Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Mehrotra, §7(3), excessive fee, CIC)
+metatag-description=(Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable.)
+metatag-title=(Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — 2014 — RTI case law)}}
+====== Anil Mehrotra v. CIC ======
+**Anil Mehrotra v. CIC** (Central Information Commission, 2014-12-08) //CIC/AT/A/2014/000567// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7(3). Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1).
+===== Holding =====
+Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable.
+===== Ratio =====
+Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1). Abuse can attract §20(1) penalty.
+===== Section(s) applied =====
+  * Section 7(3)
+===== Practitioner takeaway =====
+§7(3) limits fee to prescribed rates; abuse triggers §19 / §20.
+===== Citation =====
+  * **Citation:** CIC/AT/A/2014/000567
+  * **Court:** Central Information Commission
+  * **Date:** 2014-12-08
+  * **Outcome:** allowed
+  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** CIC/AT/A/2014/000567
+===== Related =====
+  * [[:cases:search|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
+  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|High Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|Landmark CIC decisions]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
+//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases cic 2014}}

Was this helpful? — views