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/2024/627340
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 : 01.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 02.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.06.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.06.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
" The undersigned applicant has worked in CONCOR from march2002 to July 2022 and worked with full dedication and honesty in the best interest of the Corporation. It is requested to provide the following information under Right to Information Act, 2005.Page 1 of 10
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340
1. I was forcibly transferred from HQ to regional office Noida/ICD Dadari in 2009, maintenance bill was submitted by contractor of Rs.2.20 lakh appx. of GNIDA which was checked and corrected by me for an amount of Rs.1.10 lakh appx. Then I was removed for checking of bill up to few month and transferred to Chennai. a) Bill was not checked by any civil engineer, is it correct. Kindly tell rule under which it was being done. How much amount was paid of maintenance bills without checking of any civil engineer in 2009 and 2010. b) Why I was transferred to RO Chennai although there was no civil engineer in Noida/Dadri. I belong to UP north India and suffering from diabetes but my request was not considered to post me in HQ too, why.
2.0 In NHAI I was posted as PD-silchar, Contractor offered me 5.0 cr for additional forgery earth work, I refuse to accept it and told that for execution of actual work done payment will be made in time. But contractor approach at high level up to ministry and I was removed for execution of work and repatriated. I went to court repatriation order was stayed, in this case also what was my mistake.
3.0 After returning from deputation from NHAI I was again posted in RO- Chennai. Although there I suffered from heart attack, providing stunt, again by heart bypass surgery too and diabetes. Request to post me in HQ was not considered again. I put up case for termination of contractor who was not working timely and good. Termination of contractor was approved by CGM. Is there is any mistake done by me.
4.0 I was posted in 2019 in RO Nagpur, there I was executing mainly maintenance toilet bill at Bhopal was prepared by non-civil engineer and further signed by ICD in charge for an amount of Rs.7.00 lakkh appx. which paid by finance. Although as seen by me only Tonti for water out let was required to fit. 90% bill was forgery and paid to contractor. a) Kindly tell rule under this bill, including 90% forgery measurements prepared by non-civil engineer which was not checked by DGM/civil engineer and signed by Terminal Manager and paid by finance.
5.0 In Nagpur I put up the case for termination of contractor who was not working timely and good. Termination of contractor was approved by CGM. Is there is any mistake done by me.
6.0 Maintenance of track was executed at ICD Nagpur, ballast and many other work which was not required and not executed but forgery Page 2 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 measurements put in bill for payments. This track bill was prepared by Non civil engineer, not checked by DGM/civil but signed by Terminal Manager for an amount of Rs.25.00 lakkh appx. and paid to contractor. This bill also was not checked by any civil engineer. a) Kindly tell rule under which this track maintenance bill of ICD Nagpur including forgery measurements which was not checked by DGM/civil engineer, signed by Terminal Manager and paid by finance.
7.0 I was suffering from diabetes, BP and Heart problems, my request was not considered to transfer me in HQ. Kindly tell under which rule my request was not considered but engineering staff posted at HQ is working for more than 10 years there. "
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.04.2024 stating as under:
1. a) &b) : Employees being transferred as per the requirement of the organization. The information sought by you are in grievance nature which are not covered under RTI Act.
2,3,4,5,6&7 : This is a grievance, not covered under RTI Act.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 12.06.2024, held as under:
"it is concluded that the PIO has provided all the information that could be furnished under the RTI Act, and the appellant's grievances have been duly noted but are not actionable under the said Act. In view of the above, the appeal referred to above is disposed of accordingly. "
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. 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 Page 3 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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 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 Page 4 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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:-
.
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.Page 5 of 10
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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 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..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
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 Page 6 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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 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 Page 7 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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:-
.
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 Page 8 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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 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 Page 9 of 10 File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 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., CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110076.Page 10 of 10
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/627340 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)