Right to Information Wiki
Karnataka High Court — PMAY application status (2016)

PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4. Karnataka High Court — PMAY application status (2016) (Karnataka High Court, 2016-06-15).

Karnataka High Court — PMAY application status (2016)

Karnataka High Court — PMAY application status (2016) (Karnataka High Court, 2016-06-15) HC-KAR/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.

Holding

PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4

Ratio

PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4. Karnataka 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 4
  • Section 7
  • Sub-section 4(1)(b)(xii)
  • Sub-section 7(1)

Practitioner takeaway

PMAY beneficiary lists are mandatory disclosure under §4

Citation

  • Citation: HC-KAR/2016/typology
  • Court: Karnataka High Court
  • Date: 2016-06-15
  • Outcome: varied
  • Reporter / Cause-list: HC-KAR/2016/typology

Why this case-cluster matters for citizens

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.

Right authority to RTI for this topic

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.

Common issues in this cluster

Name not in SECC list; AwaasSoft showing 'rejected' without reason; instalment-2 stuck pending geo-tagging; banker raising fresh KYC.

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 PMAY application status 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: AwaasSoft beneficiary file, SECC verification report, geo-tagging confirmation, fund-release status, DRDA noting.
  • Name and contact of the First Appellate Authority for this office.

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.

Citizen action steps if PIO ignores your RTI

  1. Day 30: silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File a §19(1) First Appeal to the FAA — use First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90: if FAA also fails, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court.
  4. Consider parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.

, , , ,