Ranchi Regional Development Authority Vs. Sushil
Kumar Mahto & Ors  Insc 442 (21 July 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) No. 7815 of 2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
calls in question legality of certain directions given by a Division bench of
the Jharkhand High Court while dealing with a petition styled as Public
Interest Litigation (in short the 'PIL').
writ petitioner i.e. respondent no.1 filed the purported PIL alleging that the
construction of certain multi- storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and
contrary to the provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act (in short
the 'Act') and the Building Regulations (in short the 'Regulations') and the
Building Byelaws, 1981 (in short 'Byelaws'). The Authorities and the person who
was the builder of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High Court,
and took the stand that the PIL was nothing but a mischievous attempt to malign
them. It was pointed out that the petitioner has not come to the Court with
clean hand. The High Court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner and
some of his supporters had violated sanctioned plans while making constructions
of buildings and the undertaking given while obtaining sanctions for their
plans. Nevertheless, the High Court found that the writ petitioner may not have
come to court with absolutely clean hands, but whether the Corporation was
justified in according sanction was to be reconsidered by the appellant. The
High Court also directed that cases of not only the builder who had impleaded
himself in the writ petition but also all those who have violated the norms
fixed by By-laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings shall be examined. The
directions were further to the effect that if the writ petitioner or his
supporters are found to have violated the Bye-laws, he shall be proceeded
against. The appellants have not questioned the correctness of these
directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain observations against
officers of the appellant which according to it are uncalled for. They were not
given any opportunity to be heard in the matter. They have acted bonafide and,
therefore, these observations should be deleted.
also submitted that the Bye-laws have been amended in 2002 and while
reconsideration is to be done, the same has to be in terms of Bye-laws which
have come into force in 2002.
counsel for the respondents accepted the position that due consideration has to
be done in terms of the Bye-laws introduced in 2002.
find that without adequate material inference has been drawn by the High Court
about the laxity of the Authorities. There was no definite material about collusica
or that they stood passively by winking at violation of the building Bye-laws
and approved plans. These were too generalised directions. We, therefore,
direct deletion of the aforesaid directions for initiating action. We, however,
make it clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant-authority that
any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best interest of the
Authorities can be proceeded against in accordance with law. In view of the
accepted position that Bye-laws, amended in 2002 have applicability at the time
of re-consideration of the matter, we direct that while considering the matter
as directed by the High Court, the Bye-laws as amended in 2002 shall be kept in
view. But it shall also be found out if there was any violation of pre-2002
norms, necessary action shall be taken.
shall be imperative for the appellant-authority to make indepth enquiry to find
out as to whether in any case or cases, the concerned officials, has/have acted
in dereliction of duty.
answer is in the affirmative, then necessary action has to follow.
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.