Judgment 1. Heard Sri B.K. Dubey, Seamed Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N. Sahay, learned Counsel for the Ranchi Regional. Development Authority and Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, the learned Standing Counsel No. 1 for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 7th August, 1989, passed by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred to as the Authority) refusing to refund the amount deposed by him alongwith his application for sanction of the map. The prayer for declaring the by-laws 6, 4 and 2 as ultra vires has also been made. 3. The petitioner made an application on 1-3-1988 for sanction of map and also deposited a sum of Rs. 13,500.00 alongwith it. As the map submitted by him was not sanctioned, he made an application on 18.4.1989 before the Authority for withdrawal of his application and for refund of the said amount deposited alongwith it. 4. Rule 4 (ii) & (iii) of the P.R.D.A. (Misc. Fee Paid on Appl. for per.) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) being relevant in this connection are reproduced below- (ii) The owner may withdraw his application and plans at any time order to the sanction and such withdrawal shall terminate all proceedings with respect to such application, but the fees paid shall, in no case be refunded. (iii) In case an application is rejected, 5 per cent of the fee due shall be retained and the balance shall be refunded to the applicant, under the order of the Vice-Chairman of the Authority. The photostat copy of Rule 4 of the Rules has been filed by the petitioner alongwith a supplementary affidavit. 5 According to Rule 4, if the applicant withdraws his application and plans prior to their sanction, the fees paid by him is not liable to be refunded, but if his application is rejected, he is entitled to its refund after deduction 5 per cent under the order of the Vice-chairman of the Authority. In the instant case the petitioner did apply for withdrawal of his application and plans prior to sanction and, therefore, he is not entitled for refund of the amount already deposited by him. The by-laws, which have been impugned in this case, have also made similar provisions. Rules have not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, challenge to by-laws cannot be sustained. The by-laws, which have been impugned in this case, have also made similar provisions. Rules have not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, challenge to by-laws cannot be sustained. That apart it has not been demonstrated how the by-laws are ultra vires. No-ground so as to justify the interference by this Court has been made out. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Authority does not sanction the plans within four months of the receipt of the application, it shall be deemed to have been approved. In this connection reference is made to Sub-section (5) of Sec. 37 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), according to which if the applicant does not receive the order of approval within four months, it will be open to him to make an application before the Authority intimating that sanction shall be presumed if nothing to the contrary is received or notified in respect of his application within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application/notice. In the instant case the petitioner has not made any such application as contemplated by the above provisions of the Act. Even if it is presumed that he has made such an application and his application and plans stand sanctioned, his case cannot be brought under Rule 4(iii) of the Rules. 7. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.