D.P.BANDYOPADHYAY Vs. RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RANCHI : VICE CHAIRMAN, RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RANCHI : KRISHNA CHANDRA SARKAR : JAY GOPAL BANDHOPADHAYA : SHIV PRASAD BANDHOPADHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN compliance with the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 23.07.2009, the respondent R.R.D.A. has filed a supplementary counter affidavit annexing thereto a sketch plan prepared after carrying out a fresh inspection of the premises of the respondent No. 3 and indicating in the map the deviations which the respondent No. 3 has purportedly made beyond the approved plan.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order / judgment dated 7.2.2004 / 6.5.2004 (Annexure -3) passed in M.A. No. 1 /1998 and M.A. No. 18/1999, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A., Ranchi, whereby the Appeals filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.1997 in U.C. Case No. 81/1995 and order dated 17.12.1999 passed in B. C. Case No. 778/1995 respectively, passed by the Vice Chairman R.R.D.A., Ranchi was dismissed. By the order passed in U.C. Case No. 81/1995, a direction was given to the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized structures and by order passed in B.C. Case No. 778/1995 the petitioner's prayer for approval of the supplementary plan, was rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main ground of grievance of the petitioner is that the purported deviations which the petitioner has made and which is sought to be demolished by the order issued by the respondent R.R.D.A., is identical to the same extent as the deviations carried out by the respondent No. 3 within his premises. The petitioner, for the purpose of ratification of the purported deviations, has submitted a supplementary plan along with the requisite fee but the respondent R.R.D.A. has refused to approve the supplementary plan and to regularize the extended portion of construction of the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 who had also carried out the additional constructions to the same extent as the petitioner, has been given the favour of approval of his supplementary plan. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a gross abuse of the powers of the respondent authorities of the R.R.D.A. and amounts to gross discrimination and arbitrary denial of the benefit to the petitioner which was extended to the respondent No. 3.