IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1425 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12774 of 2002 With Interlocutory Application No. 6830 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 6831 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1425 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Patna Regional Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Mauryalok, Patna. 2. Vice Chairman, Regional Development Authority, Mauryalok, Patna. 3. Assistant Engineer, Patna Regional Development Authority, Mauryalok, Patna. 4. Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner, Maurylok, Patna. .... .... Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. Ajit Sinha, Advocate S/o Late Lalit Bihari Sinha 14 A Patliputra Colony, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna. …. …. Writ Petitioner-Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. .... .... Respondent/Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Ratan Bharti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Patna High Court LPA No.1425 of 2011 (4) dt.16-11-2011 2 / 3 2 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 16-11-2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th May 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 12774 of 2002. The matter at issue is the amount of development cost charged by the appellant Patna Regional Development Authority for sanctioning building construction plans. In other words, the building construction plans submitted for sanction are sanctioned on condition of payment of the development cost of Rs.10,000/- for one katha of land. Undoubtedly, the appellant has the power to charge development fee under Rule 3 of the Patna Regional Development Authority (Miscellaneous-Fee To be Paid On Application For Permission) Rules, 1978. The said Rule 3 also prescribes for the quantum of development fees for residential building, commercial building, public building, and industrial building. It is not in dispute that in the instant case the Authority charges fee far greater than the one prescribed under the aforesaid Rules. Challenge to the charging of the development fee/cost at the rate higher than the prescribed rate has been upheld by the learned single Judge on the premise that the levy of such cost was not supported by statutory authority. We are in complete agreement with the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. It may also be noted that the Appeal is filed more than a year after the expiration of period of limitation. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Patna High Court LPA No.1425 of 2011 (4) dt.16-11-2011 3 / 3 3 For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal and the Interlocutory Applications are dismissed. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)