IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 618 of 2023 ----

Dhananjay P. Raipat … Appellant Versus Ranchi Municipal Corporation & Ors.… … Respondents with Cont. Case(C) No. 1097 of 2025 ----

Gourav Kumar Besra … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors .… … Respondents -------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mrs. Sonam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate Mr. Yash, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Peeyush Krishna, Advocate --------

Order No. 33: Dated 12^th December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

Factual Matrix

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3742 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single has refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in connection with U.C. Case No. 163 of 2015 by giving a finding that the construction has been found to be unauthorized and also in violation of the map which was sanctioned by the sanctioning authority.

2. When the matter was taken up on 19th August, 2025, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that to deal with such deviation the provision has been inserted in the applicable Bye-Laws, by giving an opportunity to the occupier/owner of the construction to make an application for condonation of such deviation. He has further submitted that the said application invoking the jurisdiction conferred to the sanctioning authority under the Bye-Laws has been filed on 22nd July, 2016 but the same has not been decided as yet, i.e., almost over eight years the same is kept pending without any reason. In such view of the matter the appellant is facing hardship and suffering with the predicament that on any date the authority from the corporation may come for demolishing the said construction but without taking care of the said predicament, the sanctioning authority has kept the said application pending since 22nd July, 2016.

3. This Court considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner directed Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to seek instruction that what is the reason in not deciding the said application and keeping it pending for years together, i.e., for the period of more than eight years and file an affidavit stating that who is/are the person(s) responsible for not deciding the said application as yet.

4. Mr. A.K.Das, the learned counsel for the appellant in course of argument has drawn attention of this Court that this Court has already passed an order directing to assign duty to the Town Planners who have been appointed and said to be recruited in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation but still no work has been assigned to them and the work is being taken by the Engineers who have come on deputation in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the reason best known to the administrator of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

5. Therefore, direction was passed that the said aspect of the matter be also stated in the affidavit as to for what reason no work has been assigned to the Town Planners who have been appointed in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation rather the duty is being taken from the Engineers of the different departments.

6. For ready reference, order dated 19th August, 2025 is quoted as under:

1.The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.3742 of 2022,whereby and whereunder, the learned Single has refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in connection with U.C. Case No. 163 of 2015 by giving a finding that the construction has been found to be unauthorized and also in violation of the map which was sanctioned by the sanctioni