Central Information Commission
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs Indian Rare Earth Ltd. on 16 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459
Dr. D. DHAYA DEVADAS ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Rare Earth Ltd.,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.04.2024 FA : 03.06.2024 SA : 27.09.2024
CPIO : 03.05.2024 &
FAO : 01.07.2024 Hearing : 24.12.2025
04.07.2024
Date of Decision: 16.02.2026
CORAM:
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2024, seeking information as under:
"1. With reference to the above, I thank you very much for furnishing the IREL (India) Ltd., 3 Nos. factories wise, minerals wise production from 1999-2000 to 2011-12 vide your RTI letter No. RTIA-2005/372/12 dated 5.11.2012 and also factories wise.
Minerals wise production and sales during the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.01.2024 vide your RTI letter No. RTIA-2005/2277/24 dated 26.03.2024.
Page 1 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/6434592. I submit that I have not called for factories wise, minerals wise production and sales details for the year 2012-13 and I require the said details for my perusal.
3. I therefore, request you to kindly furnish the following information under RTI Act, 2005 to enable me to furnish the said information to the concerned Central Government Authorities to prevent the illegal mining, Manufacturing and export and local sale of said Atomic Minerals.
1. Details of your 3 Nos. factories wise, year wise production of Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillumenite, Leucoxene and Monazite during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.01.2013 and also year wise, entities wise, locally supplied to Indian buyer."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.05.2024 stating as under:
"Information sought for by the applicant is contained in the information already furnished to RTI reply vide letter RTIA-2005/2257/24 dated 03.05.2024. However, information pertaining to minerals used for strategic purposes are exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO filed a First Appeal on 03.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2024 observed and held inter-alia as under:
"Your appeal is mainly requesting to furnish the information as sought for in your RTI application dated 03.04.2024. On examining the relevant applications and the reply thereto along with the information furnished, I find that CPIO, while disposing your RTI application dated 03.04.2024 vide his reply dated 03.05.2024, has referred to his another reply of even date in which the information sought for has been provided. However, after examining the other reply of the CPIO of even date (03.05.2024), I find that the response given was only pertaining to MK and OSCOM units and not to Chavara Unit. This appears to be an oversight and hence, I hereby direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought for in your application dated 03.04.2024 pertaining to Chavara Unit for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.01.2013.Page 2 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459
However, with respect to details of minerals used for strategic purposes and entity wise information, the CPIO has rightly denied the information as details of minerals used for strategic purposes cannot be provided as they are exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of RTI Act, 2005 and since disclosure of entity wise information would affect the third parties, the same is also exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005."
4. Subsequently, the CPIO furnished the details of the Chavara, Kerala Unit vide their reply dated 04.07.2024. Aggrieved with the FAA's order upholding the denial of the remaining information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.09.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant was represented by Advocate B John Solomon during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, G. Balasubramanian, GM- HRM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Rep. of the Appellant was being heard in continuation of other second appeal(s) filed against the Department of Atomic Energy as well as the Respondent office vide Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 and Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/656131, respectively. Since the arguments of the Rep. of the Appellant remained perfunctory throughout the course of the hearing and he urged for the written statements filed by the Appellant to be taken on record in these cases, the written statement dated 17.12.2025 filed in the instant matter was taken on record stating as under:
"8.1. I submit that the Central Information Commission had earlier passed order allowing our 2nd appeal vide your Order No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001483/19457 dated 04.07.2012 against the 2nd appeal filed by us on 10.05.2012 requested the Central Information Commission to kindly give your direction to the CPIO to furnish the details of the year-wise, mineral wise quantities supplied to the following exporters/captive industries from 01.01.2000 onwards in respect of Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, etc. as per our RTI application No. RTI/F-296/2806/2011-12 dated 19.12.2011.
1. V.V. Minerals and their Associates like Industrial Mineral India (P) Ltd., etc. Page 3 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459
2. Beach Mineral Sands Company and their Associates like Beach Mineral Company (p) Ltd., etc.
3. Transworld Garnet India Private Limited, Thoothukudi.
4. Indian Ocean Garnet Co.(P) Ltd or Mr. Ramesh, Thoothukudi.
5. Kilburn Chemicals Ltd., Thoothukudi.
6. DCW Ltd, Shagupuram, Thoothukudi District.
8.2. I extract below the relevant portion of the CIC order dated 04.07.2012 for your kind perusal.
'In view of the Commission does not uphold the decision of the PIO and the F.A.A. that the information sought is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the information in the Appellant before 25th July, 2012.' 9.1. I submit that the 2 exporters i.e. M/s. Indian Ocean Garnet Sand Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Beach Minerals Sand Co. have filed 2 Appeals vide W.P. (MD)Nos. 9785 and 9897/2012 challenging the said CIC orders in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras-Madurai Bench.
9.2. I submit that M/s. IREL (India) Ltd., has unlawfully filed the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1857/2012 dated 20.07.2012 challenging the Hon'ble Central Information Commission Order CIC/SG/A/2012/0001483/19457 dated 4.7.2012 in total violations of RTI Act.
9.3. I submit that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have passed the following Interim Order on 12.11.2013 and 09.10.2014 stayed the Order of the Central Information Commission dated 04.07.2012.
"High Court of Bombay order 12.11.2013: By an order dated 09.01.2013 notice Page 4 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459 was issued. However it appears that the said notice is not served. Hence issue fresh notice, returnable on 16.12.2013. in the meantime the impugned order dated 04.07.2012 is stayed."
"High Court of Bombay order 09.10.2014: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the Respondents.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable on 05.11.2014. In the meantime, there shall be ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b)"
10.1. Subsequently, the Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its order dated 19.07.2022 in W.P. (MD) Nos. 9785 and 9897/2012 set aside the said order of the Central Information Commission and we extract below the relevant portion of the said order for your kind perusal.
"25. The second respondent is admittedly a competitive business man of the writ petitioner company. However, he is fighting against the alleged illegal mining activities of the writ petitioner companies. In the present case, the finding that has been arrived at by the competent authority is that the disclosure of the information would not affect the commercial interest of the information provider. But the information sought for relates to the commercial transaction of the writ petitioner company with the information provider. Therefore, the first respondent would not be right in directing the Public Information Officer of the Indian Rare Earth Private Limited to disclose the information without hearing the writ petitioners. The said order is clearly in violation of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
26. In view of the above said discussion, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent for fresh consideration and for passing orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the writ petitioners and the second respondent (Information seeker). The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Page 5 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459
10.2. 1 submit that the Central Information Commission has passed order on 23.02.2023, based on the High Court of Madras Madurai Bench order dated 19.07.2022 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 9785 and 9897/2012 stating that the Central Information Commission await the final decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Order in the matter and we extract below the relevant portion of the said order for your kind perusal.
"In the given circumstances, since Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its interim order dated 12.11.2013 and 09.10.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1857/2012, stayed the order of this Commission dated 04.07.2012, the Commission is of the considered opinion that it would be prudent to await the final decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter. No further action lies. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
11. Hence, I have filed the second appeal before the Central Information Commission and request the Central Information Commissioner that the said appeal may kindly be kept pending without taking any action until the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay pass the final order in W.P. No. 1857 of 2012."
7. The Respondent sought to reiterate the contents of their written submissions filed on 15.12.2025 stating inter-alia as under:
"On examination of the appeal, it is seen that the relief prayed for by the Appellant is to keep the matter pending till the disposal of Writ Petition No. 1857/2012 which is pending before the Hon'ble High of Bombay. Such request does not seem to be within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the Appellant has been in the habit of making applications under the RTI Act for similar information from time to time. In the present RTI application dated 01.04.2024, the request made by Appellant to the CPIO was for year wise production of garnet, ilmenite, rutile, zircon, sillimanite, leucoxene and monazite from 01.04.2012 to 31.01.2013 with respect to the 3 factories of IREL and details of supply of above 7 minerals to the Indian buyer year wise entity wise supply. Since the disclosable information i.e. information pertaining to production of minerals other than strategic minerals had already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 03.05.2024 Page 6 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459 in another matter, a reference was made to the same by the CPIO in his reply dated 03.05.2024. Since by oversight, details of one of the units had been left out, the same was also provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.07.2024.
The information not provided to the Appellant are details of production of strategic material as they are exempt under Section 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act and details of supply made entity wise as their disclosure impacts upon competitive position of third parties. In a similar matter, where Shri. Dhaya Devadas vide RTI application dated 22.12.2016 had sought information regarding details of the above-mentioned minerals supplied to M/s V V Minerals, the CPIO had denied the information under Section 8 (1) (a) and Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. When the matter went up to the CIC, the CIC upheld the response of the CPIO vide its Order dated 10.01.2018. A copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference, please.
In such a scenario, the appeal filed has no valid grounds and needs rejection because whatever could be provided under the provisions of the Act has been provided by the CPIO.
With regard to the reference made by the Appellant to Writ Petition No. 1857/2012 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, it is submitted that earlier the Appellant had vide his RTI application dated 19.12.2011 requested for details of year wise mineral wise quantities supplied to different companies by IREL from the year 2000 till the date of his RTI application. The PIO vide his reply dated 23.01.2012 denied information seeking exemption under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act. The first Appellate Authority also upheld the decision of the CPIO.
In the appeal filed before the Commission, the Commission observed that "the Commission is not able to see how disclosing the quantities that were sold would affect any commercial interest of IREL and directed providing the information to the Appellant before 25.07.2012". Against this order of the CIC, the first respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1857/ 2012 and the Hon'ble Court vide interim order dated 12.11.2013 was pleased Page 7 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459 to stay the order of the CIC. Subsequently the matter came up on 09.10.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Court ordered as under:
'Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the Respondents.
Rule. Rule is made returnable on 05.11.2014. In the meantime, there shall be ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b)'.
As per the knowledge of this Respondent the matter has not been listed for hearing thereafter.
When this matter was once again taken by the Appellant before the CIC, the CIC observed that the public authority had already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay against the CIC's order dated 04.07.2012 and obtained interim stay and accordingly held that 'the Commission is of the considered opinion that it would be prudent to await the final decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter'. In the said circumstances, the appellant continuing to seek details with respect to supply of mineral to third parties during different years cannot be entertained especially when the CIC has made an observation as stated above.
In view of the foregoing, it is humbly prayed that the Appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the CPIO has adequately justified his reply denying the partial information pertaining to minerals used for strategic purposes, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Further, concededly, the prayer of the Appellant at this stage to keep the instant matter at abeyance citing pendency of Writ Petition No. 1857/2012 with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay appears to be misplaced and is viewed as an attempt at prolonging the proceedings in this matter.
9. Furthermore, the instant matter is squarely covered by the Commission's decision in another appeal filed by the Appellant vide Second Appeal No. Page 8 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459 CIC/DOATE/A/2024/643175 against the Department of Atomic Energy in respect of the same subject matter. For the sake of brevity, only the operative part of the averred decision is reproduced hereunder:
"21. The Appellant would be well advised to desist from filing such cumbersome and overlapping RTI Applications on the same subject matter as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed."
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 16.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 9 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/IRELT/A/2024/643459 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)