RAM UDAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as originally filed, the petitioner prayed for quashing of Annexures 10, 12 and 14.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a partner of the proposed Jawahar Talkies, a Cinema house in Mohalla Amgola near Harisabha Chowk, Muzaffarpur, applied in 1972 for permission to construct a permanent cinema house in the name and style as "Jawahar Talkies" in the said Mohalla. The petition was placed before the District Cinema Advisory Committee which approved the grant of licence for construction of the above mentioned cinema house. It was attended to by the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur, the Chairman of the Muzaffarpur Improvement Trust (now Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority) and the Town Planner. On 7th of July, 1973, a notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, inviting objection, if any, to the proposed construction of the cinema house. According to the case of the petitioner, no objection was received. On 13th February, 1974, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur allowed the prayer of the petitioner to construct the above mentioned proposed cinema house. The case of the petitioner further is that the said order, a copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ application, was issued after obtaining approval from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Building Division, Motihari, who was the competent authority to approve the building plan of the cinema house. The petitioner wanted to change the proposal for construction of the cinema house from over the ground floor to the first floor and made an application to that effect to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, The latter granted permission on 1st October, 1974, revising the above mentioned construction order, as requested by the petitioner, after getting the revised plan approved by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Building Division, Muzaffarpur, a copy whereof has been made Annexure 7 to the writ application.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that on 3rd April, 1974, he submitted three copies of the plan, as per direction contained in Annexure 5, in the office of the Muzaffarpur Improvement Trust. On 2nd of July, 1975, he again submitted three copies of the revised plan in persuance of the revised construction order, as contained in Annexure 7, in the office of the said Improvement Trust. The petitioner claims that such plans were duly approved by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner thereafter started construction of the proposed cinema house after a lapse of more than six months. According to the petitioner, if there was no objection to the proposed plans by the authorities within a period of six months from their filing, they were deemed to have been approved and sanctioned under Section 6(5) of the Bihar Restriction of Uses of Land Act, 1948. On 29th of July 1976, however an item was published in "The Searchlight" of that day stating that the Government had asked the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, to stop construction of the said picture Palace for the purpose of ensuring peace in the locality. On seeing the said news, the petitioner claims to have made enquiries from the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, and in reply he was informed in writing that the construction order for cinema building granted to him was never revoked, a copy whereof is Annexure 9 to this application. The petitioner completed the construction of the structure of the building on 30th August, 1976 and only finishing works remained to be done. On 16th of September, 1976, he received an illegal and arbitrary direction from the Vice-Chairman respondent No. 3, restraining him from proceeding with the construction of the building. A copy of the letter containing this direction has been made Annexure 10 to the writ application. The petitioner protested against that direction, a copy whereof is Annexure 11. On 16th of September, 1976, itself, the petitioner was also served with a copy of the order of officer-in-charge kaji Mahmadpur Police Station, respondent No. 4, communicating an order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur respondent No. 2, stopping the petitioner from proceeding further with the construction of the cinema building. The petitioner claims that actually the order of respondent No. 2 was never served upon him, but a true copy of the order of respondent No. 4 has been made Annexure 12 to the writ application. The petitioner sent a representation and protested to respondent No. 2 even against the aforesaid order, a copy whereof is Annexure 13 to the writ application. On 20.9.1976, respondent No. 3 passed an order under Section 6(2) of the Bihar Restriction of Uses of Land Act, purporting to refuse sanction for the construction of the cinema building. A copy of that order has been made Annexure 14. The case of the petitioner is that these orders were passed without affording him any opportunity to show cause, and, therefore, they were all illegal.