MOHAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Vice - Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) dated 23.7.99 in Vigilance case No. 97B of 1997 directing him to demolish the building in question, and the consequential notice dated 28.7.99. Copies of the said order/notice are annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 13.8.99 in Appeal no.9 of 1999 upholding the aforesaid order of the Vice -Chairman. Copy of the said order is annexure -9 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows. On 21.5.97 the petitioner filed an application before the Vice -Chairman, PRDA complaining of the ongoing construction by respondent no.3 Ratneshwar Prasad Singh on the main Boring Road, opposite A.N. College, in contravention of the bye -laws of the PRDA. On the basis of the said application case No. 97B/97 was registered. On 27.6.97 notice was issued under orders of the Vice -Chairman asking respondent no. 3 to immediately stop the construction work and submit the sanctioned plan with respect to the proposed building learning which the construction would be demolished. The notice was duly received by the respondent on 27.6.97 itself. Another notice to the same effect was issued on 15.9.97. It appears that in the meantime a detailed enquiry had been held by the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, PRDA on 14.7.97 and a proceeding under Section 39(1) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act had been formally initiated. The aforesaid notice dated 15.9.97 was also duly received by respondent no. 3 on 19.9.97. In the returned copy of the notice he made endorsement that in response to memo no.834 dated 29.5.97 of the Vigilance Officer, he had already submitted his reply on 30.6.97. Notwithstanding the service of the notices, respondent no.3 did not enter appearance in the proceeding i.e. case no. 97B/97. He did so only on 22.3.99, after a general notice was published in the newspaper. On that day he filed an application to furnish copy of the enquiry report. On 18.6.99 he filed a detailed reply. The matter was thereafter heard on 23.7.99 and the impugned order was passed on the same day.

(3.) SHRI Navniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, inter alia, submitted that even if the construction of the building to which the impugned order relates, is held to be illegal for want of sanction of a building plan, the petitioner has submitted application for post -facto sanction and therefore, the PRDA should be directed to first dispose of the said application.