IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1056 of 2000 HARI NARAYAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE B. SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-16, WEST ANANDPURI, P.S.-S.K.PURI, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA, TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………………………………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 3. VICE CHAIRMAN, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 4. VINAY KUMAR SINHA, DIRECTOR, PLANNING, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 7. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS TOWN COMMISSIONER. ………………………………………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- 11 27/1/2009 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor respondent Bindeshwar Prasad. The intervenor respondent has sought intervention in this application on the ground that whatever relief has been prayed in this application would adversely affect him. In this writ application, as a matter of fact, the only relief sought by the petitioner is that the respondent P.R.D.A should be restrained from demolishing part of his house situated in Tauzi No. 4453, Thana No. 3, Khata No. 3, 2 Khesra No. 563 of Mauza Rajapur, Holding No. 587 D, Circle No. 247 of Patna Municipal Corporation situated within the Mohalla- West Anandpuri, P.S. S.K. Puri, Patna. Such decision of the P.R.D.A. for demolition of the house in question is founded on the ground its being constructed without a sanctioned plan. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the house in question was built without a sanctioned plan but he would submit that when the house was constructed, the area in question did not fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the P.R.D.A and as such there was no requirement for the petitioner in getting a plan sanctioned for the said constructed building. Such plea of the petitioner, however, get contradicted from his own supplementary affidavit filed today pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 19.1.2009. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioner had not only enclosed the document to show that there was requirement to get a 3 sanctioned plan but also he had actually filed an application for this purpose before the P.R.D.A. which was considered and rejected. As a matter of fact the petitioner thereafter had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12198 of 2002 praying therein that the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the P.R.D.A rejecting sanction of plan sought by the petitioner with regard to house in question should be quashed. This Court, however, did not quash the order dated 19.6.2000 assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 12198 of 2002 and had only remitted the matter back to the authorities of the P.R.D.A with an observation that if the petitioner has fulfilled all conditions for post facto sanction, the authorities may consider the matter afresh and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Mr. Sinha says that pursuant to the aforesaid order in C.W.J.C. No. 12198 of 2002 no fresh order has been passed as yet and therefore question of post facto sanction is still awaiting from the decision of the authorities of the P.R.D.A 4 now replaced by the successor body, namely Patna Municipal Corporation. From the aforesaid discussion one thing therefore becomes clear that the petitioner all along was aware of the requirement of a sanctioned plan and as such he is now stopped from even raising the plea of there being no need of a sanctioned plan. Thus the impugned order in question impugned in this writ application seeking to demolish the house of the petitioner by P.R.D.A. is not without jurisdiction because the moment there is no sanctioned plan, the P.R.D.A. has authority to demolish the entire building. The only other question which now has to be now examined by the P.R.D.A is as to whether the plan which had been submitted by the petitioner and had been directed to be considered by an order of this Court dated 21.7.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 12198 of 2002 can be approved by way of post facto sanction as per norms laid down in the Building bye-laws of P.R.D.A. The P.R.D.A, therefore, must consider the 5 issue of post facto sanction of plan within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and till that day the interim order passed by this Court restraining demolition of house of the petitioner shall continue. In the event it is held by successor body of the P.R.D.A, i.e, Patna Municipal Corporation that the post facto sanction plan cannot be accorded it will assign reasons for the same and in case such post facto sanction plan can be accorded on fulfillment of any terms and conditions, those conditions must be complied by the petitioner within a period of next three months and in the event those conditions are complied the sanction of plan will be accorded failing which thereafter the successor body of the P.R.D.A. will be at liberty to take steps for demolition of house of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that all interim orders passed by this Court, in terms of direction given above would stand vacated 6 after a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of the order. In view of the aforesaid order the prayer for intervention of Sri Bindeshwar Prasad is disposed of with a liberty to him to place his views before Patna Municipal Corporation regarding any factual and/or legal infirmity in according post facto sanction of plan of the petitioner, which would be also examined and disposed of on its own merits while passing an order on the prayer of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J). Abhay Kumar