IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5791 of 2006 ANILA JAIN, WIFE OF SRI ATUL KUMAR JAIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MISHRA SADAN, NORTHE SRIKRISHNAPURI, POLICE STATION SRIKRISHNAPURI, TOWN AND DISTRCIT PATNA. Versus 1. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH IT’S VICE CHAIRMAN, PATNA. 2. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIVISION-C, PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA, ALL HAVING THEIR OFFICES AT MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, POLICE STATION KOTWALI TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. 5. SRI PRAMENDRA NATH SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF PARAS LOK COMPLEX BORING ROAD, PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Shekhar Kumar, Advocate. For the PRDA : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate. ----------- 03. 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Patna Municipal Corporation, which has succeeded the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as the PRDA) in terms of the provisions of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demolition of her shop, which was situate in front of Paras Lok Building Complex, Boring Road, Patna. Aforesaid shop was found unauthorized construction under order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the Vice-Chairman, PRDA in Vigilance Case No.6513 of 2000, Annexure-2. Order dated 17.3.2001 was passed in aforesaid vigilance case 2 which was initiated against respondent no.5, owner of aforesaid Paraslok Building Complex on the basis that Paraslok Building Complex was raised by respondent no. 5 deviating the sanctioned plan. In the said vigilance case petitioner herein and one Prakash Kumar Jain appeared and contended before the Vice Chairman, P.R.D.A. that sanction of the plan for raising Paraslok Building Complex has been obtained by respondent no. 5 making material misrepresentation as while undertaking to demolish the two shops within six months of the sanction of the plan for raising Paraslok Building Complex in the affidavit filed along with the plan submitted before the P.R.D.A. respondent no.5 did not state that the two shops are under occupation of the tenant (petitioner and Prakash Kumar Jain) and the tenants have agreed to vacate the shops within six months of the sanction of plan by the P.R.D.A. for raising Paraslok Building Complex. 3. Having considered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner and Prakash Kumar Jain, Vice- Chairman, P.R.D.A. passed order dated 7.3.2001, Annexure-2 holding that respondent no.5 did not make 3 any misrepresentation while obtaining sanction of the plan for raising Paraslok Building as respondent no.5 had shown in the plan the two shops as unsanctioned structures to be demolished. 4. In case, petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2001, Annexure-2 she ought to have challenged the same. Having not challenged the order dated 17.3.2001, Annexure-2, petitioner cannot be permitted to question the demolition of the shop by the P.R.D.A. which has been found to be unsanctioned structure under order dated 17.3.2001, Annexure-2. 5. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)