IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1696 of 2005 BHAGWAT PODDAR, SON OF LATE DEO NARAIN PODDAR, HONORARY SECRETARY, KASTURBA SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITY LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR, SANDALPUR, POLICE STATION SULTANGANJ, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. -- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA, THROUGH ITS VICE- CHAIRMAN. 2. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA BOTH HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT MAURYALOK COMPLEX, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. ---REPRESENTATION ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Prakash Shekhar Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents P.R.D.A./P.M.C.: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Adv. ------- 2/ 11-05-2011 Heard the parties. It appears that without sanction of the map by the competent authority, the petitioner constructed two rooms with G.I. sheets purportedly to be used as a community hall over survey plot no. 219(part) appertaining to khata no. 179, at Mohalla Sandalpur in the town of Patna. A septic tank was also constructed over the land meant for the use as a public road. In view of unauthorized construction by the petitioner, Vigilance Case No. 203- B/2001 was started against him by respondent no.2. Despite opportunity given to the petitioner, he did not produce the sanctioned map in the prescribed Performa for making such construction over the land in question. Though the matter was adjourned on different dates, the 2 petitioner did not file any show cause in the entire proceeding. Consequently, by order dated 23.05.2003 (Annexure-2), respondent no.2 issued a direction in exercise of his powers under section 54-A of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (in short “the Act”) to demolish the aforesaid unauthorized construction within a period of 30 days from that order. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal, P.R.D.A. in terms of section 54(2) of the Act. Learned Tribunal considered the case of the parties and has dismissed the appeal after recording a finding of fact that the petitioner neither produced the sanction map nor filed any show cause in the vigilance case. After hearing the parties and on examination of the materials on record in the factual backdrop of the case, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)