Central Information Commission
N Rajamony vs Ministry Of Coal on 18 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/MCOAL/A/2024/139715
N RAJAMONY .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited,
Harbour Estate, Tuticorin
Beach Road Salt Pans,
Muttayyapuram, Thuticorin,
Tamil Nadu - 628004 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026
Date of Decision : 18.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.09.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 23.09.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.10.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 10.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2024(offline) seeking the following information:
"1) Name and quantity of dry fly ash allotted to Traders, individually, from Jan, 2024 to Aug, 2024 monthwise."/MCOAL/A/2024/139715 Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.09.2024 stating as under:
"It is informed that as per section 8 (1) (d) of Indian RTI Act 2005 the above information may harm the competitive positions of all the third-party trader agencies lifting fly ash from NTPL. Hence the information may not be disclosed to the applicant."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2024, held as under:
"The RTI query and the reply provided by the CPIO have been examined carefully. It is prima facie found that the information is sought purely for commercial purpose of purchasing dry fly ash and production of fly ash bricks by manufacturers like you. Disclosure of the information sought by you appears to serve no larger public interest.
Your kind attention is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein elucidating on the concept of public interest, it was held as under:
"22. ... It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)."
Accordingly, your request for information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI, Act, 2005, is denied, as the information sought by you is personal in nature, relates to third parties and if disclosed would harm their competitive position and also no public purpose has been demonstrated by you warranting disclosure of the information sought."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Shankar, CPIO-cum-Deputy Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant stated that the exemption claimed by the Respondent in the instant case is wrongly placed. He added that he had not sought /MCOAL/A/2024/139715 Page 2 of 5 information pertaining to rates at which dry fly ash has been allotted to the traders and therefore, no commercial aspect is involved and disclosure of such information would help small traders like him who wants to buy dry fly ash in small quantity and not in bulk quantity. He further added that disclosure of such information is not going to harm competitive positions of third-party trader agencies lifting fly ash.
6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.09.2024.
7. A written submission has been received from CPIO vide letter dated 02.02.2026, stating as under:
"1. At the outset it is respectfully submitted that NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited (NTPL), is a subsidiary company of NLC India Limited, and is a JV between NLC India Limited and M/s. TNPGCL. The Respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 'Neyveli House', 135, Periyar EVR Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010. The Respondent company runs and operates a 2x500 MW coal-based power plant in the district of Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 04.09.2024 seeking the name and quantity of dry fly ash allotted to traders individually from January 2024 to August 2024.
3. The said application was duly examined and replied to by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vide reply dated 18.09.2024, denying the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as disclosure would harm the competitive position of third-party traders.
4. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024.
5. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), after due examination, passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 05.10.2024, upholding the decision of the CPIO.
6. The present Second Appeal has been filed without stating any specific grounds, merely expressing dissatisfaction with the FAA's order. As such the Second Appeal does not disclose any infirmity in the FAA's order, any incorrect application of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, or any public interest justifying disclosure.
7. It is settled law that mere dissatisfaction, without specific grounds, does not warrant interference under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
/MCOAL/A/2024/139715 Page 3 of 58. The information sought pertains to commercially sensitive third-party information, namely identity of individual traders, and quantity-wise allotment of fly ash to such traders.
9. Disclosure of such information would reveal business volumes and competitive positioning of third parties and would prejudice their commercial interests. The exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has therefore been correctly invoked by the CPIO and upheld by the FAA.
10. Moreover, the Appellant has not demonstrated any larger public interest warranting disclosure of exempt information.
11. The FAA has rightly held that the information appears to have been sought for commercial purposes and not for transparency or accountability in public administration.
12. The FAA has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein it has been clarified that public interest must relate to the welfare of the public at large and not to individual or commercial interest.
13. This Hon'ble Commission has consistently upheld non-disclosure of commercial and third-party information under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
14.It is further submitted that the burden of establishing larger public interest lies on the appellant. In the present case, the Appellant has failed to discharge this burden.
15. Both the CPIO and the FAA have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
16. No case for interference by this Hon'ble Commission is made out.
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
a) Dismiss the Second Appeal as being vague and devoid of merit;
b) Uphold the order dated 18.09.2024 of the CPIO and the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority of NTPL; and
c) Pass any other order(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the exemption claimed by the Respondent under Section 8 1 (d) of the RTI Act in the instant case is wrongly placed as the Appellant had not sought /MCOAL/A/2024/139715 Page 4 of 5 information pertaining to rates at which dry fly ash had been allotted to the traders and therefore, no commercial aspect is involved. The Commission is convinced with the submissions of the Appellant that disclosure of such information would help small traders who wants to buy dry fly ash in small quantity and not in bulk quantity.
9. In view of the above, the Commissions directs Shri Shankar, CPIO-cum-
Deputy Manager, to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply by furnishing the relevant information to the Appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The FAA to ensure its compliance.
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 Copy To:
The FAA, THE FAA, NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin Beach Road Salt Pans, Muttayyapuram, Thuticorin, Tamil Nadu 628004 /MCOAL/A/2024/139715 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)