Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | cases:anil-mehrotra-cic-2014 [2026/06/03 17:01] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-description=(Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Case: Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026. RTI Wiki — citizen-first reference.) | ||
| + | metatag-title=(Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — 2014 — RTI case law)}} | ||
| + | ====== Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ====== | ||
| + | **Anil Mehrotra v. CIC** (Central Information Commission, 2014-12-08) // | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Holding ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Ratio ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Section(s) applied ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Section 7(3) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Practitioner takeaway ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | §7(3) limits fee to prescribed rates; abuse triggers §19 / §20. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Citation ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Citation: | ||
| + | * **Court:** Central Information Commission | ||
| + | * **Date:** 2014-12-08 | ||
| + | * **Outcome: | ||
| + | * **Reporter / Cause-list: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Why this case matters for citizens ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This ruling is part of the **300+ case-law corpus** at [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Day 30** — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using [[https:// | ||
| + | - **Day 60-90** — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities). | ||
| + | - **Beyond 18 months pending** — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court. | ||
| + | - **Parallel CPGRAMS complaint** at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Citing this ruling in your appeal ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Use our [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related landmark RTI rulings ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related on RTI Wiki ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Original case metadata — Related ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag> | ||