High Court Jharkhand High Court

Sarswati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 5 November, 2009

Jharkhand High Court
Sarswati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 5 November, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(C) No. 1604 of 2009
                            with
                       I.A. No. 2012 of 2009
     Sarswati Devi                         ......       ....             Petitioner
                          Versus
     1.

The State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development
Authority, Ranchi …… …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta
For the Respondents: M/s J.C. to S.C. L & C, A.K. Singh
03/ Dated: 5th November, 2009

1. The present petition has been preferred against the show cause
notice issued by respondent no. 3 dated 17th March, 2009 at Annexure-
4, whereby it is questioned by respondents that why the structure
possessed by the present petitioner should not be demolished because
the same is unauthorizedly reconstructed.

2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.

3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no
reason to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons:-

(i) no final decision has been taken for demolition of the
property or structure by respondent no. 3.

(ii) the present petition has been preferred only against the
show cause notice, which is yet to be replied by the
petitioner.

(iii) thrice, queries is asked that whether any reply of show cause
notice has been given by the petitioner or not, the learned
counsel for the petitioner is unable to give any answer
whether Annexure-4 notice is replied or not.

Thus, without filing the reply, to respondent no. 3-office, a show
cause notice on merit, straightway and directly, writ petition has been
preferred. Petitioner ought to have replied first to respondent no. 3 and,
thereafter, respondent no. 3 will take a final decision, after giving an
adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, in accordance with
law and thereafter, if the petitioner is aggrieved, by the order of the other
side, he can challenge it, in accordance with law.

4. In view of these observations, there is no substance in this writ
petition; hence, the same is hereby dismissed. In view of the final
disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No. 2012 of 2009 also stands disposed
of.

(D.N. Patel, J)
VK