By Court 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. 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.

5. Disputing the sketch plan which has now been submitted by the respondent R.R.D.A. after carrying out a fresh inspection of the premises of the respondent No. 3, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sketch map is totally misleading and as a matter of fact, this has been prepared only to further accommodate the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel explain that the extra construction of the respondent No. 3 includes two rooms, a verandah with toilets and comprising of the same area which the petitioner has covered byway of additional constructions. Yet, whereas the entire constructions made by the petitioner in the extended area have been declared as illegal, only a very minuscule portion of the extended area constructed by the respondent No. 3 has been shown as deviation from the approved plan. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner’s claim is based on the approval of the supplementary plan which the R.R.D.A. has given to the respondent No. 3 and denial of such approval to the supplementary plan submitted by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would argue that for the approval of the deviations which he has carried out, the respondent No. 3 has submitted his plan for approval and it was only after inspection carried out by the respondent authorities of the R.R.D.A. that his supplementary plan was approved and there is no illegality committed by the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel submits further that he is not concerned whatsoever with the grievance of the petitioner vis-à-vis the dispute raised by the petitioner against the refusal of approval of the petitioner’s plan by the respondent R.R.D.A.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent R.R.D.A. woul