely falls within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, Section 2(j)(iii) of the Act explicitly provides that the right to information includes the right to take certified samples of material, and thus, the legislative intent is very clear towards maximum disclosure, particularly where tenders, contracts and works executed with public money are involved.
10. The Commission observes that in matters of public contracts and infrastructure works, time is the essence. Citizens have a legitimate right to know whether projects are executed within approved timelines, as delays have direct financial implications and public impact. Suppression of such information undermines accountability and goes against the very spirit of the RTI Act.
11. The Commission further notes with disapproval that the denial of information was made without justification. The exemptions claimed do not apply to the present case, as no element of fiduciary relationship, endangerment of life, or invasion of privacy is evident. On the contrary, transparency in such matters promotes accountability and ensures public confidence in large-scale infrastructure projects.
12. In view of the above observation, the Commission directs the present CPIO to provide a revised point-wise information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act covering all queries raised in the RTI application, within four weeks of receipt of this order. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
13. Further, Ms. Manju Saraswat, Project Manager (Civil)/DFCCIL/TDL who is the custodian of information had has replied to the Appellant on 24.11.2023. Therefore, Ms. Manju Saraswat, Project Manager (Civil)/DFCCIL/TDL/Deemed CPIO; Shri Sandeep Chauhan, General Manager, Coordination, Tundla (as deemed CPIO) and Shri S.K. Panda, AGM/present CPIO are show caused as to Page 5 of 6 why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for denial of information without reasonable cause. The present CPIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notices to the above named officials and secure their individual attendance on the next date of hearing and also submit their written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs/Deemed CPIO) must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. Notwithstanding above, the Commission also issues an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Respondent public authority (DFCCIL) to ensure maximum disclosure of information in matters of tenders, contracts and execution of works funded from public money under Section 4 of the RTI Act to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website. This will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of such RTI Applications. The public authority is reminded that exemptions under the RTI Act are to be construed narrowly, and transparency in such matters strengthens public trust.
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, DFCCIL, 5th Floor, Supreme Court Metro Station Building, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi - 110001 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)