http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3087 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ranchi Regional Development Authority

RESPONDENT: Sushil Kumar Mahto & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/07/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7815 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

Leave granted.         Appellant calls in question legality of certain directions  given by a Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court while  dealing with a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in  short the ’PIL’).         The writ petitioner i.e. respondent no.1 filed the  purported PIL alleging that the construction of certain multi- storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the  provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act (in short  the ’Act’) and the Building Regulations (in short the  ’Regulations’) and the Building Byelaws, 1981 (in short  ’Byelaws’). The Authorities and the person who was the builder  of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High  Court, and took the stand that the PIL was nothing but a  mischievous attempt to malign them. It was pointed out that  the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hand.  The  High Court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner and  some of his supporters had violated sanctioned plans while  making constructions of buildings and the undertaking given  while obtaining sanctions for their plans. Nevertheless, the  High Court found that the writ petitioner may not have come  to court with absolutely clean hands, but whether the  Corporation was justified in according sanction was to be  reconsidered by the appellant.  The High Court also directed  that cases of not only the builder who had  impleaded  himself   in the writ petition but  also all those who have violated the  norms fixed by By-laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings  shall be examined.  The directions were further to the effect  that if the writ petitioner or his supporters are found to have  violated the Bye-laws, he shall be proceeded against. The  appellants have not questioned the correctness of these  directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain  observations against officers of the appellant which according  to it are uncalled for.  They were not given any opportunity to  be heard in the matter.  They have acted bonafide and,  therefore, these observations should be deleted.           It was also submitted that the Bye-laws have been  amended in 2002 and while reconsideration is to be done, the  same has to be in terms of Bye-laws which have come into  force in 2002.         Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the  position that due consideration has to be done in terms of the  Bye-laws introduced in 2002.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

We find that without adequate material inference has  been drawn by the High Court about the laxity of the  Authorities.  There was no definite material about collusica or  that they stood passively by winking at violation of the  building Bye-laws and approved plans. These were too  generalised directions. We, therefore, direct deletion of the  aforesaid directions for initiating action.  We, however, make it  clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant-authority  that any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best  interest of the Authorities can be proceeded against in  accordance with law.  In view of the accepted position that  Bye-laws, amended in 2002 have applicability at the time of  re-consideration of the matter, we direct that while considering  the matter as directed by the High Court, the Bye-laws as  amended in 2002 shall be kept in view.  But it shall also be  found out if there was any violation of pre-2002 norms,  necessary action shall be taken. It shall be imperative for the appellant-authority to make  indepth enquiry to find out as to whether in any case or cases,  the concerned officials, has/have acted in dereliction of duty.   If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessary action has to  follow.          The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  No costs.