Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Neeraj Maheshwari vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 4 February, 2026

                             के ीय सू चना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


 File No: CIC/NTPCO/A/2024/650773

 Neeraj Maheshwari                                          .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम

 CPIO
 NTPC Ltd, 4th Floor, Room No.
 185, Engineering Office
 Comlex, Sector - 24, Noida
 201301                                                 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

 Date of Hearing                     :   03.02.2026
 Date of Decision                    :   04.02.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on            :   06.09.2024
 CPIO replied on                     :   20.09.2024
 First appeal filed on               :   02.10.2024
 First Appellate Authority's order   :   06.11.2024
 2nd Appeal dated                    :   15.11.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.09.2024(online) seeking the following information:

"1. Provide copy of estimate of Bid no.GEM/2024/B/4455851/Dtd.16-01- 2024.

2. Provide a copy of the circular on the basis of which the estimate of Bid no.GEM/2024B/4455851/Dtd-16-01-2024 was prepared."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.09.2024 stating as under:

"Reply Para (1) & (2) Information with respect to 'Project Cost Estimate'/ 'Package Cost Estimate' comes under exemption section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

However, Tentative Estimated Cost was already mentioned in the tender at GeM Portal. The same can be downloaded from GeM tender GEM/2024/B/4455851 under "Quantifiable Specification / Standards of The Service/ BOQ" tab."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 30.10.2024, held as under:

"I have gone through your appeal and reply of CPIO, NTPC. The reply of CPIO, NTPC is in order and your RTI Application has been adequately responded to.

With this, your Appeal is disposed of."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar, CPIO-cum-DGM and Shri Swatantra Kumar, Manager, attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.

6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant by the CPIO vide letter dated 20.09.2024. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the information regarding Tentative Estimated Cost was already mentioned in the tender at GeM Portal and the same has been informed to the Appellant.

7. A written submission has been received from Shri Vikash Kumar, CPIO, vide letter dated nil, stating as under:

"Factual Details/ Background:

Tender: GEM/2024/B/4455851 was published on GeM portal on 16.01.2024 for work: "Contract for Round the clock CHP Operation Support activities Stage III For NTPC Rihand"

Further, during tender enquiry, appellant had asked about the cost estimate and technical corrigendum was issued regarding the same as "Estimation of BOQ rates is based on statutory minimum wages and benefits like PF, PPE, SOAP, GUR & MARKIN, EL, NH, BONUS, ESIC, RB, PMJJBY, PMSBY, etc. Bidder is required to ascertain the rates and quote accordingly. The Appellant (Neeraj Maheshwari, Proprietor: Rihand Engineering Work) participated in the tender (Mar-2024) knowing the full Scope of Work and was awarded the subject work as the appellant was L1 bidder in same tender enquiry.

Self-Agreed Price: The Appellant did not just accept the estimate; they quoted a 0.7% discount on it. This proves that at the time of bidding, the Appellant considered the estimate to be more than sufficient, and they agreed to comply all the provisions of tender documents.

Completed Contract: The work was completed on 31.03.2025. The Appellant is now using the RTI Act as a "post-facto" tool to re-negotiate a concluded commercial contract, which is an abuse of the RTI Act. In the RTI reply, it was stated that the Tentative Estimated cost was already mentioned in the tender at GeM PORTAL and how the same can be accessed was also mentioned.in the reply.

Exemption under section 8(1)(d) was taken with respect to the information sought regarding copy of the circular on the basis of which estimate was prepared (Copy of Reply attached as Annexure-1) It is pertinent to mention that disclosing the internal methodology, labour indices, and material costings used to derive these estimates would allow future bidders to "reverse-engineering" NTPC's procurement strategy. This would severely harm NTPC's competitive position and the sanctity of the public bidding process in future tenders."

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant by the CPIO vide CIC/NTPCO/A/2024/650773 Page 3 of 4 letter dated 20.09.2024. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/NTPCO/A/2024/650773 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)