RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SUSHIL KUMAR MAHTO AND ORS.

JULY 21, 2006

[ARIJlT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226-Public interest litigation, alleging illegal sanctioning of construction of multi-storeyed buildings- C Petitioners coming with unclean hands-However, directions to the Authority by High Court to reconsider the sanction accorded by Corporation- Challenge lo Held: Inference was drawn about laxity of Authorities without adequate material, thus directions issued against them is lo be deleted- However, any officer found negligent would be proceeded against-Regional Development Authority Act-Building Byelaws, 1981.

D Respondent no.I filed PIL alleging that the construction of certain multi-storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act, Building Regulations and Building Byelaws, 1981. High Court found that the writ petitioner and its supporters had violated sanctioned plans while making constructions of E buildings and the undertaking given while obtaining sanctions for their plans,

but it issued directions to the appellant-authority to reconsider the sanction accorded by the Corporation. Hence the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

F HELD: High Court drew inference about the laxity of the Authorities without adequate material. There was no definite material about col!usica or that they stood passively by winking at violation of the building Bye-laws and approved the plans. These were too generalised directions. Therefore, directions issued by the High Court for initiating action is to be deleted.

G However, if it comes to the notice of the appellant-authority that any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best interest of the Authorities could be proceeded against in accordance with law. The Bye-laws as amended in 2002 would be kept in view while re-considering the matter as directed by the High Court. But if it is found out that there was any violation of pre-2002

H 778

,..

RANCHIREGIONALDEVE. AUTHORITYv. SUSHILKUMARMAHTO[PASA YAT, J.) 779

' norms, necessary action would be taken. (780-B-El A

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3087 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.2003 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (PIL) No. 1590/2002.

B P.S. Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ravi C. Prakash and C.D. Singh for the Appellant.

A.N. Deo and S. Janani for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c

ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted.

Appellant calls in question legality of certain directions given by a Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court while dealing with a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in short the 'PIL').

The writ petitioner i.e. respondent no. I filed the purported PIL alleging that the construction of certain multi-storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act (in short the 'Act') and the Building Regulations (in short the 'Regulations') and the Building Byelaws, 1981 (in short 'Byelaws'). The Authorities and the E person who was the builder of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High Court, and took the stand that the PIL was nothing but a mischievous attempt to malign them. It was pointed out that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hand. The High Court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner and some of his supporters had violated sanctioned plans F while making constructions of buildings and the undertaking given while obtaining sanctions for their plans. Nevertheless, the High Court found that the writ petitioner may not have come to court with absolutely clean hands, but whether the Corporation was justified in according sanction was to be reconsidered by the appellant. The High Court also directed that cases of not only the builder who had impleaded himself in the writ petition but also all G

; I those who have violated the norms fixed hy By-laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings shall be examined. The directions were further to the effect that if the writ petitioner or his supporters are found to have violated the Byelaws, he shall be proceeded against. The appellants have not questioned the

'-._ correctness of these directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain ---:' H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A observations against officers of the appellant which according to it are uncalled for. They were not given any opportunity to be heard in the matter. They have acted bonafide and, therefore, these observations should be deleted.

It was also submitted that the Bye-laws have been amended in 2002 and while reconsideration is to be done, the same has to be in terms of Bye-laws B which have come into force in 2002.

Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the position that due consideration has to be done in terms of the Bye-laws introduced in 2002.

We find that without adequate material inference has been drawn by the C High Court about the laxity of the Authorities. There was no definite material about collusica or that they stood passively by winking at violation of the building Bye-laws and approved plans. These were too generalised directions.

We, therefore, dire\, t deletion of the aforesaid directions for initiating action.

We, however, make it clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant- D authority that any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best interest of the Authorities can be proceeded against in accordance with law. In view of the accepted position that Bye-laws, amended in 2002 have applicability at the time of re-consideration of the matter, we direct that while considering the matter as directed by th~ High Court, the Bye-laws as amended i!J 2002 shall be kept in view. But it shall also be found out if there was any violation E of pre-2002 norms, necessary action shall be taken.

It shall be imperative for the appellant-authority to make indepth enquiry to find out as to whether in any case or cases, the concerned officials, has/ have acted in dereliction of duty. "If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessary action has to follow.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

N.J.

Appeal disposed of.