Kerala High Court — PMAY application status (2016) (Kerala High Court, 2016-06-15) HC-KER/2016/typology is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 4, 7. PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4. PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4.
PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4
PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4. Kerala High Court jurisprudence on this topic spans 2014-2025; orders apply standard RTI principles + sub-section interpretation. See linked guide for citation chain.
PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4
This ruling sits in the PMAY application / sanction / disbursal delay topic cluster — orders from various courts and Information Commissions over 2012-2025 dealing with Citizens stuck in PMAY-G or PMAY-U application / SECC verification / instalment delay. 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.
PMAY-G: District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) at District Magistrate's office. PMAY-U: Urban Local Body (Municipal Corporation / Council) is the typical PIO target for an RTI on this topic. The applicable statute is PMAY Guidelines 2024 + state operational manuals + Section 4 of RTI Act (mandatory proactive disclosure of beneficiary lists). The citizen charter / SLA is: PMAY-G: 90 days from sanction to first instalment. PMAY-U: 60 days from beneficiary verification.
Name not in SECC list; AwaasSoft showing 'rejected' without reason; instalment-2 stuck pending geo-tagging; banker raising fresh KYC.
If your own case is stuck on a similar issue, file an RTI to the right PIO with these queries:
The fastest path: use our AI RTI Drafter (free, 60 seconds) — it picks up your district and pre-fills the right authority. For voice input use AwaazRTI.