P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. This writ petition is filed by a resident of Basant Bihar, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi. He claims to be the president of the Basant Bihar Vikas Samiti formed by the residents of the colony and claims that the writ petition is filed in a representative capacity. What he seeks to espouse is the cause of a planned developed of the colony strictly in accordance with the Regional Development Authorities Act and the Building Regulations. The colony is a new one and is in the process of development. What the petitioner has projected in this writ petition is the illegality in the sanctioning of the multi-storeyed building on the basis of an application made by respondents 3 and 4, the owners of the plot. Subsequently, the builder has also filed an application for intervention, which was allowed by us. According to the building plan, it is for the construction of a multi-storeyed building to be named "Rajshree Apartments". According to the petitioner, such a multi-storeyed building having a height of more than 11 metres could not be sanctioned unless it faced a road having a width of 7 metres or roughly 23 feet. According to the petitioner, the road adjacent to or in front of the building proposed, has only a width of 15 or 16 feet and in the circumstances, the sanctioning of such a plan was illegal and the construction of the multi-storeyed building was illegal. The petitioner has also stated that another multi-storeyed building in the same road has also been sanctioned and constructed and that construction was also illegal and against the master plan for Ranchi, the Regional Development Authority Act and the Building Regulations. But he has not impleaded the owner of that building, nor has he challenged the sanction of the plan of the building and the prayer is confined to the setting aside of the illegal sanction of the plan for "Rajshree Apartments" and for a direction to the Ranchi Regional Development Authority not to allow or sanction building plans for construction of multi-storeyed buildings in the colony in view of the nature of the roads available in the colony.

2. Respondents 3 and 4, and the builder, the intervener, have resisted the writ petition contending that this was not a public interest litigation, but was really a private litigation started by the petitioner to cover up his own illegal acts, that notices have been issued to the petitioner and certain others who are his supporters for removal of illegal constructions and the attempt of the petitioner was to stall the action being taken pursuant to those notices. It is submitted that the petitioner was related to and close to leading politicians including a representative of the people and his attempt to challenge the sanctioned plan obtained by respondents No. 3 and 4 was mala fide. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner has been espousing a public cause, he should have objected to the construction of another multi-storeyed building which had admittedly come into existence by the very same road. It is submitted that the construction was being carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there was no violation or deviation from that plan. In fact, when a drain was constructed, as envisaged by the sanction and the relevant rules leaving out a strip of land, 4 feet wide from the property of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner and certain others destroyed that drain leading to a proceeding being initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that this conduct of the petitioner should also be taken note of. They have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The Town Planner of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Chief Engineer of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. He has submitted that the plan had been duly sanctioned, but the sanction was with a condition that prior to the construction of the main building, the builder should construct a dra