Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Urban Development & Housing Department (Urban Division), Government of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 4915 of 2018
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Writ Petition - Grievance arising from purchase of a flat in a multi storied apartment - Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Ownership Act, 2011 - The court discussed the claims and counter claims advanced by the petitioner, the public interest nature of the reliefs sought, and the misuse of writ jurisdiction. The court also highlighted the misconduct of the petitioner, the frivolous nature of the litigation, and the dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs related to the purchase of a flat in an apartment, including the blocking of corridors, disconnection of electricity and water supply, and alleged violations of building norms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reliefs sought partook of the character of a Public Interest Litigation under the garb of a writ petition, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under General Law. The court also noted the misconduct of the petitioner and the frivolous nature of the litigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the claims and counter claims advanced by the petitioner, the public interest nature of the reliefs sought, and the misuse of writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the misconduct of the petitioner, the frivolous nature of the litigation, and the dismissal of the writ petition with costs. The court also emphasized the misuse of writ jurisdiction for a purely private dispute.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within three months of the order.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impleading one private construction company and six other parties representing the State authorities and the Tata group company for a long list of reliefs (16 in nos.) extending from cancelling the lease agreement made by the State in favour of Tata Steel, to granting the petitioner a sub-lease of a plot of land. Almost, everything has been demanded in this writ petition, except for a slice of land over the moon.
2. What is at the root of this overblown and inflated list of reliefs is the grievance of the petitioner arising out of purchase of a flat in a multi storied apartment known as Dream Heights at Jamshedpur in April, 2016 built by Builder. One corridor was blocked in the apartment from both sides by grill gate and complained to the builders and other authorities and subsequently electricity and water connection were disconnected by the Respondent No.8 who is the builder Company claims that this is not a flat rather a commercial space which the petitioner who is a lawyer using for legal services and is not paying maintenance charges.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
3. The vendor had purchased the flat in an apartment from one Mr. Manoj Gulati who had purchased it from the Builder M/s Shashank Nidhi Construction Pvt Ltd (R-8). After purchasing the said flat, the petitioner found the East side staircase was permanently blocked under lock and key, and the corridor was blocked from both east and both side resulting in what is described as “negligible circulation of air causing congestion in gross violation of the terms of Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Ownership Act, 2011. The invitees and guests of the petitioner complained about lack of oxygen in the corridor and as such suffocation and breathing problems on the occasion of inauguration of Petitioner’s office.”
4. Petitioner approached the Builder (R-8) and complained about the same, however R-8 remained non-committal. Petitioner moved the Jharkhand Notified Area Committee (JNAC) seeking relevant information which was not properly answered regarding the relevant information pertaining to the building.
5. There are further averments in the writ petition regarding one incidence of short circuit having taken place in the apartment in which one labour sustained burn injuries due to electrocution, thereafter some attempt was made to lodge FIR without success.
6. It is averred that electricity or maintenance bills were not furnished by the Builder (R-8) to the petitioner and R-8 disconnected the electricity supply from 26.02.2017 to the office of the said building illegally without any prior notice to the petitioner and also in gross violation of the agreement. After the said disconnection Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police on 27.02.2017, but no action was taken on the said FIR, by the police. Restoration of electric connection was refused JUSCO illegally for want of no objection certificate from the Builder(R-8).
7. Despite all his efforts electric connection was not restored by JUSCO and further, on 17.03.2017 his water supply was disconnected.
8. On 21st March, 2017, the petitioner sent a mail requesting the Deputy Commissioner to direct the appropriate authority to demolish the illegal construction in the said apartment, but the said mail was not responded to.
9. Under RTI, it was informed by JNAC vide letter no.2309 dated 30.09.2016 regarding information the said building that there was no document relating to Dream Heights, south Park, Bistupur, Jamshedpur.
10. It is also averred that the said building was without any fire extinguisher installed on the day when accidently one labourer had suffered electrical burn injury in the building. Regarding which police refused to register FIR.
11. On 21st March, 2017, the petitioner sent a mail to the Deputy Commissioner to direct the appropriate authority to demolish the illegal construction of four illegally constructed flours and basement. The mail remaine
The central legal point established in the judgment is the dismissal of the writ petition due to the misuse of writ jurisdiction for a purely private dispute, the misconduct of the petitioner, and th....
Contractual obligations under the Consumer Protection Act require service providers to fulfill all promised specifications, and failure to do so constitutes deficiency of service.
Only lawful occupiers are entitled to electricity supply under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, and the petitioner failed to prove his legal occupancy.
The court established that the right to electricity is fundamental and cannot be denied based on ownership disputes or pending eviction proceedings.
Electricity cannot be denied based on ownership disputes; distribution licensees have a statutory duty to supply electricity upon valid application irrespective of ongoing eviction proceedings.
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
