Ram Yatan Prasad v. Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna Through Municipal
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V N SINHA
Provisions considered
Judgment
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate. For the P.M.C. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 30-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”).
Petitioner is a licensee architect of the Corporation. He has challenged Letter No. 16 dated 03.01.2012, Annexure-5 passed by the Director, Urban Planning of the Corporation, whereunder licence of the petitioner to sanction building plan has been cancelled under sub-Section (3) of Section 316 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as the cause shown by him has not been found satisfactory. Earlier Patna High Court CWJC No.3459 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012 2 petitioner was served with Letter No. 4874 dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-3 asking him to show-cause as to why his licence to sanction building plan be not cancelled as while sanctioning Plan Case No. R-37 dated 26.4.2010 he violated provisions of the Act and Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006 for which his licence to sanction plan is required to be cancelled. In response to the aforesaid notice petitioner submitted reply dated 15.12.2011, Annexure-4 indicating that while sanctioning Plan Case No. R-37 dated 26.4.2010 he did not violate any of the provisions of the Act or the Bihar Apartment Ownership Act, 2006. Aforesaid cause shown by the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 3.1.2012, Annexure-5.
Perusal of the order dated 3.1.2012, Annexure-5, however, does not indicate the violation alleged against the petitioner and the reasons for which the cause shown by the petitioner is not found satisfactory. In such view of the matter, I have no option but to quash not only the order dated 3.1.2012, Annexure-5 but also the notice dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-3, however, with liberty to the Municipal Commissioner to issue fresh notice giving details of the provisions of the aforesaid two Acts and the bye-laws which petitioner ignored or violated while sanctioning Plan Case No. R-37 dated 26.04.2010. In the notice Patna High Court CWJC No.3459 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012 3 itself Municipal Commissioner should indicate the time by which petitioner has to submit his show-cause reply as also the date on which he has to appear for hearing in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 319 of the Act.
The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N. Sinha, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.