Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 1592
PATNA HIGH COURT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
Asim Zafar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12626 of 2007 ; 12717 of 2007 ; 12728 of 2007 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
The main legal point established is that the authority must follow due process and provide notice and hearing before taking actions such as stopping construction or sealing premises.
Headnote:
Regional Development Authority Act - Construction of Multi-storeyed Building - Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981, Section 38 - The court discussed the power of the authority to stop construction or seal premises, the requirement of due notice and hearing of the parties, and the concept of persons interested. The court also considered the balance of convenience and the authority's power to address traffic hazards. The interim order stayed the notices issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, and directed the unlocking of the building.
Fact of the Case:
A multi-storeyed building construction was challenged due to notices issued by the Regional Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation. The court considered the legality of the notices and the balance of convenience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notices lacked specific statutory violations or proceedings, and the closure of the building would cause irreparable loss. It also noted that the building itself was not a traffic hazard and stayed the notices as an interim measure.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the notices under the Regional Development Authority Act and the Bihar Municipal Act, the concept of persons interested, and the balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the notices lacked specific statutory violations, the closure of the building would cause irreparable loss, and the building itself was not a traffic hazard, leading to the interim order staying the notices.
Final Decision: The court directed the staying of the notices and the unlocking of the building as an interim measure, with the matter to be further considered at a later date.
1. These three writ applications raise similar issues in respect of a singular structure and, as such, will be heard analogous, today, on mention being made with notice to the learned Advocate General who appears to defend, this case was listed "For Orders" for consideration whether any interim order should be passed or not. The learned counsel for the three sets of petitioners in the three writ applications and the learned Advocate General are present and have been heard at length on the question of interim order.
2. A multi-storeyed building was constructed. On 20.7.2006 (more than a year back), police notices were issued pursuant to request by the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority, constituted under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act 1981, to stop all construction activities on the site. No reason except that a re- quest had been made by the PRDA was given. Subsequently, the landlord and the developer approached this Court by two separate writ applications wherein by an interim order, this Court stayed the police notice dated 20.7.2006. Ultimately, when the said writ applications came up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself, PRDA pointed out that a proceeding in terms of Section 38 of the Act had been initiated. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, directed the writ petitioners to appear in those proceedings and file their respective show cause. It may be mentioned that the developer expressed apprehension as to whether they would be permitted to participate in those proceedings. This Court removed the apprehension and directed that as they were also an affected party, they had a right to be noticed and heard in the matter. The writ applications were, thus, disposed of.
3. The first of those writ applications being CWJC No. 13516 of 2006 was first disposed of and then CWJC No 13263 of 2006 of the builder was disposed of on 17.9.2007. The apprehension of the petitioner is noted in the order dated 17.9.2007 by this Court wherein in view of this Court, the apprehension was thought to be wholly misconceived. This Court said "In my view, the apprehension is misconceived as it is hoped that we are living in a democratic society governed by rule of law and the authorities would not try and permit any such action and try and overreach statutory provisions in this regard."
4. The dust had yet to settle. On 20th of September 2007, the impugned notices have been issued in the cases wherein in the case of the second writ application (CWJC No 12717 of 2007) by the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation. The said notice is Annexures 3A and 4 in the said writ application. It says that the PRDA has merged in the Patna Municipal Corporation and a proceeding has been initiated against vishal Mega Mart. The High Court had stayed those proceedings but now have vacated the said order. It is learnt from various sources that there are serious allegations in respect of irregularity and deviations in completing construction and, as such, the Corporation is taking appropriate action. Further, as in past few days, there has been some law and order problem, it is expected that in future, there may be serious law and order problem and further there is no adequate parking space nor security arrangement and considering these things, Vishal Mega Mart, is to be closed forthwith. Prima facie, a reference to the said notice (Annexures-3A and 4 of CWJC No 12717/ 2007) does not refer to any statutory violation or to any specific proceeding which has been initiated. This notice is more than a year after initial steps were taken yet without any final finding or conclusion. Suffice to say that even one and half years have passed, nothing concrete is being said but the complex is to be shut down. The petitioner of the second writ application, in fact was never noticed earlier in any matter.
5. The challenge to the notice aforesaid is that under the Act, that is the Regional Development Authority Act
