Right to Information Wiki

Telangana High Court — Driving licence delay (2023)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DL, RTO, CMVR)
	+	metatag-description=(RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. Telangana High Court — Driving licence delay (2023) (Telangana High Court, 2023-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Telangana High Court — Driving licence delay (2023) — 2023 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Telangana High Court — Driving licence delay (2023) ======
	+
	+	Telangana High Court — Driving licence delay (2023) (Telangana High Court, 2023-06-15) //HC-TS/2023/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. Telangana High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2018-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-TS/2023/typology
	+	* Court: Telangana High Court
	+	* Date: 2023-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-TS/2023/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Driving licence delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck waiting for an RTO to issue / renew / transfer their driving licence. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Office of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) at the relevant district + State Transport Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Motor Vehicles Act 1988 + Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) 1989, especially Rule 14 (issue) + Rule 15 (renewal); state CMV Rules for state-specific timelines. The citizen charter / SLA is: Most states have a 21-30 day Citizen Charter for fresh DL + 7-15 days for renewal. The MoRTH model timelines are on parivahan.gov.in.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	RTO not uploading test results to Sarathi; learner-licence to permanent-licence transition stuck; address-change pending; demerit-points dispute; touts blocking direct submissions.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Driving Licence application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RTO file movement, Sarathi portal status, Citizen Charter compliance, transit pass log.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-cic-2014\|Driving Licence Cic 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ald-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ap-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ap 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-bom-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Bom 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-cal-2015\|Driving Licence Hc Cal 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-del-2017\|Driving Licence Hc Del 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-guj-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Guj 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-kar-2016\|Driving Licence Hc Kar 2016]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pmay-status-checker.html\|PMAY Status Checker]] for similar one-click portal redirects
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-ts 2023}}

Maharashtra State Information Commission

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DL, RTO, CMVR)
	+	metatag-description=(Maharashtra State Information Commission - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest amendment)}}
	+	====== Maharashtra State Information Commission ======
	+	Maharashtra State Information Commission — Driving licence delay (2017) (Maharashtra State Information Commission, 2017-06-15) //SIC-MH/2017/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. Maharashtra State Information Commission jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: SIC-MH/2017/typology
	+	* Court: Maharashtra State Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2017-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: SIC-MH/2017/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Driving licence delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck waiting for an RTO to issue / renew / transfer their driving licence. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Office of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) at the relevant district + State Transport Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Motor Vehicles Act 1988 + Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) 1989, especially Rule 14 (issue) + Rule 15 (renewal); state CMV Rules for state-specific timelines. The citizen charter / SLA is: Most states have a 21-30 day Citizen Charter for fresh DL + 7-15 days for renewal. The MoRTH model timelines are on parivahan.gov.in.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	RTO not uploading test results to Sarathi; learner-licence to permanent-licence transition stuck; address-change pending; demerit-points dispute; touts blocking direct submissions.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Driving Licence application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RTO file movement, Sarathi portal status, Citizen Charter compliance, transit pass log.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-cic-2014\|Driving Licence Cic 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ald-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ap-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ap 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-bom-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Bom 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-cal-2015\|Driving Licence Hc Cal 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-del-2017\|Driving Licence Hc Del 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-guj-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Guj 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-kar-2016\|Driving Licence Hc Kar 2016]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pmay-status-checker.html\|PMAY Status Checker]] for similar one-click portal redirects
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 sic-mh 2017}}

Delhi High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2013)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(MGNREGA, NREGA, wage delay)
	+	metatag-description=(§33 automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Delhi High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2013) (Delhi High Court, 2013-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Delhi High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2013) — 2013 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Delhi High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2013) ======
	+
	+	Delhi High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2013) (Delhi High Court, 2013-06-15) //HC-DEL/2013/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 3, 4, 7. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Delhi High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2010-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 3
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 3(3)
	+	* Sub-section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-DEL/2013/typology
	+	* Court: Delhi High Court
	+	* Date: 2013-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-DEL/2013/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the MGNREGA wage / muster-roll dispute topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Workers stuck waiting for MGNREGA wages / job-card / muster-roll inclusion. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Block Development Officer (BDO) + Gram Panchayat + District Programme Coordinator (DPC, usually the DM) + State Rural Development Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, especially §3 (right to 100 days of work) + §3(3) (compensation if wages delayed). The citizen charter / SLA is: Job card: 15 days. Wages: 15 days from work-completion (else compensation under §3(3)).
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	Muster-roll entry missing; FTO (Fund Transfer Order) not generated; bank account de-seeded from NREGAsoft; job-card cancelled without notice.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your MGNREGA wages / muster-roll application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: muster-roll register, NREGAsoft FTO log, work-completion certificate, BDO noting, DPC review.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-cic-2025\|Mgnrega Cic 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ald-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-bom-2022\|Mgnrega Hc Bom 2022]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-cal-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Cal 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-del-2013\|Mgnrega Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-guj-2016\|Mgnrega Hc Guj 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-kar-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Kar 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ker-2024\|Mgnrega Hc Ker 2024]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:employment-labour-schemes-india\|Employment + labour schemes index]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-del 2013}}

Gujarat High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2016)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(MGNREGA, NREGA, wage delay)
	+	metatag-description=(§33 automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Gujarat High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2016) (Gujarat High Court, 2016-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Gujarat High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2016) — 2016 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Gujarat High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2016) ======
	+
	+	Gujarat High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2016) (Gujarat High Court, 2016-06-15) //HC-GUJ/2016/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 3, 4, 7. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Gujarat High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 3
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 3(3)
	+	* Sub-section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-GUJ/2016/typology
	+	* Court: Gujarat High Court
	+	* Date: 2016-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-GUJ/2016/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the MGNREGA wage / muster-roll dispute topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Workers stuck waiting for MGNREGA wages / job-card / muster-roll inclusion. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Block Development Officer (BDO) + Gram Panchayat + District Programme Coordinator (DPC, usually the DM) + State Rural Development Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, especially §3 (right to 100 days of work) + §3(3) (compensation if wages delayed). The citizen charter / SLA is: Job card: 15 days. Wages: 15 days from work-completion (else compensation under §3(3)).
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	Muster-roll entry missing; FTO (Fund Transfer Order) not generated; bank account de-seeded from NREGAsoft; job-card cancelled without notice.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your MGNREGA wages / muster-roll application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: muster-roll register, NREGAsoft FTO log, work-completion certificate, BDO noting, DPC review.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-cic-2025\|Mgnrega Cic 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ald-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-bom-2022\|Mgnrega Hc Bom 2022]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-cal-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Cal 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-del-2013\|Mgnrega Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-guj-2016\|Mgnrega Hc Guj 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-kar-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Kar 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ker-2024\|Mgnrega Hc Ker 2024]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:employment-labour-schemes-india\|Employment + labour schemes index]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-guj 2016}}

Madhya Pradesh High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2015)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(MGNREGA, NREGA, wage delay)
	+	metatag-description=(§33 automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Madhya Pradesh High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2015) (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2015-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Madhya Pradesh High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2015) — 2015 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Madhya Pradesh High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2015) ======
	+
	+	Madhya Pradesh High Court — MGNREGA wage delay (2015) (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2015-06-15) //HC-MP/2015/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 3, 4, 7. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. §3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory. Madhya Pradesh High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2015-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 3
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 3(3)
	+	* Sub-section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	§3(3) automatic delay compensation; §4 muster-roll display mandatory
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-MP/2015/typology
	+	* Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
	+	* Date: 2015-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-MP/2015/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the MGNREGA wage / muster-roll dispute topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Workers stuck waiting for MGNREGA wages / job-card / muster-roll inclusion. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Block Development Officer (BDO) + Gram Panchayat + District Programme Coordinator (DPC, usually the DM) + State Rural Development Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005, especially §3 (right to 100 days of work) + §3(3) (compensation if wages delayed). The citizen charter / SLA is: Job card: 15 days. Wages: 15 days from work-completion (else compensation under §3(3)).
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	Muster-roll entry missing; FTO (Fund Transfer Order) not generated; bank account de-seeded from NREGAsoft; job-card cancelled without notice.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your MGNREGA wages / muster-roll application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: muster-roll register, NREGAsoft FTO log, work-completion certificate, BDO noting, DPC review.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-cic-2025\|Mgnrega Cic 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ald-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-bom-2022\|Mgnrega Hc Bom 2022]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-cal-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Cal 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-del-2013\|Mgnrega Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-guj-2016\|Mgnrega Hc Guj 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-kar-2019\|Mgnrega Hc Kar 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:mgnrega-hc-ker-2024\|Mgnrega Hc Ker 2024]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:employment-labour-schemes-india\|Employment + labour schemes index]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-mp 2015}}

Andhra Pradesh High Court — Passport delay (2014)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(passport, RPO, deemed refusal)
	+	metatag-description=(Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Andhra Pradesh High Court — Passport delay (2014) (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2014-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Andhra Pradesh High Court — Passport delay (2014) — 2014 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Andhra Pradesh High Court — Passport delay (2014) ======
	+
	+	Andhra Pradesh High Court — Passport delay (2014) (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2014-06-15) //HC-AP/2014/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8, 7. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Andhra Pradesh High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 8
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 8(1)(g)
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-AP/2014/typology
	+	* Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
	+	* Date: 2014-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-AP/2014/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Passport application or police-verification delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck in passport processing or PVR (police verification report). The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Regional Passport Office (RPO) PIO + Office of Superintendent / Commissioner of Police for police-verification matters is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Passports Act 1967 + Passports Rules 1980 (Rule 5 prescribes 21-day verification window for normal, 7 days for Tatkal). The citizen charter / SLA is: Normal passport: 30 days from PVR clearance. Tatkal: 7 working days. Re-issue: 30 days.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	PVR officer not visiting; 'unable to trace' tag falsely applied; address-change held up; tatkal queue delay; passport issued with wrong page count.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Passport / police verification application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RPO file movement, PVR officer noting, Sub-Divisional Police Officer report, dispatch register entry.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-cic-2024\|Passport Delay Cic 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ald-2016\|Passport Delay Hc Ald 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ap-2014\|Passport Delay Hc Ap 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-bom-2012\|Passport Delay Hc Bom 2012]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-cal-2017\|Passport Delay Hc Cal 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-del-2013\|Passport Delay Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-guj-2025\|Passport Delay Hc Guj 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-kar-2019\|Passport Delay Hc Kar 2019]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:rti-for-police-verification-employment\|RTI for police verification]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-ap 2014}}

Telangana High Court — Passport delay (2024)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(passport, RPO, deemed refusal)
	+	metatag-description=(Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Telangana High Court — Passport delay (2024) (Telangana High Court, 2024-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Telangana High Court — Passport delay (2024) — 2024 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Telangana High Court — Passport delay (2024) ======
	+
	+	Telangana High Court — Passport delay (2024) (Telangana High Court, 2024-06-15) //HC-TS/2024/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8, 7. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Telangana High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2018-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 8
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 8(1)(g)
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-TS/2024/typology
	+	* Court: Telangana High Court
	+	* Date: 2024-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-TS/2024/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Passport application or police-verification delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck in passport processing or PVR (police verification report). The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Regional Passport Office (RPO) PIO + Office of Superintendent / Commissioner of Police for police-verification matters is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Passports Act 1967 + Passports Rules 1980 (Rule 5 prescribes 21-day verification window for normal, 7 days for Tatkal). The citizen charter / SLA is: Normal passport: 30 days from PVR clearance. Tatkal: 7 working days. Re-issue: 30 days.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	PVR officer not visiting; 'unable to trace' tag falsely applied; address-change held up; tatkal queue delay; passport issued with wrong page count.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Passport / police verification application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RPO file movement, PVR officer noting, Sub-Divisional Police Officer report, dispatch register entry.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-cic-2024\|Passport Delay Cic 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ald-2016\|Passport Delay Hc Ald 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ap-2014\|Passport Delay Hc Ap 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-bom-2012\|Passport Delay Hc Bom 2012]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-cal-2017\|Passport Delay Hc Cal 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-del-2013\|Passport Delay Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-guj-2025\|Passport Delay Hc Guj 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-kar-2019\|Passport Delay Hc Kar 2019]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:rti-for-police-verification-employment\|RTI for police verification]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-ts 2024}}

Maharashtra State Information Commission — Passport delay (2014)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(passport, RPO, deemed refusal)
	+	metatag-description=(Maharashtra State Information Commission — Passport delay (2014) - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 20)}}
	+	====== Maharashtra State Information Commission — Passport delay (2014) ======
	+
	+	Maharashtra State Information Commission — Passport delay (2014) (Maharashtra State Information Commission, 2014-06-15) //SIC-MH/2014/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8, 7. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19. Maharashtra State Information Commission jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 8
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 8(1)(g)
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Passport timely delivery is an RTI matter; deemed refusal triggers §19
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: SIC-MH/2014/typology
	+	* Court: Maharashtra State Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2014-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: SIC-MH/2014/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Passport application or police-verification delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck in passport processing or PVR (police verification report). The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Regional Passport Office (RPO) PIO + Office of Superintendent / Commissioner of Police for police-verification matters is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Passports Act 1967 + Passports Rules 1980 (Rule 5 prescribes 21-day verification window for normal, 7 days for Tatkal). The citizen charter / SLA is: Normal passport: 30 days from PVR clearance. Tatkal: 7 working days. Re-issue: 30 days.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	PVR officer not visiting; 'unable to trace' tag falsely applied; address-change held up; tatkal queue delay; passport issued with wrong page count.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Passport / police verification application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RPO file movement, PVR officer noting, Sub-Divisional Police Officer report, dispatch register entry.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-cic-2024\|Passport Delay Cic 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ald-2016\|Passport Delay Hc Ald 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-ap-2014\|Passport Delay Hc Ap 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-bom-2012\|Passport Delay Hc Bom 2012]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-cal-2017\|Passport Delay Hc Cal 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-del-2013\|Passport Delay Hc Del 2013]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-guj-2025\|Passport Delay Hc Guj 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:passport-delay-hc-kar-2019\|Passport Delay Hc Kar 2019]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:rti-for-police-verification-employment\|RTI for police verification]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 sic-mh 2014}}

Madras High Court — Ration card delay (2025)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(ration card, NFSA, PDS)
	+	metatag-description=(NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public. Madras High Court — Ration card delay (2025) (Madras High Court, 2025-06-15) //HC-MAD/2025/typology//.)
	+	metatag-title=(Madras High Court — Ration card delay (2025) — 2025 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Madras High Court — Ration card delay (2025) ======
	+
	+	Madras High Court — Ration card delay (2025) (Madras High Court, 2025-06-15) //HC-MAD/2025/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 7, 4. NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public. NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public. Madras High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+	* Sub-section 4(1)(b)(xii)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	NFSA inclusion + §4 proactive disclosure; PDS records public
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-MAD/2025/typology
	+	* Court: Madras High Court
	+	* Date: 2025-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-MAD/2025/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Ration card delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck waiting for a ration card / FPS issue / NFSA enrolment. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs at the district + state level (also called Food and Supplies Department in some states) is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is National Food Security Act 2013 (NFSA) + state Public Distribution System Control Orders + state-level rules. The citizen charter / SLA is: 30-90 days from application to issue, varying by state. NFSA has overriding statutory mandate.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	NFSA list not refreshed; new family member not added; cancellation without notice; FPS dealer harassment; deduplication issues with Aadhaar.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Ration Card application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: FPS dealer log, beneficiary list, NFSA inclusion criteria, deduplication report, Aadhaar seeding status.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-cic-2015\|Ration Card Cic 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-ald-2019\|Ration Card Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-ap-2014\|Ration Card Hc Ap 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-bom-2020\|Ration Card Hc Bom 2020]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-cal-2021\|Ration Card Hc Cal 2021]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-del-2015\|Ration Card Hc Del 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-guj-2025\|Ration Card Hc Guj 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:ration-card-hc-kar-2018\|Ration Card Hc Kar 2018]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:guide:applicant:application:sample:land-mutation\|Sample RTI for land-mutation]] follows a similar Tehsil-level process
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-mad 2025}}

Rajasthan High Court — Scholarship delay (2018)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(scholarship, NSP, DBT)
	+	metatag-description=(Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records. Rajasthan High Court — Scholarship delay (2018) (Rajasthan High Court, 2018-06-15).)
	+	metatag-title=(Rajasthan High Court — Scholarship delay (2018) — 2018 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Rajasthan High Court — Scholarship delay (2018) ======
	+
	+	Rajasthan High Court — Scholarship delay (2018) (Rajasthan High Court, 2018-06-15) //HC-RAJ/2018/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 7, 4. Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records. Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records. Rajasthan High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2015-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+	* Sub-section 4(1)(b)(xii)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: HC-RAJ/2018/typology
	+	* Court: Rajasthan High Court
	+	* Date: 2018-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: HC-RAJ/2018/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Scholarship sanction / disbursal delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Students stuck waiting for NSP / state scholarship sanction or DBT credit. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	National Scholarship Portal (NSP) → respective Ministry (MoSJE for SC, MoTA for ST, MoMA for minorities, MoE for general); state DSWO/Tribal Welfare for state schemes is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Constitution Articles 15(4), 46 (special provisions); central + state scholarship guidelines. The citizen charter / SLA is: Pre-matric: 30 days from sanction to credit. Post-matric: 90 days. Merit-cum-means: 60 days.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	Aadhaar-bank-account seeding mismatch; institute not verified on NSP; portal showing 'rejected — reason not specified'; previous-year recurrence not paid.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Scholarship application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: NSP application movement, sanction file, UTR of payment, institute verification status, reasons for rejection.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-cic-2017\|Scholarship Cic 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-ald-2017\|Scholarship Hc Ald 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-ap-2025\|Scholarship Hc Ap 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-bom-2015\|Scholarship Hc Bom 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-cal-2024\|Scholarship Hc Cal 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-del-2020\|Scholarship Hc Del 2020]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-guj-2016\|Scholarship Hc Guj 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-kar-2022\|Scholarship Hc Kar 2022]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:education-skill-schemes-india\|Education + skill schemes index]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 hc-raj 2018}}

UP State Information Commission — Scholarship delay (2020)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 03:31:34 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(scholarship, NSP, DBT)
	+	metatag-description=(UP State Information Commission — Scholarship delay (2020) - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 wit)}}
	+	====== UP State Information Commission — Scholarship delay (2020) ======
	+
	+	UP State Information Commission — Scholarship delay (2020) (UP State Information Commission, 2020-06-15) //SIC-UP/2020/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 7, 4. Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records. Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records. UP State Information Commission jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+	* Sub-section 4(1)(b)(xii)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists are §4 proactive-disclosure records
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: SIC-UP/2020/typology
	+	* Court: UP State Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2020-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: SIC-UP/2020/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Scholarship sanction / disbursal delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Students stuck waiting for NSP / state scholarship sanction or DBT credit. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	National Scholarship Portal (NSP) → respective Ministry (MoSJE for SC, MoTA for ST, MoMA for minorities, MoE for general); state DSWO/Tribal Welfare for state schemes is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Constitution Articles 15(4), 46 (special provisions); central + state scholarship guidelines. The citizen charter / SLA is: Pre-matric: 30 days from sanction to credit. Post-matric: 90 days. Merit-cum-means: 60 days.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	Aadhaar-bank-account seeding mismatch; institute not verified on NSP; portal showing 'rejected — reason not specified'; previous-year recurrence not paid.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Scholarship application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: NSP application movement, sanction file, UTR of payment, institute verification status, reasons for rejection.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-cic-2017\|Scholarship Cic 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-ald-2017\|Scholarship Hc Ald 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-ap-2025\|Scholarship Hc Ap 2025]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-bom-2015\|Scholarship Hc Bom 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-cal-2024\|Scholarship Hc Cal 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-del-2020\|Scholarship Hc Del 2020]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-guj-2016\|Scholarship Hc Guj 2016]]
	+	* [[:cases:scholarship-hc-kar-2022\|Scholarship Hc Kar 2022]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[:education-skill-schemes-india\|Education + skill schemes index]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 sic-up 2020}}

PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/05 08:34	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

2026/05/05 08:34	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) — Tue, 05 May 2026 04:42:56 +0000

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Mehrotra, §7(3), excessive fee, CIC)
	+	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) //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 [[:cases\|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 =====
	+
	+	- Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- 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://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/citation-formatter-app.html\|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.
	+
	+	===== Related landmark RTI rulings =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench)]] — office of CJI is public authority
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI]] — IC vacancies + transparency
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande]] — §8(1)(j) personal information test
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] — procedural compliance
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information\|Adesh Kumar v. UoI]] — irrelevance is not a ground
	+	* [[:cases\|Full case-law database (300+)]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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

2026/05/05 08:34	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

2026/05/05 08:34	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}}

Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023

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

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,agriculture,&)&metatag-description=(Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-08-29 · CIC File No. IK/176042978
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-08-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/176042978 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gita Dewan Verma \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Agriculture & ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal and complaint disposed of
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, agriculture, &
	+
	+	===== 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-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurav-das-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2021-216083\|Saurav Das v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-kishore-arora-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2022-772662\|Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-education-policy-2024\|NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[: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]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176042978/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<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-8}}

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DL, RTO, CMVR)
	+	metatag-description=(Maharashtra State Information Commission - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest amendment)}}
	+	====== Maharashtra State Information Commission ======
	+	Maharashtra State Information Commission — Driving licence delay (2017) (Maharashtra State Information Commission, 2017-06-15) //SIC-MH/2017/typology// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable. Maharashtra State Information Commission jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7
	+	* Sub-section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	RTO file movement disclosable; Citizen Charter enforceable
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: SIC-MH/2017/typology
	+	* Court: Maharashtra State Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2017-06-15
	+	* Outcome: varied
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: SIC-MH/2017/typology
	+
	+
	+	===== Why this case-cluster matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	This ruling sits in the Driving licence delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck waiting for an RTO to issue / renew / transfer their driving licence. The common thread across the cluster: when the citizen is stuck and the statutory or charter timeline is exceeded, the file noting and officer-holding-the-file information must be disclosed under §6 of the RTI Act 2005, regardless of whether the underlying decision is favourable to the citizen.
	+
	+	===== Right authority to RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	Office of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) at the relevant district + State Transport Department is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is Motor Vehicles Act 1988 + Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) 1989, especially Rule 14 (issue) + Rule 15 (renewal); state CMV Rules for state-specific timelines. The citizen charter / SLA is: Most states have a 21-30 day Citizen Charter for fresh DL + 7-15 days for renewal. The MoRTH model timelines are on parivahan.gov.in.
	+
	+	===== Common issues in this cluster =====
	+
	+	RTO not uploading test results to Sarathi; learner-licence to permanent-licence transition stuck; address-change pending; demerit-points dispute; touts blocking direct submissions.
	+
	+	===== Sample RTI for this topic =====
	+
	+	If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
	+
	+	* Current status of your Driving Licence application / claim, with the date of last action.
	+	* Certified copy of the file noting recording every officer's action since submission.
	+	* Name, designation, room number, and contact of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	* The prescribed Citizen Charter / statutory timeline for disposal.
	+	* Records relating to: RTO file movement, Sarathi portal status, Citizen Charter compliance, transit pass log.
	+	* Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.
	+
	+	The fastest path: use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/awaaz-rti.html\|AwaazRTI]].
	+
	+	===== Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI =====
	+
	+	- Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
	+	- Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
	+	- Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
	+
	+	===== Related cases in this cluster =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-cic-2014\|Driving Licence Cic 2014]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ald-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ald 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-ap-2019\|Driving Licence Hc Ap 2019]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-bom-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Bom 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-cal-2015\|Driving Licence Hc Cal 2015]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-del-2017\|Driving Licence Hc Del 2017]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-guj-2024\|Driving Licence Hc Guj 2024]]
	+	* [[:cases:driving-licence-hc-kar-2016\|Driving Licence Hc Kar 2016]]
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Full RTI case-law database]] — 300+ rulings searchable by section / state / year
	+	* Companion citizen guide: [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pmay-status-checker.html\|PMAY Status Checker]] for similar one-click portal redirects
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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 sic-mh 2017}}

2026/05/05 08:34	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Mehrotra, §7(3), excessive fee, CIC)
	+	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) //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 [[:cases\|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 =====
	+
	+	- Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]].
	+	- 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://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/citation-formatter-app.html\|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.
	+
	+	===== Related landmark RTI rulings =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench)]] — office of CJI is public authority
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI]] — IC vacancies + transparency
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande]] — §8(1)(j) personal information test
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] — procedural compliance
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information\|Adesh Kumar v. UoI]] — irrelevance is not a ground
	+	* [[:cases\|Full case-law database (300+)]]
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions\|Master directory of landmark RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	===== Original case metadata — 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}}