Patna High Court - Orders
R.P.Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 May, 2014
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Ravi Ranjan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2254 of 2009
======================================================
R.P.Mishra son of late Ram Rup Mishra, resident of village Mahiyarpur,
P.S. Manihari, District Purnea at presen retired Inspector, D.I.G., Patna,
A/18, Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Town and District Patna,
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development,
Secretariat, Patna,
2. P.R.D.A., Patna through Vice-Chairman at Maurya Lok, P.S. Kotwali,
District Patna,
3. Shree Mithuilesh Singh son of Shjree Nandji Singh, A/10, Anandpuri,
P.S. S.K.Puri, District Pana,
4. Patna Municipal Corporation through Town Commissioner, P.M.C.,
Patna
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P.Mishra (In Person)
For the PMC : Mr. H.S. Himkar, Advocate
Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State: Mr. I.P. Singh, AC to GA 7. .
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN
ORAL ORDER
20 06-05-2014I have heard the parties.
This writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition to the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has certain grievances with respect to raising of illegal construction by the respondent no. 3.
It appears that the petitioner had approached this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.2254 of 2009 (20) dt.06-05-2014 2 on earlier occasion also by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2656 of 2005 which was disposed of on 02.05.2005. A certified copy of the order has been produced at the time of hearing of this application. A Single Bench of this Court, had observed that in compliance of this Court's order dated 25.04.2005, the respondent no. 2, i.e., the Vice Chairman, PRDA had passed certain order on 13.08.2003 in Vigilance Case No. 17B of 2003, however, that order has been stayed by the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2004. It was further observed that the relief prayed for in the writ application hinges on the compliance of the orders of the Vice Chairman, PRDA, and as such, in view of the stay granted by the Appellate Tribunal the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal which was filed by the private respondent against the order dated 13.08.2003 passed by the Vice Chairman, PRDA.
It appears that, thereafter, nothing was done and, thus, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing this writ application. This matter was earlier heard on 04.11.2010. A Single Bench of this Court while passing the order no. 7 dated 04.11.2010 had taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect and the factum of interim order having been passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.2254 of 2009 (20) dt.06-05-2014 3 Appellate Tribunal on 22.08.2006(Annexure A/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation). It had further been noticed that subsequently quorum of the Tribunal was never completed and finally the Tribunal was dissolved, however, taking plea of the aforesaid order in the appeal which had become non-existence the order dated 13.08.2003 passed by the Vice Chairman was not being implemented by the PRDA. Thus, in the aforesaid background the interim order passed by the Appellate Authority was stayed and a decision was given to the Patna Municipal Corporation to take steps in accordance with law. However, in the subsequent paragraph it has been observed that Vigilance Case Nos. 17-B of 2003 and 23-B of 2007 are pending before the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation which should be finally heard and decided within six weeks. It appears that nothing was done by the Municipal Corporation thereafter. After passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, only recourse open to the Municipal Commissioner was to implement the order dated 13.08.2003 and decide Vigilance Case No. 23-B of 2007 which was filed at the behest of the respondent no. 3. However, it appears that the Municipal Commissioner again passed an order dated 25.06.2011 though he was only required to implement the Patna High Court CWJC No.2254 of 2009 (20) dt.06-05-2014 4 earlier order. A copy of the aforesaid decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner on 25.06.2011 has been produced at the time of hearing. From perusal of the order aforesaid it appears that the Municipal Commissioner has only reiterated the earlier decision taken by the Vice Chairman of the PRDA. However, in view of the aforesaid development, the respondent no. 3 has withdrawn Appeal No. 17 of 2003 which was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal assailing the earlier order and has again filed Appeal No. 6 of 2011 against the fresh order passed by the Municipal Commissioner. This is intriguing as to what had led to passing a fresh order by the Municipal Commissioner.
Mr. H.S. Himkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation, has submitted that the aforesaid order was passed in view of the direction contained in paragraph 7 of the order 04.11.2010 as this Court had directed to dispose of the two Vigilance cases positively within six weeks.
However, in my considered opinion, the authority concerned forgot to read paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order by which the interim relief granted by the Tribunal was stayed and the Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to take a decision Patna High Court CWJC No.2254 of 2009 (20) dt.06-05-2014 5 in accordance with law after observing that the Appellate Tribunal had become non-functional. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation was only required to implement that order, however, he has passed a fresh order confirming the earlier order which was not required to be done at all. At the same time, this is also a fact that the respondent no. 3 had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the fresh order. The interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was stayed not upon consideration of the merit of the case rather on the ground that the Tribunal was no more functional and, therefore, there would be no possibility of passing any order by it. In view of aforesaid fact coupled with the subsequent event that another order had been passed by the Municipal Commissioner confirming its earlier order and Appeal No. 17 of 2003 filed by the respondent no. 3 has already been withdrawn by him, as per the submission made on his behalf, and fresh Appeal No. 6 of 2011 has been preferred before the Tribunal assailing the fresh order passed by the Municipal Commissioner constituted under section 329 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 which is now functional, this Court has no other option than to dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed against the order dated 25.06.2011 Patna High Court CWJC No.2254 of 2009 (20) dt.06-05-2014 6 passed by the Municipal Commissioner within a period of two months since this issue has remained pending since long. The petitioner would also be required to appear before the Appellate Tribunal which would be required to pass a reasoned order after granting reasonable opportunity to all the concerned parties.
This disposes of the writ petition.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) SC/-