Right to Information Wiki

PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2026/05/03 12:32	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,§7(2),deemed refusal,Bombay HC,§19(1))&metatag-description=(A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7[2]; First Appeal lies directly. §7(2) deemed refusal is a legal fiction that activates.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(2) deemed refusal is a legal fiction that activates §19(1) appeal rights without a written order.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7(2); First Appeal lies directly.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a PIO fails to provide a response within the §7(1) 30-day window, §7(2) creates a deemed refusal. The applicant is entitled to file a First Appeal under §19(1) without waiting for a formal rejection order, and the FAA must proceed on the merits.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(2), deemed refusal, Bombay HC, §19(1)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-19}}

Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 12:32	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §10,RTI §19,partial information,severance,§19(1),CIC)&metatag-description=(Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI. Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1).)}}
	+
	+	====== Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI. Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1).
	+
	+	//Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1) appeal, not a fresh §6 application.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §10, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	When a PIO provides information in part and withholds the balance without invoking §8 or §10 with reasoned severance, the applicant's remedy is a First Appeal under §19(1) — not a fresh §6 application. Filing fresh RTIs for the withheld portion is procedural waste and does not reset the §7(1) clock.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	partial information, severance, §19(1), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-duplicate-application-2018\|Duplicate RTI applications — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vacancies-anjali-bhardwaj-follow-up-2023\|Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=10\|All RTI cases turning on §10]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-10 section-19}}

Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:03 +0000

2026/05/03 12:32	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Mehrotra, §7(3), excessive fee, CIC)
	+	metatag-description=(Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information 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) //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
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:search\|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
	+	* [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base\|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
	+	* [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings\|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:pio-high-court-rulings\|High Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|Landmark CIC decisions]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases cic 2014}}

Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 12:32	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,copy fees,§7(3),CIC,constructive refusal)&metatag-description=(A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19. Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19. Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal;.
	+
	+	//Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal; directly appealable under §19(1).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	When a PIO intimates a copy-fee that is grossly disproportionate to the reasonable photocopy cost — e.g., Rs 500 per page — that amounts to a constructive refusal. The applicant may seek review under §7(3) proviso or directly file a First Appeal under §19(1) treating the inflated fee as a de facto denial.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	copy fees, §7(3), CIC, constructive refusal
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7}}

Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:02:02 +0000

2026/05/03 12:32	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti case search,rti act section 8 case law search,rti section 11 cases,cic orders search,supreme court rti judgments search,filter rti rulings by section court year,adjudication intelligence)&metatag-description=(Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest.)}}
	+
	+	====== Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	{{url>https://righttoinformation.wiki/case-search-app.html 100%x1100px noborder\|RTI Case-Law Search}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
	+	Not loading? Open it directly at [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/case-search-app.html\|/case-search-app.html]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What this tool does =====
	+
	+	* Filter by court (SC / every HC / CIC / SIC), RTI Act section, outcome, and year range.
	+	* Search by keyword — parties' names, citation, ratio, keywords.
	+	* Landmark filter — narrow to the 38 most-cited authorities every PIO, FAA and RTI advocate should know.
	+	* One click to open the full editorial summary (with cross-links to related rulings) or the reported judgment on //Indian Kanoon// / Supreme Court Judis.
	+
	+	===== Tips =====
	+
	+	* To find //every case turning on §8(1)(j)//, pick "§8" in the sidebar filter and type ''8(1)(j)'' in the keyword box.
	+	* To find //every Delhi High Court ruling//, pick "Delhi HC" in the Court facet.
	+	* To find //rulings since DPDP 2025//, set year_from=2025 and keyword ''personal information''.
	+	* To find //applicant-friendly precedents for your First Appeal//, filter Outcome = "Applicant allowed" + Court = SC.
	+
	+	===== Reminder on citation =====
	+
	+	Every ratio shown in the search is an editorial compression of the reported judgment. Before citing in any official filing — PIO order, FAA appeal, CIC/SIC submission, High Court writ — always verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki does not warrant legal correctness for any specific dispute. Final adjudication rests with the Commission or Court.
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database home]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Landmark case-law library (editorial)]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:faa-speaking-order-guide\|FAA Speaking-Order Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law search adjudication}}