RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) 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).

(3.) The writ petitioner i.e. respondent No. 1 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 person who was the builder of the multi storeyed buildings, appeared before the High Court, and took the stand that the PFL 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 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 those who have violated the norms feed by 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 Bye-laws, he shall be proceeded against. The appellants have not questioned the correctness of these directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain 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.