KISHAN PARASRAMPURIA Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is at admission stage. We, however, intend to dispose it of finally at this stage itself as learned counsel for both sides have consented for it, the controversy otherwise being very short in nature.

(2.) The appellant is the writ petitioner (for short "petitioner" only) and running a business in the premises bearing Municipal Holding No.928 in Ranchi Municipal Ward No.3 (new 22) in the district of Ranchi on a month-tomonth tenancy under respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 filed an application before Ranchi Municipal Corporation (for short 'RMC') under Section 38 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (for short 'Municipal Act') seeking an appropriate order of demolition of the aforesaid premises occupied by the petitioner. Chief Executive Officer, RMC, Ranchi thereafter passed an order of demolition of the building on 20th May, 2014. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner approached the Writ Court through the medium of W.P. (C) No. 2792 of 2014 seeking quashment of the said order inter alia on the ground that no notice was served upon him and that Section 387(7) of the Municipal Act provides that an order for demolition could be passed having regard to the facts which includes repair of the building in question and that the petitioner had specifically denied that the building was in dilapidated condition and could be repaired also, therefore not a case of demolition. The learned Writ Court, however, dealt the present case under the provisions of Section 499 of the Municipal Act and observed that since the building had become dangerous for habitation, therefore, even if no notice was issued to the petitioner (occupier), that would not change the decision taken by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 20th May, 2014 as the said order was passed on the report prepared by the Engineers of the Municipal Corporation who had visited the site and physically examined the site. It is in this factual matrix, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 7th October, 2014. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order is once again before us through the medium of the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.