Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3087 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Ranchi Regional Development Authority
RESPONDENT:
Sushil Kumar Mahto & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/07/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7815 of 2004)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Appellant calls in question legality of certain directions
given by a Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court while
dealing with a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in
short the ’PIL’).
The writ petitioner i.e. respondent no.1 filed the
purported PIL alleging that the construction of certain multi-
storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the
provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act (in short
the ’Act’) and the Building Regulations (in short the
’Regulations’) and the Building Byelaws, 1981 (in short
’Byelaws’). The Authorities and the person who was the builder
of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High
Court, and took the stand that the PIL was nothing but a
mischievous attempt to malign them. It was pointed out that
the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hand. The
High Court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner and
some of his supporters had violated sanctioned plans while
making constructions of buildings and the undertaking given
while obtaining sanctions for their plans. Nevertheless, the
High Court found that the writ petitioner may not have come
to court with absolutely clean hands, but whether the
Corporation was justified in according sanction was to be
reconsidered by the appellant. The High Court also directed
that cases of not only the builder who had impleaded himself
in the writ petition but also all those who have violated the
norms fixed by By-laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings
shall be examined. The directions were further to the effect
that if the writ petitioner or his supporters are found to have
violated the Bye-laws, he shall be proceeded against. The
appellants have not questioned the correctness of these
directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain
observations against officers of the appellant which according
to it are uncalled for. They were not given any opportunity to
be heard in the matter. They have acted bonafide and,
therefore, these observations should be deleted.
It was also submitted that the Bye-laws have been
amended in 2002 and while reconsideration is to be done, the
same has to be in terms of Bye-laws which have come into
force in 2002.
Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the
position that due consideration has to be done in terms of the
Bye-laws introduced in 2002.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
We find that without adequate material inference has
been drawn by the High Court about the laxity of the
Authorities. There was no definite material about collusica or
that they stood passively by winking at violation of the
building Bye-laws and approved plans. These were too
generalised directions. We, therefore, direct deletion of the
aforesaid directions for initiating action. We, however, make it
clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant-authority
that any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best
interest of the Authorities can be proceeded against in
accordance with law. In view of the accepted position that
Bye-laws, amended in 2002 have applicability at the time of
re-consideration of the matter, we direct that while considering
the matter as directed by the High Court, the Bye-laws as
amended in 2002 shall be kept in view. But it shall also be
found out if there was any violation of pre-2002 norms,
necessary action shall be taken.
It shall be imperative for the appellant-authority to make
indepth enquiry to find out as to whether in any case or cases,
the concerned officials, has/have acted in dereliction of duty.
If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessary action has to
follow.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.