MANYA PALACE Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside letter no. 297 dtd. 24/6/2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby respondent no. 2 - the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi has asked the respondent no. 3 - the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to depute magistrate and adequate number of police force to seal the Banquet Halls/ Marriage Halls (the petitioners) [hereinafter referred to as "the said buildings"] at 11 am on 29/6/2021 on the ground that the same are being run without permission from the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC).

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioners are engaged in the business of running Banquet/Marriage Halls within the jurisdiction of RMC, the details of individual petitioners are as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in the process of complying the objection/deficiency raised by the RMC towards their online applications, but to their utter surprise, they came to know from other sources regarding issuance of letter No. 297 dtd. 24/6/2021, whereby the respondent no. 2 asked the respondent no. 3 to depute magistrate and adequate number of police force to seal the said buildings at 11 a.m on 29/6/2021 alleging that the same were being run without permission of the competent authority of RMC. It is further submitted that letter dtd. 24/6/2021 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2011") and the Jharkhand Urban Area Dharamshala, Marriage Hall/Banquet Hall, Lodge and Hostel Construction and Licence Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2013") as the same has been issued by the authorities without informing the petitioners about the outcome of their online applications submitted in the office of RMC way back in the month of January 2021. It is also submitted that the said buildings remained closed since 23/3/2000 due to lockdown imposed by the government in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic and except for one or two months, the said marriage/banquet halls have again been closed since March 2021 and they are in acute financial crisis. The petitioners have never been served any final order by the RMC subsequent to their online registration applications and during the lockdown period, when the said buildings and their offices were almost closed/inoperative from March 2020 to April 2021, the RMC most arbitrarily decided to seal the aforesaid premises. It is also submitted that once specific provision has been made in Rules, 2013 for grant of licence for a marriage hall/banquet hall/lodge/hostel, the respondent authorities cannot insist for submission of building plan as a condition for renewal and/or grant of licence to the petitioners and to that extent, the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the said buildings are already having adequate fire-fighting facility and close circuit TV/Camera etc. In addition to that, adequate security is also provided around the said buildings and there is sufficient space for parking of vehicles. It is also submitted that if illegal sealing of the said buildings takes place, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury as most of the employees have been residing in the premises of the said buildings and will come on road. The petitioners were issued temporary registration number after submitting online applications in the office of the RMC. Moreover, they are already having holding numbers and trade licences in favour of the said buildings and have also deposited user taxes in the office of RMC.