Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(People's Watch, PMAY-G, §4(1)(b)(xii), Madras HC, beneficiary list)
+metatag-description=(District-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists must be uploaded.)
+metatag-title=(People's Watch v. State of TN — 2022 — RTI case law)}}
+====== People's Watch v. State of TN ======
+**People's Watch v. State of TN** (Madras High Court, 2022-08-10) //WP/2022/000345// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 4(1)(b)(xii). District-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists must be uploaded. Under §4(1)(b)(xii) of the RTI Act 2005, the State must publish district-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists.
+===== Holding =====
+District-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists must be uploaded.
+===== Ratio =====
+Under §4(1)(b)(xii) of the RTI Act 2005, the State must publish district-wise PMAY-G beneficiary lists. Refusal of such lists under §8(1)(j) as 'third-party personal information' is rejected — these are scheme-recipient public records.
+===== Section(s) applied =====
+  * Section 4(1)(b)(xii)
+===== Practitioner takeaway =====
+§4(1)(b)(xii) is mandatory; refusal as 'third-party' rejected.
+===== Citation =====
+  * **Citation:** WP/2022/000345
+  * **Court:** Madras High Court
+  * **Date:** 2022-08-10
+  * **Outcome:** allowed
+  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** WP/2022/000345
+===== 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 2022}}

Was this helpful? — views