IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16285 of 2001 M/S HYTEC HOMES (P)LTD., 16-A, GRAND CHANDRA, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ISHTIAQUE AHMAD KHAN. ..................... PETITIONER Versus 1. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (P.R.D.A.) MAURYA LOK PATNA, THROUGH ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN. 2. THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, P.R.D.A., MAURYA LOK, PATNA. 3. THE APPELLATE, TRIBUNAL, P.R.D.A., MAURYA LOK, PATNA, THROUGH THE PRESIDENT. ................... RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 10/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation, successor body of the P.R.D.A as also counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application of the petitioner is to the following effect:- "That this is an application for issuing a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions thereby quashing the order dated 28.09.2001 of the Appellate Tribunal of the Patna Regional Development Authority (Respondent no.n3) passed in Appeal no. 40/2000 whereby the Respondent no. 3 has illegally upheld the illegal order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the Vice Chairman, P.R.D.A. (Respondent no. 2) in Vigilance Case no. 6-B/2000 asking the petitioner to demolish a room and toilet on the ground floor 2 of Block A, on the baseless allegation that the said room and toilet have reduced the availability of Car-parking space and directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant post facto sanction for the said toilet and room." In the opinion of this Court the existence a multi-storied building cannot be imagined if it is not constructed by following the building bye-laws. In the present case also the petitioner, a multi- storied building Complex has been held to have been constructed violating the terms and conditions and the restrictions of sanctioned map in respect of F.A.R and the parking space. The authorities of the P.R.D.A, in fact, were quite correct in their order in giving liberty to the petitioner by for condonation of some laches and lapses which were permissible under the building bye-laws, but nothing could have been done about parking space and/or F.A.R. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that there has been some mistake in the 3 measurement on account of which an order of demolition to secure parking space was passed. It is difficult for this Court to accept submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as the two authorities, namely, Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A and the Appellate Tribunal had themselves found that there was no adequate parking space as originally sanctioned in the plan, and the parking space of 219.79 sq. meter in the sanctioned plan has been reduced to 87.60 sq. meter. Such findings of Vice Chairman, P.R.D.A. in fact, when challenged before the appellate authority the same was also approved specifically in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned appellate order. These concluded questions of fact, therefore, now cannot reopened before a writ Court especially when there is no denial to those facts that such measurement was taken in presence of authorized representative of the petitioner. That would leave this Court with no other option but to affirm both the impugned orders. 4 The plea taken by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit filed today that if construction on the ground floor of both the blocks are taken together it would be to the extent of 146.23 sq. meter, the deviation would be left to only 1.42 sq. ft. This Court would not be in a position to appreciate this aspect of the matter as the building bye-laws requiring sanction of plan with the parking space having been accepted by the petitioner, it now cannot be allowed to make out a new case. Nonetheless, if the petitioner can still satisfy the authorities of the Patna Municipal Corporation, successor body of the P.R.D.A that there is availability of the parking space as per the sanctioned plan, nothing said in this order or the two impugned orders shall come in the way of the authorities to pass a remedial order. It is made clear that such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the impugned order would be and must be given 5 effect to by the concerned authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is finally disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar