IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10973 of 2004 RAM ASHISH RAUT, Son of Jamuna Raut, Resident of East Indira Nagar, Road No.1, Kankarbagh, Patna. Presently posted as Group Officer, Special Branch, Bokaro and also I/c Dy. S.P., Special Branch, Dhanbad in Jharkhand police service. ………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary to Government Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Mangles Road, Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna. ……Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Gautam, Adv. For the Patna Municipal Corporation : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Adv. For the Housing Board : Mr. A. Amanullah, Adv. ----------- 7/ 19.04.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition raising a grievance against the order dated 25.06.2004 (Annexure-7) passed by the Vice-Chairman of Patna Regional Development Authority (respondent no. 2) in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of The Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (in short 1981 Act). By the impugned order, the petitioner has been 2 directed to demolish/remove certain part of his building, as he has deviated in construction from the approved plan and has made certain unauthorized construction. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that before passing the aforesaid order dated 25.06.2004, reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. He submits that, in fact, on 25.06.2004, the petitioner could not be present before the respondent-Vice-Chairman, and behind his back, final order was passed. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an Appeal No. 15 of 2004 before Appellate Tribunal, P.R.D.A. in terms of Section 54 (2) of the 1981 Act. Since the quorum of the Appellate Tribunal was not complete and other members of the Tribunal were on leave, therefore, appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be decided and is still pending. In view of urgency of the matter, the petitioner 3 moved before this Court in the present proceeding. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Housing Board, as also respondent- Patna Municipal Corporation have submitted that during the pendency of the present proceeding, the aforesaid 1981 Act has been repealed by virtue of provisions contained in The Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (in short Municipal Act). In view of the aforesaid legal change, the power exercised by the Vice-Chairman of the then Patna Regional Development Authority is required to be exercised by the Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation. Alternative submission made on behalf of the respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation is that the petitioner may be directed to pursue his appeal, pending before the Appellate Tribunal, which according to him, has now become functional under the provisions of The Bihar Municipal Act. 5. Mr. A. Amanullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the land over which the petitioner has constructed his building 4 belongs to the Housing Board, and entire construction made by him is illegal. He also submits that before taking final decision, the Housing Board is also required to be heard by the competent authority. 6. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in view of issues involved in the present proceeding, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to pursue his appeal, pending before the Appellate Tribunal, constituted/revived under the provisions of The Municipal Act. In fact, entire matter is required to be heard afresh, and all the issues including the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis claim of the respondent- Housing Board with respect to lands over which building in question has been constructed, is required to be gone into and final decision is required to be taken. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is hereby directed to withdraw his appeal within a period of two weeks from today, 5 failing which it shall be treated to have been withdrawn by the petitioner and shall not be proceeded further. 8. Since the impugned order has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as also to the Housing Board, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.06.2004 (Annexure-7) is hereby set aside. Entire matter is remitted to the Municipal Commissioner of respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation for deciding all the issues within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the respondent-Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation within a period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order and a detailed representation, raising his grievances as also with relevant documents supporting his claim with respect to lands and building in question. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Housing 6 Board undertakes that representative of the Housing Board shall also appear before the Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation on 18th May 2011, whereafter the proceeding in question shall be taken up for final disposal and shall be taken to its logical conclusion within a period of three months by passing a speaking order. 10. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the Municipal Commissioner of Patna Municipal Corporation with a certified copy of the present order and a detailed representation, as indicated above, within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)