FAYAZ AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE being no sanction authorising construction beyond first floor, it became imperative to examine the record as to how authorities have allowed such construction to commence and continue in absence of permission, accordingly, on 3/10/2002 the respondents were directed to produce the record but despite lapse of more than a half a year record was not produced. To compel obedience of the direction following order was passed on 29/06/2003. "Respondents have failed to produce the record for last months together. How long they expect the court to wait. Be it placed on record that if record is not produced on the next date, the respondents other than respondent 5 shall appear in person to explain the cause of inability. Appropriate orders shall be passed thereafter. Be listed on 12/6/2003."

(2.) APPREHENDING likelihood of employment of coercive mode, the Respondent -Municipality gave up the resistence and produced the relevant record on 12/6/2003 just one day before summer vacation. Apparent disinclination in production of record depicts an unsavoury approach which is detrimental to the public interests. Why such reluctance and who is responsible for it and how such erring officer/official should be dealt with, I leave this area untouched to be embarked upon by the respondents at their own level.

(3.) TO put the record straight, it needs to be mentioned that when these three inter -connected clubbed writ petitions came up for consideration a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are contemplating settlement of the controversy outside the court, on such statement he sought withdrawal of the writ petitions with liberty to file fresh in case respondents back out. Learned counsel for the Municipality controverting the statement submitted that assurance was never given to the petitioner and statement is aimed at the involvement of the Municipality in yet another phase of litigation with a sole purpose to escape the fall out of violation of the statute. In nutshell the Municipality is averse to the conditional withdrawal of writ petitions. That apart there is an impediment in granting the prayer of withdrawal which is traceable to the ad interim relief dated 16/7/1996. This ad interim order entitles the petitioner to raise construction as per the sanctioned plan but the subsequent ad interim order dated 11/08/1996 passed in OWP 337/96 envisages stand -still. It is a situation where court is required to make clarification as to what is the consequence of these two directions lest it works as an obstacle for the authorities concerned in discharge of their statutory obligations. In this view of the matter, prayer for withdrawal of writ petitions cannot be conceded to and I proceed to decide the writ petitions on their merits.