Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing of the order dated 29th October, 1991 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Regional development Authority, respondent No.3, confirming the order of the Vice-chairman (Respondent No.2) dated 8.12.1988 in vigilance Case No.35a/88 that the construction of the premises in question was made in contravention of the provisions of section 23 and 36 of the Bihar Regional development Authority Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Copies of the aforementioned orders are annexures 1 and 2 respectively. 2. To appreciate the point at issue in my view it would be appropriate to have a brief survey of some of the facts. The petitioners purchased Plot No.1804 in ward No.27 Rai Jai Krishna Road, Patna city to set up a rolling mill. They also got the building plan sanctioned by the Executive Officer of the Patna Corporation under the provision of section 233 of the Patna municipal Corporation Act in the year 1981. Thereafter, the construction of the said factory, shed, godown and other formalities were complete by 1982. In the meantime, respondents 4 and 5 made a complaint before the Patna Regional Development authority that the construction of building, including installation of factory by the petitioners were without any approval as required under sections 23 and 36 of the Act. It was alleged that: no approval was ever obtained by the petitioners from the competent authority. 3. It would be apt to notice that after promulgation of the Bihar Regional Development Authority ordinance in the year 1974, which was substituted by the Act, the Patna municipal Corporation had no longer any jurisdiction to sanction plan for erection or renovation of buildings over a land which was included in the master plan by the patna Regional Development Authority. The vice-Chairman of the Patna Regional development Authority therefore got the matter inquired into and after giving proper opportunity to both the parties by the order, contained in Annexure-2, held that construction of the building to establish factory by the petitioners over the land in question was in contravention of provisions of sections 23 and 36 of the Act. He accordingly directed the petitioners to remove the premises within a period of 30 days, failing which steps were to be taken for removal of the encroachment. 4. He accordingly directed the petitioners to remove the premises within a period of 30 days, failing which steps were to be taken for removal of the encroachment. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, but the same was also dismissed on 20th October, 1991, hence the present writ application before this court. 5. Admittedly, the land in question was included in the master plan published in the year 1962 and approved by the State government, vide order No.4860 dated 20th June, 1967. On 19.9.1974 by Ordinance no.175/74, the Patna Regional development Authority became the sole sanctioning authority for construction of the buildings over lands included under the master plan. The Patna Municipal Corporation thereafter had no jurisdiction to grant sanction, either for construction of building or establishment of factory etc. Admittedly, until introduction of the Act in the year 1981, provisions of the Ordinance were kept operative by successive Ordinances. 6. As per section 17 (2), the master plan of the entire area or part thereof already approved and notified by the State government under the provisions of Patna improvement Trust Act before the commencement of the present Act, shall be deemed to have been prepared by the authority under the relevant provisions of this Act, till such time the master plan is modified or prepared afresh. Sec.23 of the Act enumerates that no person shall on or after publication of a draft plan can change the use of any land for any purpose, other than agriculture without prior permission of the authority in writing. 7. Section 35 also shows that no persons shall erect or commence to erect any building or make any addition or alteration to any building, except with the previous sanction of the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act. Therefore, from a bare reference to the aforesaid, it is manifest that after introduction of such a provision, the Patna municipal Corporation was no longer an authority to accord sanction for construction or alteration of buildings over a land, which was already included in the master plan. 8. Therefore, from a bare reference to the aforesaid, it is manifest that after introduction of such a provision, the Patna municipal Corporation was no longer an authority to accord sanction for construction or alteration of buildings over a land, which was already included in the master plan. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners however contended that provisions of Sec.24 (2) of the Act would indicate that no master plan can survive after a period of five years from the date of publication, unless there is a complete revision and alteration, Admittedly, after the year 1962, no revision or alteration of the master Plan took place. Therefore, it cannot be urged by the respondents that the land in question still continued to be in the area of master plan. Thus the petitioners, had therefore, full option to get the plan sanctioned by the authorities of Patna Municipal corporation. The respondents will have no jurisdiction to take steps for demolition of the building, if it has been constructed as per the plan approved by the Patna municipal Corporation. 9. It was next contended that there are at least 200 Industries already established in the vicinity of the land in question, but no step was ever taken for removal or demolition of such industries. The impugned action of the authorities is, therefore, completely based on a mala-fide complaint of the interested persons, who are inimical to the petitioners. 10. In my view, on these grounds also there appears no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel. No doubt as per the provision of Sub- section (2) of section 24, the authorities are required to revise or alter the master plan on the interval of five years. But a bare reference to sub-section (2) of section 17 would reveal that the plan which was already approved and notified by the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement trust Act, shall be deemed to have been prepared by the authority under the relevant provisions of the Act, till such time the authority modifies. Therefore, simply because there has been no revision or altereation of the plan, the other provisions of the act can not be rendered redundant. 11. Therefore, simply because there has been no revision or altereation of the plan, the other provisions of the act can not be rendered redundant. 11. That apart the provisions of section 24 itself were introduced in the year 1981, therefore, any revision or alteration of the master Plan, if at all necessary, could have taken place after 1986. But the petitioners got their plan sanctioned by the Patna municipal Corporation in the year 1981 itself, therefore, even according to their case, there was no occasion for the authorities to alter or revise the master plan prior to 1986. In that view of the matter even the aforesaid submission of the petitioners is accepted, they would not be entitled to any relief. 12. The next grievance of the petitioners as I have already noticed is that there are at least 200 Industries in the area, but steps are not being taken against them. In my view, even such contention is accepted the a hose industries have been establishet out approval of the authority, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ application, because certain illegal acts of others will not be a ground to make out a case. It is always open to the petitioners or any other person to draw attention of the authority towards such unauthorised construction, if any. 13. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief in the present writ application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.