New Delhi, April 5 The Central Information Commission has criticized the IRCTC, the catering arm of the Indian Railways, for denying information in response to an RTI request seeking to determine if companies bidding on railway tenders had disclosed their alleged links to the Rail Neer 'scam' and related cases investigated by central agencies.
The RTI applicant asked the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) if the bidders clearly stated the CBI or ED cases against their names in their tender documents.
The Rail Neer 'scam' was a 2015 corruption case investigated by the CBI, in which private catering companies supplied cheap bottled water instead of the mandated 'Rail Neer' on premium trains (Rajdhani and Shatabdi), causing a loss of approximately Rs 19.5 crore to the Indian Railways.
The RTI specifically asked if the bidders declared that they were "accused in the famous Rail Neer scam" and that the CBI had "registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them".
It also asked if they disclosed that the ED had "registered a case under sections 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act".
The applicant also sought to know if the bidders informed the authorities about key developments in these cases, such as raids, cash seizures, and whether an "FIR" or "complaint" had been filed in court by the agencies.
Overall, the RTI aimed to determine if companies were transparent about the investigations against them while participating in government tenders.
However, the IRCTC denied the information, saying, "The information sought is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, exempts information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, if revealing it would harm the competitive position of a third party.
It protects sensitive business data held by public authorities unless a larger public interest warrants its disclosure.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the information was sought in "larger public interest" and had been "wrongly denied", maintaining that he was entitled to access such details under the RTI law.
The respondent officials defended their position, submitting that they had "categorically informed the appellant" about the exemption, and that the first appellate authority had upheld the reply.
Examining the matter, the Central Information Commission (CIC) found the response inadequate, noting that it "merely states the exemption clause without providing any reasons or justification whatsoever".
"A bare or mechanical reference to an exemption clause, without explaining its applicability to the information sought, does not constitute a valid or speaking reply under the RTI Act," the CIC said.
Emphasising the legal requirement, it said denial of information must be backed by "cogent reasons", adding that "the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption squarely lies on the public authority".
Holding the reply deficient, the CIC concluded that it was "not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act", and directed the IRCTC to revisit the RTI application and provide a "fresh, reasoned reply".
