Central Information Commission
Suresh Kumar Ranga vs Container Corporation Of India Ltd. on 6 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/131143
Suresh Kumar Ranga .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Container Corporation of India Ltd.
CONCOR Annexe, NSIC MDBP
Building, 3rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi - 110 020 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026
Date of Decision : 06.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Status of the complaint dated 29.11.2021 submitted through e-mail to Chief Vigilance Officer by the undersigned applicant which was said to be forwarded to the concerned department for taking further necessary action.Page 1 of 7
2. Name of the concerned department (s) where the said complaint was forwarded for taking further necessary action.
3. Name and designation of incharge of this concerned department where the said complaint was forwarded for taking further necessary action.
4. Total number of persons whose statement have been recorded in the process of taking further necessary action.
5. Total number of pages in Noting Portion of the file (s) have generated in the process of taking further necessary action.
6. Total number of pages in Correspondence Portion of the file (s) have generated and/or gathered in the process of taking further necessary action.
7. If necessary action has completed on this complaint dated 29-11-2021 please tell the Date on which necessary action is completed.
8. Amount of expenses incurred, as on date, by CONCOR in case no. Complaint case no. 02/2015 (renumbered as 02/2019) titled as Suresh Kumar Ranga versus Rajeev Bhardwaj and others pending in Special Court (PC Act) (CBI-20), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
9. Amount of expenses incurred, as on date, by CONCOR in case no. Crl.M.C no. 2486/2020 Complaint case no. titled as Rajeev Bhardwaj versus State and another pending in Delhi High Court."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.04.2023 stating as under:
"Para. 1-7: As evident within the instant application, the applicant simultaneously pursuing a complaint case bearing no CC 02/2015 before Hon'ble Court of Law. A complaint was made before the Hon'ble Court containing same and similar matter as quoted in the Complaint dated 29.11.2021. The said application has since been disposed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.05.2022. In view of Hon'ble Court Orders no further action was taken on the said complaint. The applicant being the party to complaint case 02/20215 is well aware of the order of the Hon'ble Court and therefore now use of RTI as actuated out of personal pique and motive which is not maintainable, under the RTI Act, 2005 which cannot be used as a grievance redressal mechanism.
Para. 8-9 : The amount of legal expenses are published in consolidated manner in the financial statement of CONCOR as and when published and placed in Public domain. In between the individual remuneration paid to an Advocate in fiduciary relationship is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1) (j)."Page 2 of 7
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2023. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 09.06.2023.
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 in person.
Respondent: Shri Brijesh Kumar, Senior Manager & APIO present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is available on record.
6. The Appellant, during the hearing, restricted his Second Appeal on point No. 8 of the RTI application. He stated that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent and the same has been wrongly denied to him. He further contended that similar information has already been provided by the Respondent Public Authority on his earlier RTI application dated 31.01.2022. The same has now been wrongfully denied by the Respondent. The Appellant requested the Commission that direction should be given to the Respondent Public Authority to disclose only the amount only amount can be disclosed on point No. 8.
7. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"At the outset this Public Authority would like to apprise the Hon'ble Commission about the misuse of the RTI Act by the complainant who is a dismiss/removed employee of this Public authority who has been filing numerous complaints against various officials of this Public Authority. He has mentioned one such complaint dated 08/10/2013 and he has himself stated that presently the matter is sub-judice before Court of Law.
The Appellant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands as he has concealed/suppressed material facts which is within his possession & knowledge that he raised the same complaint before the Police and Police obtained this Public Authority comments and based Page 3 of 7 upon Police investigation closure report was submitted by the Police. These documents are part of the Court proceedings used by the Appellant for filing private complaint, which is presently pending before the competent court.
Therefore the allegation that Public Authority is giving vague reply is incorrect and the fact remain that the Appellant is in possession of this Public Authority comprehensive response on the complaint which is the part of the complaint case filed by the Appellant.
It is pertinent to mention that Appellant is in habit of making several false and frivolous complaint before various authorities and simultaneously uses interim proceedings details to make RTI applications with sole motive of harassing Public Authority officials. The Appellant is using RTI Act to sub serve his private interest interest actuated out of personal pique and motive to settle personal score with the official of this Public Authority."
"At the outset this Public Authority would like to apprise the Hon'ble Commission about the misuse of the RTI Act by the complainant who is a dismissed/removed employee of this Public Authority who has been filing numerous complaints against various officials of this Public Authority. He has referred to one such complaint pending before the Competent Court.
The Appellant based upon ongoing proceedings before Court parallelly making complaints to this Public Authority, and the subject matter is closely connected with the ongoing Court proceedings. This was categorically mentioned by the PIO in its order dated 17/04/2023, inter- alia providing that complaint dated 29/11/2021 contained same & similar allegations as complaint made before Hon'ble Court, which was disposed off by the Hon'ble Court by order dt 18/05/2022. Therefore, no further action was required on complaint dated 29/11/2021.
It is also evident that the Appellant has not brought out any material new fact and made baseless wild allegations.Page 4 of 7
In view of the above, the Appellant is using RTI Act to sub-serve his private interest actuated out of his personal pique and motive to settle personal score by harassing the officials through vexatious & frivolous allegations and motivated court cases. As the matter in substance relates to an ongoing proceedings before a competent Court, Appellant by using the interim court proceedings details seeking response/reply of Public Authority is not appropriate, as in the instant case also the competent court already disposed off the same & similar complaint by order dated 18/05/2022. Further with regard to disclosure of legal expenses, the PIO in its order dt 17/04/2023, categorically mentioned that consolidated legal expenses details are published & placed in Public Domain in the financial statement of the company, and remuneration paid to an Advocate is in Fiduciary relationship which is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 17.04.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. W.r.t point No. 8 of the RTI application, they have categorically informed that "The amount of legal expenses are published in consolidated manner in the financial statement of CONCOR as and when published and placed in Public domain. In between the individual remuneration paid to an Advocate in fiduciary relationship is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1) (j)."
Decision:
9. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO on point No. 8 of the RTI application. The Commission observes that information related to legal expenses incurred by the Public Authority cannot be treated as personal or commercial information of third-party, as such expenditure is made from public exchequer.
10. It is now well settled through a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and consistent decisions of this Commission that expenditure incurred by a Public Authority from public funds does not partake the character of personal or fiduciary Page 5 of 7 information, and Citizens have a legitimate right to know how public money is spent, including amounts paid towards legal fees in litigation involving public authorities.
11. The Commission draws support from the following authoritative pronouncements in R. K. Jain vs CPIO/Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court of India in Second Appeal Nos.: CIC/RK/A/2016/001292, CIC/RK/A/2016/001293, CIC/RK/A/2016/001294, etc. dated 16.11.2016, the Central Information Commission categorically held that:
"Details of payments made to advocates from government funds cannot be treated as personal information or information held in fiduciary capacity. Such information must be disclosed under the RTI Act, as it relates to expenditure from public exchequer."
12. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that:
"Transparency is the hallmark of good governance, and citizens have a right to know about the functioning of public authorities."
13. In light of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to provide information on point No. 8 of the RTI application to the Appellant disclosing the amount incurred on legal expenses as mentioned in the said point, free of cost, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Container Corporation of India Ltd.
CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110 076 Shri Suresh Kumar Ranga Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)