Quick Reply: A CPIO cannot charge additional fee beyond the prescribed copy rates at whim. Where excess fee was collected, the public authority must refund it. The Act having no express refund clause is not a defence.
Central Information Commission · 4 December 2024 · CIC/CICOM/A/2023/103881
Section 7(3) does not allow a CPIO to charge excess fee at their whims and fancy.
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2024-12-04 |
| Citation | Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/103881 with Complaint No. CIC/CICOM/C/2023/106236 |
| Bench | Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam |
| Appellant | S. S. Chawla |
| Respondent | CPIO, Central Information Commission, New Delhi |
| RTI Act sections | §7(3), §7(6), §19(8)(a), §19(8)(b), §20 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed in part. Excess fee directed to be refunded. Compensation and penalty refused. |
The Commission directed the CPIO, RTI Cell, to refund the entire additional fee of ₹208 collected from the appellant, within 15 days. Section 7(3) does not allow a CPIO to charge excess fee at whim. Absence of an express refund clause in the Act or the RTI Rules, 2012 is not a reason to keep wrongly collected fee. Compensation under §19(8)(b) was refused because the detriment was not of a magnitude that warranted it. Penalty under §20 was refused because mala fides were not made out.
The appellant paid ₹208 as additional fee for 104 pages. The CPIO later supplied 88 pages and withheld the rest under §8(1)(j). The public authority then said the Act had no provision for refund of excess fee.
The Commission held that the respondent's stance was grossly arbitrary. It recorded that §7(3) “does not allow for the CPIO to charge excess fee at their whims & fancy”. If additional fee was demanded without first deciding what could lawfully be supplied, the later withholding of pages does not give the public authority a licence to keep the excess. The Act and Rules not having an express refund provision “is not an excuse to withhold such excess fee with the public exchequer”.
Under §19(8)(a) the Commission directed refund of the whole ₹208, including the fee charged for late supply. It separately recorded that there was no explanation for a further month's delay after the fee was paid, which engages the free-supply rule in §7(6). Compensation under §19(8)(b) was refused on the facts. The complaint for penalty was closed.
Indian Kanoon's title line indexes the decision as 5 December 2024. The body states Date of Decision 04.12.2024. This page follows the body.
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Last reviewed: 11 September 2026.