RAM NARAIN JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein has moved this Court for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-1 and the notice as contained in Annexure-6 which, together, forbid the petitioner from proceeding with the construction of a building in the town of Patna (City area) and hold that the sanction accorded to the building plan of the petitioner on 27-1-1988 lapsed because no revalidation was granted as required under S.43 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner herein, it is not disputed, has alleged that noticing that Patna city was important for tourists, pilgrims and businessmen, visitors needed proper accommodation but there was no posh hotel, managed to have sufficient land, got a map and a building plan prepared by an architect and as required under the provisions of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act and the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, applied to the Corporation and the Patna Regional Development Authority for necessary sanction. Necessary sanctions were accorded to the map and the plan by the competent authorities in the Patna Municipal Corporation and the Town Planning Officer of the Patna Regional Development Authority. Requisite sanction by the development authority, thus, was given to the petitioner under S.37 (1) of the Act on 21-1-1977. The petitioner proceeded accordingly to construct the hotel. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, the Government of India introduced a scheme of Janta hotels. The petitioner applied to the concerned department of the Central Government for sanctioning conversion of the petitioner's hotel project into a Janta hotel project. He was by an order dated 15-6-1979 informed by the Director, Hotels, Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation (Department of Tourism) that the petitioner's hotels project was approved for domestic and budget minded foreign tourists on the condition that "in the event of your making any changes in the plans of the project as submitted now or in its location the approval of this Department will have to be applied for afresh for the project". The project, which was for a four storied building, however, got stuck for want of finance (after construction upto ground floor). The petitioner, as required under S.43 of the Act, applied for revalidation of the map and the plan on 20-1-1980. The second respondent, however, directed the petitioner to deposit the revalidation fee by his order dated 10-11-1981. On that very day the petitioner deposited the revalidation fee. No communication, however, was made to the petitioner revalidating the sanction accorded for the building construction until he was noticed to appear before the Vice Chairman second respondent and show cause. The notice (Annexure-6) dated 26-2-1988 purportedly issued under S.39 (1) of the Act asked the petitioner to stop construction of the said building and called upon him to produce the sanctioned map. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent and stated that he had a sanctioned plan on which he had proceed to make construction of the hotel building, that his project was approved by the Department of Tourism, Government of India, that he had applied for revalidation on 20-1-1980, that when asked for, he had deposited the revalidation fee on 10-11-1981 and that he was proceeding with the construction rather slowly because he was facing financial problems, yet he had substantially completed the building construction. The second respondent, however, held that S.43 of the Act required revalidation within a period of three years of the original sanction, that any application for revalidation was required to be made along with the prescribed fee therefor and that revalidation had to be ordered, subject to the Rules and Regulations then in force. According to respondent No. 2, since no revalidation order was made on the application of the petitioner within the prescribed period of three years, the petitioner could not proceed with the construction of the building and revalidation being out of question, the petitioner was required to apply for a fresh sanction which could be granted only when the petitioner was found complying with the Rules and Regulations for construction of a building on the date of the application for a fresh sanction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner initially contended that S.43 of the Act is ultra vires Arts.14 and 13 of the Constitution of India but modulated his argument to submit that the correct meaning to the language in S.43 of the Act will lead to the inference that the prescription that the sanction once accorded shall remain valid upto three years during which period a completion certificate from the registered Architect/Engineer/ or a person approved by the Vice Chairman in the form prescribed in the building regulation shall be submitted, is not a mandatory provision and that the words that revalidation shall be subject to the Rules and Regulations then in force, for the purpose of revalidation of the sanction, must mean rules and regulations in force on the day the original sanction was ordered.