IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14966 of 2001 VIDHYA PRASAD PANDEY Versus PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ----------- 6 9/4/2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation, a successor body of Patna Regional Development Authority as also counsel for the State. As a matter of fact the impugned order in the writ application gives all sort of relief to the petitioner and in normal circumstances the same was even not fit to be assailed, but then as order contained in Annexure-2 had given cause of action to the petitioner this writ application came to be filed. This Court would take notice of the fact that in Annexure-1 the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A having noticed certain complaints with regard to construction of house of the petitioner without a sanctioned plan had ultimately after conducting a proceeding and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner came to a conclusion that though the house 2 was constructed without sanctioned plan but then such deviation made thereunder were condonable provided the petitioner would submit a plan for post facto sanction along with condonation fee. He had accordingly passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to submit a plan for the post facto sanction with condonation fee. To that extent the petitioner has probably no grievance, but then when Annexure-2 in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Vice-Chairman P.R.D.A was issued by the Assistant Engineer intimating a sum of Rs.45227/- to be deposited by the petitioner by way of condonation fee and also with threat that in the event such amount is not deposited portion of the house of the petitioner will be demolished, became a turning point giving cause of action to the petitioner to file this writ application. In the opinion of this court, if the petitioner after a period of 18 years would like to comply the direction given in the impugned order of the Vice-Chairman as contained in Annexure-1 by submitting a plan as also 3 paying the condonation fee, such voluntary action on his part must be permitted as it may being the whole dispute to an end. Counsel for the petitioner, however, assailing correctness of Annexure-2 would submit that the condonation fee as estimated and sought to be charged by the Assistant Engineer in the order contained in Annexure-2 is beyond the prescribed norms of the provisions of the Building bye-laws of P.R.D.A. This Court would hardly be in a position to go into this factual aspect and as a matter of fact when the P.R.D.A has also provided calculation of such condonation fee in terms of Building bye- laws the same cannot be re-appraised by this Court. Such issue however can definitely be looked into by the authorities who may now reconsider the decision as contained in Annexure-2 by taking into account whatever objection the petitioner may have against it. The petitioner for this purpose may file a self contained representation confining 4 its claim only against the condonation fee as contained in Annexure-2 and the authorities will be under obligation to dispose it of by a reasoned order whatever amount is found payable, upon such reconsideration, as condonation fee must be paid within a period of one month from such communication. It goes without saying that once the petitioner pays the condonation fee, the plan of the petitioner as per order of the Vice Chairman of the P.R.D.A has to be sanctioned by way of post facto sanction which would put to an end to the whole dispute. It is also made clear that if in the meantime the petitioner has already submitted a plan it would not be required to submit another plan and that very plan may be considered and sanctioned after depositing of the condonation fee. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar