The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.2386 of 2018 ---- 1. Jharkhand Swami Sahjanand Saraswati Samiti, A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its registered office at Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi 834004, District- Ranchi, through its Secretary Janardan Prasad Rai, aged about 76 years, son of Late Raghunath Rai, resident of B-3-488, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi. 2. Janardan Prasad Rai, aged about 76 years, son of Late Raghunath Rai, resident of B-3-488, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. + P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004, District-Ranchi. …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, having its office at Ranchi Municipal Corporation Building, Kutchary Chowk, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Ranchi 834001, District-Ranchi. 2. Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchary Chowk, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Ranchi 834001, District-Ranchi. …. …. Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
stood resolved and vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.2669 of 2018 and that has attained finality. 9. In view of above discussion, present writ petition is hereby disposed of directing Ranchi Municipal Corporation to consider the plan of the petitioners in accordance with the rules and regulations without going into the arena of dispute between the H.E.C. and the petitioners and also without insisting the registered lease deed. Further, in view of submission of new building plan U.C. Case No.16 of 2018 has become redundant and accordingly declared. 10. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition
Arguments
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Adv. Mrs. Shilpi Sandil, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kr. Gupta, Adv. Mr. K. Hari, Adv. : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Karbir, Adv. ---- 15/Dated: 23rd September, 2024 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order dated 5th May, 2018 passed in U.C. Case No. 16 of 2018, communicated to the Petitioners vide Memo No. 570 dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure-9), wherein Respondent No.2 has passed order, in alleged exercise of the power under Section 437(4) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, restraining from carrying out any construction work and has directed for sealing of the School Building in question, as being wholly illegal, the Petitioners arbitrary and having been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice without following the process of law. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that Building Permission/Building Permit applied for by the Petitioners for construction of School Building over Plot Nos. 1530P, 1617P, 1618P, 1619P, 1620, 1534P, 1536P, 1621P, 1637P, 1638P, 1475P, 1649P, 1625P, 1623P and 1476P in Ward No. 42 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation shall be deemed to have been sanctioned in terms of The Amended Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws, 2009 (for short 'Building Bye-laws'), particularly Clause 7.2 thereof, especially in view of the fact that Petitioners have not been communicated any order of refusal of sanction of their Building Permission/Building Permit within a period of 4 months after receipt of the application for Building Permit/Building Permission. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/ direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of Respondent No.2-Municipal Commissioner in sealing the School Building premises of the Petitioners in alleged exercise of power under Section 437(4) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is wholly without jurisdiction and beyond his competence, as the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 does not confer any power upon Respondent No.2 to seal any premises and/or building, including School Building of the Petitioners. (iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. It appears that the petitioners have applied for new sanction plan being RMC/BP/0703/W-40/2024 dated 06.09.2024. Now fresh prayer has been made which is quoted hereinbelow:- of view petitioner-Society, “The subsequent in development of facts which have taken place during pendency of the instant writ petition, is confining its prayer for issuance of direction upon the Respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi (in short ‘RMC’) to process the application submitted by it for sanction of map being Case No.RMC/BP/0703/W-40/2024 dated 06.09.2024 in accordance with law without insisting for the registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Society and for issuance of further direction upon the respondents to treat the proceedings being U.C. Case No.16 of 2018 initiated against the petitioner-Society as closed.” 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land belongs to the HEC and with the permission of the HEC, a school is being run. There was some dispute between the managing committee. Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.2386 of 2018 4. It further submitted that earlier a sanction plan has been approved by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and on the strength of that sanction order, a ground floor has been constructed which is operational till date. Further, it has been submitted that the plan was sanctioned for G+2 but on the complaint of the HEC, U.C. Case No.16 of 2018 has been initiated. During the pendency of the present writ petition, a fresh proposal has been submitted which is under consideration before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was dispute between the HEC and the petitioners for which a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2669 of 2018 (Reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1328) has been filed and vide order dated 04.09.2023, the order of cancellation of allotment letter dated 19.05.2018 has been quashed. Paragraph No.09 of the said writ petition is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:- “9. Both the parties should keep in mind that establishment of the school is in the interest of the society and on the technical grounds the establishment of a school should not be stopped. The respondent-HEC, being the extended arm of the Central Government, is very much pose duty for establishing and running of a school, Education is the backbone of the society. These factors should be kept in mind by the respondent-HEC while dealing with the issues.” 6. Thus, on the strength of above factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought direction upon the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for considering its newly submitted plan for sanction in accordance with law without going into dispute between the HEC and the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has taken plea that there is no concept of post-facto sanction. Further, if there is proposal pending then it will be considered in accordance with law. 8. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that there is a running school. Earlier, a map has been sanctioned in the year 1984. Some construction has been made and subsequently on the complaint of the HEC, U.C. Case No.16 of 2018 has also been initiated. So far as the dispute between the HEC and the petitioners is concerned, that has been Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.2386 of 2018
Decision
stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded Page | 4 W.P. (C) No.2386 of 2018