IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4350 of 2009
---
Sanjay Kumar Singh Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its
Urban Secretary, Ranchi & others Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Mr. Krishna Murari,Advocates
For the Respondents: JC to Sr. SC-I
For the R.R.D.A.: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
4.04.03.2011
At the outset, Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the R.R.D.A., submitted that the petitioner has got
alternative remedy of appeal under section 54(2) of the Regional
Development Authority Act.
2. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, disputed this submission and submitted that only the
person against whom an order is passed for demolition, can file appeal
under the said provision and not the petitioner who is claiming
violation of the sanctioned map by R.R.D.A. by private respondent. He
further submitted that the R.R.D.A. authority themselves are at fault.
He also referred to the letter dated 7.8.2010 issued by the R.R.D.A. to
the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
saying that the contravention is apparent.
3. However, he could not shown as to under what provision,
the petitioner made complaint.
4. In my opinion, such complaint could be filed under section
54 of the Act. The concerned authority suo motu or on complaint
made to it, can examine the matter and take action in terms of
section 54 of the Act.
In that view of the matter, case of the petitioner is
covered by sub-section 2 of section 54 if he is the person aggrieved by
the order passed by the Vice-Chairman even if, no order has been
passed by the concerned authority on the complaint of the petitioner
for demolition.
5. In my opinion, as the petitioner has got alternative
remedy of appeal before the Tribunal which can examine the facts and
all the points raised by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in
this writ petition.
6. On this, Mr. Bhanu Kumar submitted that the petitioner
will file appeal, but at least, delay may be condoned.
7. In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to withdraw
this writ petition with liberty to file appeal against the impugned order
dated 8.6.2009. If such appeal is filed within two weeks from today
along with the petition for condonation of delay, it is expected that the
delay would be condoned keeping in view the pendency of this writ
petition before this court and the appeal will be disposed of on its own
merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance
with law as early as possible and preferably within three months from
the date of filing of the appeal.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(R.K. Merathia, J)
Ranjeet/