RANCHI CLUB LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India -- now for all practical purposes Article 226 only -- the petitioner, Ranchi Club Limited, is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered Office at Ranchi. The relief prayed for is the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order dated 31-5-1976 passed by the Vice-Chairman of Ranchi Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be called the Development Authority), respondent No. 2. By the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has cancelled the sanction accorded to the petitioner by the Controlling Authority for the construction of a building under the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 (Act 35 of 1951), hereinafter to be referred to as the Town Planning Act, read with the Bihar Restriction of Uses of Lands Act, 1948 (Bihar Act 23 of 1948) to be called, for the sake the brevity, the Restriction Act. A copy of the impugned order has been marked Annexure 4 to the application.

(2.) While the writ application was pending hearing, an application for amendment of the same was filed under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. By this amendment application certain amendments of formal nature have been sought for, especially on account of the passage of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, during the pendency of the writ application. By the proposed amendment two paragraphs, namely, paras. 18-A and 23, which had been prayed to be added in the original writ application, are as follows :--

(3.) In short, the case of the petitioner may be stated as follows. One of the principal objects, for which the petitioner company has been formed, is to provide a club house and other convenience to its members and also to provide them sufficient recreation and bring near to them all amenities available in the market in the club campus. A vast area of land in the club campus was lying unused and therefore to utilise the said open space the petitioner applied on 27th June, 1974 for sanction of a plan for construction of a social and cultural center in the club campus on the Main Road, Ranchi, to the Controlling Authority appointed under the Restriction Act, who was at the relevant time the competent authority. The application was registered as B. C. Case No. 476 of 1974. The Controlling Authority, after making due enquiry in the aforesaid case, accorded sanction to the plan submitted by an order dated 22-8-1974. The petitioner company, after having obtained the required sanction, started construction of the said social and cultural centre as per the sanctioned plan and the construction had gone up to the roof level. The petitioner has already spent more than three lacs of rupees over the construction so far. In the meantime the Town Planning Act and the Restriction Act were replaced by an Ordinance, namely the Bihar Regional Development Authority Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance 175 of 1974) in such areas as were to be notified under Section 1 (2) of the Ordinance. That Ordinance subsequently gave way to successive Ordinances and the relevant Ordinance with which we are concerned in this case is the Bihar Regional Development Authority 3rd Ordinance, 1975 (Bihar Ordinance 126 of 1975) hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance. Subsequent to the passing of the above Ordinance in or about January, 1976 Ranchi town was notified to be an area where the provisions of the Ordinance would be effective. Accordingly, the Development Authority came into being under the provisions of the Ordinance and respondent No. 2 was appointed Vice-Chairman thereof. On 20th March, 1976 respondent No. 2 issued two notices to the petitioner -- one under Section 38 and the other under Section 39 of the Ordinance. True copies of these notices have been marked Annexures 1 and 2 respectively. In the aforesaid notices the main allegations made against the petitioner are these - (a) That respondent No. 2 has come to know that the petitioner is making construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and in contravention of Section 38 of the Ordinance and it is constructing shops by practising fraud and deceit as it is only entitled to construct social and cultural centre and therefore, respondent No. 2 ordered the petitioner to stop further construction under Section 38 and to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner and the sanctioned plan. (b) In the notice referred to above respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner was constructing a shop and had executed agreement for the lettting out of the shop in favour of 16 of its members while the sanction was granted for building a social and cultural centre. Therefore notice was given under Section 39 of the Ordinance to stop the construction and to show cause by the 29th March, 1976. In pursuance of the aforesaid notices, the petitioner showed cause denying the allegations made therein and stating that the building was being constructed as per the sanctioned plan and for running a social and cultural centre for the use of its members. Respondent No. 2 thereafter is said to have deputed a junior engineer, (sic) without making any enquiry in presence of the petitioner, is alleged to have submittted an incorrect report to the effect that the petitioner had executed sixteen agreements in favour of sixteen of its members and had thus committed contravention of the sanctioned plan. The report further stated that the petitioner had constructed sixteen R. C. C. Pillars which had not been shown in the sanctioned plan. A copy of the said report has been marked Annexure 3. During the course of hearing of the petitioner's objection, respondent No. 2 appointed one Shri Suit an Ahmad, a member of the Executive Committee of the Development Authority, as an Observer and he was requested to hold local inspection and submit a report. The said Shri Sultan Ahmad submitted his report stating that the building was being constructed by the petitioner as per the sanctioned plan and he also recommended that minor deviations like the construction of pillars were by way of improvement and protection of the building, attracting no serious notice. On 27-5-76 the petitioner also filed an application before respondent No. 2 reiterating therein that there has been no deviation from the sanctioned plan and that each room has been provided with 20 feet wide shutters and since such wide shutters could not be operated unless partitioned by a pillar, the above pillars have been erected. These pillars were by way of improvement and could not be treated as any deviation from the sanctioned plan. The petitioner, however, offered to remove those pillars if the construction thereof was not approved. The petitioner has further alleged that respondent No. 2, without any evidence produced and without any agreement having been filed before him, came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was constructing the sixteen shops and had entered into agreements in favour of its sixteen members instead of adhering to a social and cultural centre. He further held that sixteen R. C. C. Pillars up to 8 feet height had been constructed in contravention of the sanctioned plan. The report of the aforesaid Observer, Shri Sultan Ahmad, was rejected. He further held that the sanction had been obtained by fraudulent means on 22-8-74 and, accordingly, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure 4 the plan as sanctioned was cancelled outright.