Saroj Devi v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2023-07-19) CWP/2023/004567 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section PMAY-G. Mandamus to BPO for PMAY-G installment release; Rs. 10,000 cost. Where PMAY-G installment was delayed beyond the 90-day Operational Guideline timeline without recorded reason, mandamus issued to the Block Programme Officer (BPO) to release the installment within 7 days.
Mandamus to BPO for PMAY-G installment release; Rs. 10,000 cost.
Where PMAY-G installment was delayed beyond the 90-day Operational Guideline timeline without recorded reason, mandamus issued to the Block Programme Officer (BPO) to release the installment within 7 days. Rs. 10,000 cost awarded against the State.
BPO bound by PMAY-G timelines; cost for delay.
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.
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.