2 months ago
3
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the IRCTC, the catering limb of the Indian Railways, implicit the denial of accusation connected an RTI plea seeking to cognize if companies bidding for railway tenders had disclosed their alleged links to the Rail Neer ‘scam’ and related cases probed by cardinal agencies.
The RTI applicant had asked the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) if the bidders intelligibly mentioned the CBI oregon ED cases against their names, if any, successful their tender documents.
The Rail Neer ‘scam’ was a 2015 corruption lawsuit investigated by the CBI, successful which backstage catering companies supplied inexpensive bottled h2o alternatively of the mandated ‘Rail Neer’ connected premium trains (Rajdhani and Shatabdi), causing the Indian Railways a nonaccomplishment of astir ₹19.5 crore.
The RTI specifically asked if the bidders declared that they were “accused successful the celebrated Rail Neer scam” and that the CBI had “registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them”.
It besides asked if they disclosed that the ED had “registered a lawsuit nether sections 120B work with Section 420 of the IPC and 13(2) work with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.
The applicant besides sought to cognize if the bidders informed the authorities astir the cardinal developments successful these cases, specified arsenic raids, currency seizures, and whether a “charge sheet” oregon “complaint” had been filed successful the tribunal by the agencies.
Overall, the RTI aimed to cheque if the companies were transparent astir the investigations against them portion participating successful authorities tenders.
The IRCTC, however, denied the data, saying, “The accusation sought is exempted from disclosure arsenic per Section 8 (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, exempts accusation from disclosure that includes commercialized confidence, commercialized secrets, oregon intelligence property, if revealing it would harm the competitory presumption of a 3rd party.
It protects delicate concern information held by nationalist authorities unless a larger nationalist involvement warrants its disclosure.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the accusation was sought successful “larger nationalist interest” and had been “wrongly denied”, maintaining that helium was entitled to entree specified details nether the RTI law.
The responsive officials defended their stand, submitting that they had “categorically informed the appellant” astir the exemption, and that the archetypal appellate authorization had upheld the reply.
Examining the matter, the CIC recovered the effect inadequate, noting that it “merely states the exemption clause without providing immoderate reasons oregon justification whatsoever”.
“A bare oregon mechanical notation to an exemption clause, without explaining its applicability to the accusation sought, does not represent a valid oregon speaking reply nether the RTI Act,” the CIC said.
Emphasising the ineligible requirement, it said denial of accusation indispensable beryllium backed by “cogent reasons”, adding that “the load of proving the applicability of an exemption squarely lies connected the nationalist authority”.
Holding the reply deficient, the CIC concluded that it was “not successful consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act” and directed the IRCTC to revisit the RTI exertion and supply a “fresh, reasoned reply”.
