Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The Creators, Ranchi, through one of its partners, Rajiv Kakkar – Appellant
Versus
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, through its Municipal Commissioner – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 06, 157 of 2022
Decided on : 31-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Employment from service - quashing the order as contained in letter – Retirement from Service - whether the RMC has committed a serious wrong in not complying the interim order passed by Appellate Tribunal RRDA Ranchi in Misc. Appeal for unsealing of the said hotel belonging to firm - counsel appearing on behalf of the RMC submits that the RRDA had initially sanctioned B+G+4 building plan over M.S. Plot at Village- Hindpiri, Ranchi in the name of wife of Ishwari Prasad vide Building Plan No. 670 of 2000. However, the said building plan was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority on the ground that the same was obtained by misrepresenting the fact and playing fraud upon the authorities with respect to the ownership - Said order of cancellation was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal being M.A - However same was withdrawn. Thereafter, an unauthorized construction case being U.C. Case was registered by the RRDA against Smt. Munni Devi and vide order - She was directed to remove the alleged unauthorised construction within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the vendor of the firm preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2007, however, the same was also dismissed vide the order – Held, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Vadanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in has held that violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction ought to be viewed strictly, if the rule of law is to be maintained. It has further been held that no litigant can be permitted to defy or decline adherence to an interim or an interlocutory order of a Court merely because he or she is of the opinion that the order is incorrect as the same has to be judged by a superior Court or by another Court having jurisdiction to do so. If the violation of an interim or an interlocutory order is not viewed seriously, it will have widespread deleterious effects on the authority of Courts to implement their interim or interlocutory orders or compel their adherence - Writ Petition is Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
These cases are taken up through Video Conferencing.
2. W.P.(C) No. 06 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner-the Creators, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the firm’) for issuance of direction upon the authorities of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), Ranchi to forthwith remove the seal of the Hotel Centre Point, Ranchi in view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), Ranchi vide order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2021, has directed the RMC to remove the seal from the said hotel premises.
3. W.P.(C) No. 157 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner-RMC for quashing the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2021.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RMC submits that the RRDA had initially sanctioned B+G+4 building plan over M.S. Plot Nos. 609 & 610 at Village- Hindpiri, Ranchi on 07.07.2000 in the name of Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Ishwari Prasad vide Building Plan No. 670 of 2000. However, the said building plan was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority on the ground that the same was obtained by misrepresenting the fact and playing fraud upon the authorities with respect to the ownership. The said order of cancellation was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal being M.A. No.01/2002, however, the same was withdrawn. Thereafter, an unauthorized construction case being U.C. Case No. 135 of 2001 was registered by the RRDA against Smt. Munni Devi and vide order dated 16.05.2007, she was directed to remove the alleged unauthorised construction within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the vendor of the firm preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2007, however, the same was also dismissed vide the order dated 30.08.2007. Thereafter, the vendor of the firm preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5512 of 2007 before this Court and during pendency of the said writ petition, it filed an affidavit to the effect that on 25.09.2018, a revised building application for the building in question was filed before the competent authority and considering the said affidavit, a Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 23.10.2018 observing that the authority shall consider the revised building application in accordance with law.
5. It is further submitted that the RMC tried its best to search out any such application made for revision of the building plan, however, it could not find the same and as such the Deputy Town Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi vide letter No. 648 dated 16.08.2019, directed Shri Sanjay Jaiswal and Shri Rajesh Mishra to submit the Revised Building Plan within three days, failing which an unauthorized construction case would be instituted against them. The vendor of the firm replied that a revised building application was submitted to the RRDA on 25.06.2007 and also to the RMC through online mode bearing Application No. RMC/TEM/0907/18 dated 25.09.2018. The Deputy Town Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi vide letter No. 1590 dated 27.12.2021, wrote to the Secretary, RRDA, Ranchi to verify the fact as to whether the vendor of the firm had got any building plan sanctioned during the regime of the RRDA vide B.C. Case No. 698 of 2007 for which Challan No. 21687 dated 25.06.2007 was issued from the office of the RRDA whereupon vide letter No. 51 dated 17.01.2022, the Secretary, RRDA, Ranchi categorically stated that no revision plan for B.C. Case No. 698 of 2007 was sanctioned by it at the relevant point of time.
6. It is further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that fresh online application was preferred by the firm vide Acknowledgment No. RMC/TEM/0907/18 dated 25.09.2018 without any requisite fee and as such the same
SupremeToday
Constructions raised in violation and disobedience of the interim orders of the court cannot be permitted to remain in existence. To uphold the majesty of law, the acts done by the petitioners in dis....
The court affirmed the authority of the Municipal Commissioner to regularize construction and condemned the complainant's repeated legal challenges as an abuse of process.
The duty of the municipal authority to ensure prompt demolition of unauthorized constructions and the precedence of the order of a higher court over that of a subordinate court.
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
