2006 JTR(SC) 652
2006 45 AIC 659 ; 2006 3 AllCJ 1885 ; 2006 4 AWC 3186 ; 2006 4 BBCJ(SC) 55 ; 2006 2 BLJR 1434 ; 2006 3 JCR(SC) 243 ; 2006 3 JLJR(SC) 242 ; 2006 7 JT 106 ; 2006 7 SBR 532 ; 2006 7 Scale 272 ; 2006 6 SCC 702 ; 2006 7 SCJ 633 ; 2006 Supp3 SCR 778 ; 2006 2 WLC 503 ; 2006 KHC 1934 ; 2006 5 Supreme 713
2006(5) Supreme 713
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jharkhand High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Ranchi Regional Development Authority — Appellant
versus
Sushil Kumar Mahto & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3087 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7815 of 2004)
Decided on 21-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ravi C. Prakash and C.D. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : A.N. Deo and Ms. S. Janani, Advocates.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
(A) The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is apposite where a writ petitioner moves this Court to scrutinize the legality of directions issued by a High Court Division bench in a public interest litigation concerning alleged violations of the Regional Development Authority Act, the Building Regulations, and the Building Byelaws, 1981, especially where the re-consideration by the authority is mandated to be had in the context of amended Bye-laws brought into force in 2002 and pre-2002 norms, and the authority is called upon to make an in-depth enquiry into possible officer-level dereliction without prejudice to action in accordance with law.
(B) The case underscores that directions for reconsideration must be based on adequate material and cannot be generalised; that an authority must examine whether officers acted in dereliction of duty; and that amended Bye-laws are to be applied at the time of reconsideration while past norms are also to be vetted.
Facts of the case:
A writ petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that multi-storeyed buildings were constructed in violation of the Regional Development Authority Act, Building Regulations, and Building Byelaws, 1981; the High Court held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands but directed that the sanction be reconsidered, that all persons who violated the Byelaws and sanctioned plans be examined, and that the petitioner or supporters be proceeded against if violations were found.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts directions were found to be based on generalised material; there was no definite evidence of collusion or passive tolerance of violations by the authorities; the Court noted that the amended Bye-laws of 2002 are applicable for reconsideration, and that any action against officers must follow an in-depth inquiry into dereliction of duty.
Issues:
Whether the High Courts directions were legally sound; whether the authorities were justified in according sanction; whether the amended Bye-laws should govern reconsideration; and whether officers could be proceeded against without an inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi:
Directions for reconsideration must be supported by adequate material and not be sweeping; the amended Bye-laws apply at reconsideration, but past norms are also to be examined; any action against officials must follow an in-depth inquiry into dereliction of duty.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of without costs; the High Courts directions for initiating action are deleted, but the matter is remanded for an in-depth inquiry into officer conduct with a clear mandate to apply the amended Bye-laws of 2002.
(A) The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is apposite where a writ petitioner moves this Court to scrutinize the legality of directions issued by a High Court Division bench in a public interest litigation concerning alleged violations of the Regional Development Authority Act, the Building Regulations, and the Building Byelaws, 1981, especially where the re-consideration by the authority is mandated to be had in the context of amended Bye-laws brought into force in 2002 and pre-2002 norms, and the authority is called upon to make an in-depth enquiry into possible officer-level dereliction without prejudice to action in accordance with law.
(B) The case underscores that directions for reconsideration must be based on adequate material and cannot be generalised; that an authority must examine whether officers acted in dereliction of duty; and that amended Bye-laws are to be applied at the time of reconsideration while past norms are also to be vetted.
Facts of the case:
A writ petitioner filed a public interest litigation alleging that multi-storeyed buildings were constructed in violation of the Regional Development Authority Act, Building Regulations, and Building Byelaws, 1981; the High Court held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands but directed that the sanction be reconsidered, that all persons who violated the Byelaws and sanctioned plans be examined, and that the petitioner or supporters be proceeded against if violations were found.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts directions were found to be based on generalised material; there was no definite evidence of collusion or passive tolerance of violations by the authorities; the Court noted that the amended Bye-laws of 2002 are applicable for reconsideration, and that any action against officers must follow an in-depth inquiry into dereliction of duty.
Issues:
Whether the High Courts directions were legally sound; whether the authorities were justified in according sanction; whether the amended Bye-laws should govern reconsideration; and whether officers could be proceeded against without an inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi:
Directions for reconsideration must be supported by adequate material and not be sweeping; the amended Bye-laws apply at reconsideration, but past norms are also to be examined; any action against officials must follow an in-depth inquiry into dereliction of duty.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of without costs; the High Courts directions for initiating action are deleted, but the matter is remanded for an in-depth inquiry into officer conduct with a clear mandate to apply the amended Bye-laws of 2002.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.
2. Appellant calls in question legality of certain directions given by a Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court while dealing with a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in short the PIL).
3. The writ petitioner i.e. respondent no.1 filed the purported PIL alleging that the construction of certain multi-storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act (in short the Act) and the Building Regulations (in short the Regulations) and the Building Byelaws, 1981 (in short Byelaws). The Authorities and the person who was the builder of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High Court, and took the stand that the PIL was nothing but a mischievous attempt to malign them. It was pointed out that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hand. The High Court took note of the fact that the writ petitioner and some of his supporters had violated sanctioned plans while making constructions of buildings and the undertaking given while obtaining sanctions for their plans. Nevertheless, the High Court found that the writ petitioner may not have come to court with absolutely clean hands, but whether the Corporation was justified in according sanction was to be reconsidered by the appellant. The High Court also directed that cases of not only the builder who had impleaded himself in the writ petition but also all those who have violated the norms fixed by By-laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings shall be examined. The directions were further to the effect that if the writ petitioner or his supporters are found to have violated the Bye-laws, he shall be proceeded against. The appellants have not questioned the correctness of these directions. However, grievance is made relating to certain observations against officers of the appellant which according to it are uncalled for. They were not given any opportunity to be heard in the matter. They have acted bonafide and, therefore, these observations should be deleted.
4. It was also submitted that the Bye-laws have been amended in 2002 and while reconsideration is to be done, the same has to be in terms of Bye-laws which have come into force in 2002.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the position that due consideration has to be done in terms of the Bye-laws introduced in 2002.
6. We find that without adequate material inference has been drawn by the High Court about the laxity of the Authorities. There was no definite material about collusica or that they stood passively by winking at violation of the building Bye-laws and approved plans. These were too generalised directions. We, therefore, direct deletion of the aforesaid directions for initiating action. We, however, make it clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant-authority that any officer who had actually acted contrary to the best interest of the Authorities can be proceeded against in accordance with law. In view of the accepted position that Bye-laws, amended in 2002 have applicability at the time of re-consideration of the matter, we direct that while considering the matter as directed by the High Court, the Bye-laws as amended in 2002 shall be kept in view. But it shall also be found out if there was any violation of pre-2002 norms, necessary action shall be taken.
7. It shall be imperative for the appellant-authority to make indepth enquiry to find out as to whether in any case or cases, the concerned officials, has/have acted in dereliction of duty. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessary action has to follow.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Appeal disposed of.
***************