Right to Information Wiki
Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. MoHUA

PMAY-MIS data is public; commercial-confidence refusal rejected. Case: Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. MoHUA. RTI Wiki — citizen-first reference.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. MoHUA

Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. MoHUA (Central Information Commission, 2020-06-15) CIC/MOHUA/A/2020/000234 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 8(1)(d). PMAY-MIS data is public; commercial-confidence refusal rejected. PMAY-Management Information System (MIS) data is public.

Holding

PMAY-MIS data is public; commercial-confidence refusal rejected.

Ratio

PMAY-Management Information System (MIS) data is public. Refusal under §8(1)(d) commercial confidence is unsustainable in respect of welfare-scheme records funded by public money.

Section(s) applied

  • Section 8(1)(d)

Practitioner takeaway

Public-money welfare data + §4 disclosure obligation.

Citation

  • Citation: CIC/MOHUA/A/2020/000234
  • Court: Central Information Commission
  • Date: 2020-06-15
  • Outcome: allowed
  • Reporter / Cause-list: CIC/MOHUA/A/2020/000234

Why this case matters for citizens

This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at 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

  1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
  4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Citing this ruling in your appeal

Use our 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.