Anil Mehrotra v. CIC (Central Information Commission, 2014-12-08) CIC/AT/A/2014/000567 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7(3). Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1).
Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable.
Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1). Abuse can attract §20(1) penalty.
§7(3) limits fee to prescribed rates; abuse triggers §19 / §20.
This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.
Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.