IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17155 of 2010 M/S K.P. Construction, a partnership firm having its registered office at Aarrah Garden Road, Gagdeo Path, Patna-14 through its partner Chandra Shekhar Singh, S/o Yugeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Mohalla- Khajpura, P.O.-B.V.College, P.S.-Airport, District- Patna. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, P.S.-Kotwali, Town and District- Patna through its Commissioner. 3. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Regional Development Authority (dissolved). Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, P.S.-Kotwali, Town and District- Patna 4. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, P.S.- Kotwali, Town and District- Patna. ….. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. S. Raja Ahmad, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate. ----------- 2. 16.11.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order vide Memo No. 329 dated 20.07.2010 by which the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved), Respondent no. 3 had directed the petitioner to stop further construction under sanctioned Plan Case No. 87 of 2008 dated 30.04.2009 for construction of building at Mohalla- Rukanpura, Ward No. 2, Plot No. 508 appertaining to Khata No. 109 within the city of Patna and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. In the said impugned order, notice was also given 2 to the petitioner with regard to Complaint Case No. 15B/10 filed by one Priya Ranjan. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the builder and developer having agreement with the owner of the land and the building plan has been duly sanctioned by the Patna Regional Development Authority on 30.04.2009 in Plan Case No. 87/08. 4. From the materials on record including the photograph of the building, it transpires that the building has been constructed and only plastering and finishing works are to be done. However, in the mean time, the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 15B/10 has been filed by one Priya Ranjan against the petitioner and in that case notice has been issued to the petitioner on 20.07.2010(Annexure-5), but by the said notice the petitioner has also been restrained from continuing with the work. 5. From perusal of the impugned notice dated 20.07.2010(Annexure-5) it is quite apparent that neither any ground has been mentioned nor any material has been considered while passing the said order. The law is well settled in this regard that the authorities have the jurisdiction to stop the construction when any building is being constructed without any sanctioned plan or it is being constructed in violation of any sanctioned plan, but such order has to be passed only after considering whether any such act has been committed by the person or the builder concerned. However, here it transpires that the impugned order has been passed without any such consideration. 3 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2010(Annexure-5) so far as it concerns restraining the petitioner from going on with the construction. The petitioner is directed to immediately appear before the authority concerned within a fortnight failing which this order shall loose its effect. If this is done, the authority shall consider the entire matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, final or interim as required in the law. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)