Right to Information Wiki
Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Case: Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026. RTI Wiki — citizen-first reference.

Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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).

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: CIC/AT/A/2014/000567
  • Court: Central Information Commission
  • Date: 2014-12-08
  • Outcome: allowed
  • Reporter / Cause-list: CIC/AT/A/2014/000567

Why this case matters for citizens

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.

Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds

  1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
  4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Citing this ruling in your appeal

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.