ASIM ZAFAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications raise similar issues in respect of a singular structure and, as such, will be heard analogous, today, on mention being made with notice to the learned Advocate General who appears to defend, this case was listed "For Orders" for consideration whether any interim order should be passed or not. The learned counsel for the three sets of petitioners in the three writ applications and the learned Advocate General are present and have been heard at length on the question of interim order.

(2.) A multi-storeyed building was constructed. On 20.7.2006 (more than a year back), police notices were issued pursuant to request by the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority, constituted under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981, to stop all construction activities on the site. No reason except that a re- quest had been made by the PRDA was given. Subsequently, the landlord and the developer approached this Court by two separate writ applications wherein by an interim order, this Court stayed the police notice dated 20.7.2006. Ultimately, when the said writ applications came up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself, PRDA pointed out that a proceeding in terms of Section 38 of the Act had been initiated. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, directed the writ petitioners to appear in those proceedings and file their respective show cause. It may be mentioned that the developer expressed apprehension as to whether they would be permitted to participate in those proceedings. This Court removed the apprehension and directed that as they were also an affected party, they had a right to be noticed and heard in the matter. The writ applications were, thus, disposed of.

(3.) The first of those writ applications being CWJC No. 13516 of 2006 was first disposed of and then CWJC No 13263 of 2006 of the builder was disposed of on 17.9.2007. The apprehension of the petitioner is noted in the order dated 17.9.2007 by this Court wherein in view of this Court, the apprehension was thought to be wholly misconceived. This Court said "In my view, the apprehension is misconceived as it is hoped that we are living in a democratic society governed by rule of law and the authorities would not try and permit any such action and try and overreach statutory provisions in this regard."