IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8255 of 2010 BALRAM SINGH S/O LATE SAKALDEEP SINGH, R/O SHIVAJI PATH, YARPUR, P.S.GARDANIBAGH, DISTT- PATNA……………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, NAGAR VIKASH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MAURYALOK COMPLEX, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MAURYALOK COMPLEX, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 6. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 7. THE STATION OFFICER, GARDANIBAGH P.S., PATNA 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , DIVISION-E, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA 9. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH, S/O SAKALDEEP SINGH, R/O SHIVAJI PATH, YARPUR, P.S.GARDANIBAGH, DISTT- PATNA……………………………….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Daya Shankar Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satyadeo Kumar, SC-12 For the P.M.C. : Bishwabibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate. For respondent no.9: M/s Nawal Kishore Singh, J.N. Tiwary and Upendra Mishra, Advocates. ----------- O R D E R 08/ 27.08.2010 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 04.05.2010 (Annexure-1) by which Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation (respondent no.3) asked the District Magistrate/Senior S.P., Patna with a copy to the District Control Room Patna/Station Officer, Gardanibagh, Police Station for demolition of Chabutara (platform) of the petitioner on the plea of encroachment without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to place his case under section 319 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 and the said order was also violative of Articles 14, 21, 300A of the - 2 - Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had claimed that before issuing the aforesaid letter dated 04.05.2010 neither any notice nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case. He further submits that the said order was passed without any enquiry as was called earlier vide order dated 08.10.2006 and 13.11.2006. It was also claimed that the said order was passed on the basis of earlier order dated 04.05.2007 (Annexure-1/A) passed by the Municipal Commissioner (respondent no.3) with respect to the Chabutara (platform) said to have been spread over an area of 49.67 square metres directing the petitioner to demolish the same within thirty days of the receipt of the order failing which the authority would remove the same and cost incurred on the said count shall be recovered from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is not making any constructions rather an old Chabutara (platform) is existing on the land in question and the entire episode is created at the instance of his brother Shyam Bihari Singh, who is inimical to the petitioner due to the popularity of petitioner as Gurudeo Balram Baba. The said brother also filed Title Suit No.453 of 1998 which was disposed of on 28.12.2005 against which the petitioner preferred Title Appeal No.10 of 2006 which is pending. Against an interim order passed in the said appeal respondent no.9 filed C.R. No.1289 of 2009 which is also pending in this court. Hence, it is stated that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents authorities is illegal and perverse and is fit to be set aside. - 3 - 4. From the pleadings and arguments of the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that much earlier Vigilance Case No.189-B/2000 was initiated with respect to the violations to the rule committed by the petitioner while constructing the basement on the land in question. It is further apparent from the pleadings and materials that the construction made by the petitioner is not merely Chabutara (platform) rather it is the basement on which roof was casted about 3-4 feet above the ground. In the said case notice was issued to the petitioner who appeared and filed his show-cause as is clear from order dated 14.05.2001 contained in Annexure-1/A series. It is also apparent that a detailed local inspection as well as measurement of construction in question was done by the engineer of the Patna Regional Development Authority on 04.02.2000 and 17.11.2000. From order dated 14.05.2001 (Annexure-1/A series) it is also apparent that the petitioner, who was opposite party in the said vigilance case, admitted that the construction was without any sanction from the P.R.D.A. or P.M.C. and it had been made on the land which was subject matter of the dispute before the Civil Court. From the said order it is also quite apparent that in C.R. No.1998 of 2000 this High Court passed order dated 06.02.2000 restraining the petitioner and others from making any construction over the land in dispute but in spite of the said clear direction, the petitioner had made constructions. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had made an absolutely false statement that there was merely a Chabutara (platform) from much before giving religious colour to the entire episode, although he was constructing a - 4 - basement of the building and had casted the roof about 3-4 feet above the ground level without any sanction from either the P.R.D.A. or the P.M.C. Authorities had also found that petitioner made constructions and casted the roof after 06.02.2000 violating not only the rules concerned but also the specific directions of the authorities as well as the order of this court dated 06.02.2000 passed in C.R. No.1998 of 2000. These facts would be apparent from the report of the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the P.R.D.A. dated 08.01.2001 as well as the order sheet of the Vigilance Case (P.R.D.A.) dated 02.02.2001 and 04.05.2001 (Annexure-1/A series). 6. It further transpires that subsequently the said case was transferred from the Patna Regional Development Authority to the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 2006 and finally after considering the entire matter in detail, the Municipal Commissioner (respondent no.3) passed his order dated 04.05.2007 (Annexure-1/A) under the provision of section 54(1) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act as well as section 323(1) of the Municipal Ordinance 2007 directing the petitioner, who was opposite party in that case, to remove the unauthorized construction within 30 days failing which it shall be removed by the Municipal Authority and cost incurred shall be recovered from him. The said order dated 04.05.2007 (Annexure1/A series) was never challenged by the petitioner before any authority and hence the said order attained finality. 7. Since the said order dated 04.05.2007 (Annexure-1/A) was passed after due notice to the petitioner and after giving him opportunity to place his case and after considering his submissions and - 5 - show-cause and after due enquiry in the matter, which was never challenged by the petitioner, there was no occasion for the authorities to send a fresh notice to the petitioner or start a fresh enquiry in the matter. Hence, the petitioner not having complied order dated 04.05.2007, the authority concerned, namely the Municipal Commissioner was quite justified in issuing letter dated 04.05.2010 (Annexure-1) in furtherance to the said earlier order, for removal of the illegal construction made by petitioner against the specific provisions of law. Hence there is neither any violation of any provision of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 nor any violation of Articles 14, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India. Furthermore the Municipal Commissioner is the proper authority to pass such orders specially when the earlier order dated 04.05.2007 was also passed by the Municipal Commissioner and the Patna Regional Development Authority had ceased to have any jurisdiction in the said matter, as per the provision of section 488 of the Patna Municipal Act 2007 applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)