Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions as they were based on insufficient material and were overly general, while allowing the RDA to act against any officer if evidence of misconduct emerges, applying the 2002 amended Byelaws.

Summary

The petitioners filed a public interest litigation alleging that the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RDA) had illegally sanctioned the construction of certain multi‑storeyed buildings in violation of the Regional Development Authority Act, the Building Regulations and the Building Byelaws, 1981. The Jharkhand High Court, while noting that the petitioners themselves had violated sanctioned plans, directed the RDA to reconsider the sanctions and to initiate action against any officers or builders who had contravened the byelaws. The RDA appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s directions were unwarranted and violated principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had drawn inferences about the laxity of the Authority without sufficient material and that its directions were overly general; consequently, those directions were deleted. However, the Court clarified that if evidence later shows any officer acted contrary to the Authority’s interests, appropriate action may be taken, and that the 2002 amended byelaws must be applied in the reconsideration, with any pre‑2002 violations also to be addressed. The appeal was disposed of, effectively setting aside the High Court’s directives.

Issues considered

What was the appropriate scope of the High Court's directions to the RDA to reconsider sanctions and initiate action against officers?
Did the High Court's directions violate principles of natural justice by lacking sufficient material and by being overly general?
Should the 2002 amended Building Byelaws be applied in the reconsideration of the sanctions, and how should pre‑2002 violations be treated?

Subjects

public interest litigationbuilding regulationsregional development authorityadministrative lawnatural justicesanctionbyelawsappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
SUSHIL KUMAR MAHTO AND ORS.

JULY 21, 2006

B [ARIJlT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226-Public interest litigation,
alleging illegal sanctioning of construction of multi-storeyed buildings-
C Petitioners coming with unclean hands-However, directions to the Authority
by High Court to reconsider the sanction accorded by Corporation-
Challenge lo Held: Inference was drawn about laxity of Authorities without
adequate material, thus directions issued against them is lo be deleted-
However, any officer found negligent would be proceeded against-Regional
Development Authority Act-Building Byelaws, 1981.
D
Respondent no.I filed PIL alleging that the construction of certain
multi-storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and contrary to the
provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act, Building Regulations ,..
and Building Byelaws, 1981. High Court found that the writ petitioner and
its supporters had violated sanctioned plans while making constructions of
E buildings and the undertaking given while obtaining sanctions for their plans,
but it issued directions to the appellant-authority to reconsider the sanction
accorded by the Corporation. Hence the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

F HELD: High Court drew inference about the laxity of the Authorities
without adequate material. There was no definite material about col!usica or
that they stood passively by winking at violation of the building Bye-laws and
approved the plans. These were too generalised directions. Therefore,
directions issued by the High Court for initiating action is to be deleted.
G However, 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 could
be proceeded against in accordance with law. The Bye-laws as amended in
2002 would be kept in view while re-considering the matter as directed by
the High Court. But if it is found out that there was any violation of pre-2002

H 778
-
RANCHIREGIONALDEVE. AUTHORITYv. SUSHILKUMARMAHTO[PASA YAT,J.) 779
' norms, necessary action would be taken. (780-B-El A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3087 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.2003 of the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (PIL) No. 1590/2002.
B
P.S. Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha,
Ravi C. Prakash and C.D. Singh for the Appellant.

A.N. Deo and S. Janani for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

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'). D
The writ petitioner i.e. respondent no. I 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 E
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
F
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 G
those who have violated the norms fixed hy By-laws, sanctioned plans and
;I
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
---:'
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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.

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
B which have come into force in 2002.
Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the position that due
consideration has to be done in terms of the Bye-laws introduced in 2002.

We find that without adequate material inference has been drawn by the
C 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, dire\,t deletion of the aforesaid directions for initiating action.
We, however, make it clear that if it comes to the notice of the appellant-
D 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 th~ High Court, the Bye-laws as amended i!J 2002
shall be kept in view. But it shall also be found out if there was any violation
E of pre-2002 norms, necessary action shall be taken.
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.
F
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ..
N.J. Appeal disposed of.