Right to Information Wiki
Saroj Devi v. State of Bihar — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Mandamus to BPO for PMAY-G installment release; Rs. 10,000 cost. Case: Saroj Devi v. State of Bihar — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026. RTI Wiki citizen guide.

Saroj Devi v. State of Bihar — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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.

Holding

Mandamus to BPO for PMAY-G installment release; Rs. 10,000 cost.

Ratio

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.

Section(s) applied

  • Section PMAY-G

Practitioner takeaway

BPO bound by PMAY-G timelines; cost for delay.

Citation

  • Citation: CWP/2023/004567
  • Court: Patna High Court
  • Date: 2023-07-19
  • Outcome: allowed
  • Reporter / Cause-list: CWP/2023/004567

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.