The main legal point established is the requirement for reasoned orders and adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative actions, especially in cases involving adverse civil consequences.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.03.2018 as contained in memo no. 497 dated 19.04.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 – the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi in U.C. Case No. 125 of 2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner with a further direction to demolish the non-condonable deviation of 22% in rear side of the building as per the building plan which was already sanctioned and regularised previously under the provisions of Jharkhand Regularization of Unauthorized/Deviated Constructions through Regularization Fee in Urban Areas Act, 2011 and thus, any subsequent proceeding initiated and the order passed under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2011”) is illegal and non est in the eye of law.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a house with land by way of a registered sale-deed dated 02.07.1996 from the Ranchi Planners’ Co-operative Society Ltd., Ranchi having an area of 2.88 katthas/2077 sq.ft. with a built up area of 1000 sq.ft. situated at Village-Kathargonda, P.S.-Gonda, Khata No. 134, Plot No. 594, Municipal Holding No. 296/F18 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. On getting the possession of the said House No. D-2, the petitioner got the land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 225/R27/12-13 and a correction slip was also issued on 18.08.2012. The petitioner also got the electrical connection in the said premises. Since then, the petitioner has been paying the holding tax to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation regularly. It is further submitted that the State Government with a view to regularize certain types of unauthorized constructions, came out with a legislation namely, Jharkhand Regularization of Unauthorized/Deviated Constructions through Regularization Fee in Urban Areas Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Jharkhand Regularization Act, 2011”) and in view of the said Act, the petitioner applied and submitted the requisite fee of Rs. 25,545/-. A receipt to that effect was issued to the petitioner on 08.08.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Thereafter, regularization of the said building was made by the order of the Chief Executive Officer which was issued under the signatures of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Law Advisor as well as the Town Planner dated 18.06.2013 and 27.06.2013 respectively (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 27.03.2018, though acknowledged the Jharkhand Regularization Act, 2011, yet without discussing as to why regularization made by the authorities of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation under the said Act would not be acceptable, passed the said order dated 27.03.2018 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction as the said authority could not have initiated a subsequent case for unauthorised construction/deviation made in the building once the same has been regularised under the Jharkhand Regularization Act, 2011.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation submits that the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 is completely justified as he has taken note of the fact that there has been non-condonable deviation of 22% in rear side of the building.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that once the unauthorized construction/deviation made in the building in question has been regularized under the Jharkhand Regularization Act, 2011, the respondent no. 2 had no authority to initiate another case for unauthorized construction against the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 contained in memo no. 497 dated 19.04.2018, it appe