JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 15-3-2003 issued by the Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority cancelling the sanction of building plan in purported exercise of power under Section 38 of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. 2. It appears that petitioner submitted a plan before the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for construction of building. Several irregularities were pointed out and the petitioner was asked to deposit certain amount and the amount having been deposited, the plan was finally sanctioned on 14-9-2002 in case No. 560/2002. However, the said order do sanction was cancelled by the impugned order dated 15-3-2003. 3. In order to find out whether order of cancellation was passed after giving notice to show cause and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not, record of the aforesaid case was called for and the same has been produced by the Counsel appearing for the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. 4. From perusal of the record of the case No. 560/2002, it appears from the order sheet that one Siyaram Jaiswal filed application for supply of copy of the order-sheet and the copy of the plan. On receipt of said application, the file moved from one authority to another to decide whether copy of the order sheet and the plan could be supplied to a person other than applicant in whose favour sanction was accorded. In the meantime, inspection of the premises was made and it was found that petitioner made part construction and the petitioner has made deviation in the construction of the building. Finally the sanction of the plan was withdrawn cancelled. 5. Learned Counsel for the Ranchi Regional Development Authority very fairly submitted that before passing the impugned order of cancellation/withdrawal of the sanction no notice of show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Finally the sanction of the plan was withdrawn cancelled. 5. Learned Counsel for the Ranchi Regional Development Authority very fairly submitted that before passing the impugned order of cancellation/withdrawal of the sanction no notice of show cause or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Section 38 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act reads as under: "Sanction accorded under misrepresentation--If at any time after the sanction to creation of any building or addition or alteration thereto has been accorded, the Vide-Chairman is satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence, of any material misrepresentation or fraulent statement/contained in the notice given or information furnished Vice-Chairman is satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 37 he may be order in writing and for reasons to be recorded cancel such sanction and erection of any building or addition or alternation thereto shall be deemed to have been done without such sanction. Provided that before making any such order the Vice-Chairman shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected to explain as to why such order should not be made." 6. From bare perusal of proviso to the aforesaid section, it is manifest that there cancelling or withdrawing sanction order, it is mandatory requirement of law to give notice to show cause or opportunity of hearing to the person in whose favour plan was sanctioned for construction of building. Since this mandatory requirement of law has not been followed, the order cancellation of sanction cannot be sustained in law. 7. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe intervenor pressed intervention petition on the ground that the intervenor has interest in this case. In the intervention petition, it is stated that petitioner had entered into an agreement with intervenor and received a very substantial amount by way of advance representing, that they have already got the plan sanctioned from the Ranchi Regional Development Authority and after construction of holding portion of the building shall be transferred in his favour. 8. It is well settled that agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property. It is a right in per sonam which can be enforced only by filing regular suit for specific performance of contract. 8. It is well settled that agreement to sell does not create any interest in the property. It is a right in per sonam which can be enforced only by filing regular suit for specific performance of contract. I am of the definite view that the intervention petition of the intervenor in this writ petition has got no relevance and therefore, cannot be entertained. 9. With the foresaid observation, this writ application is allowed and the order of cancellation withdrawal of sanction is quashed/However, this order will not debar the authority of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority to take steps, if they so desire withdrawal or cancel the sanction in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that if the authority of the respondent do not desire to proceeding against the petitioner afresh within a month from today then they shall handover the sanctioned plan which was earlier sanctioned to the petitioner, Petitioner submitted that he has already applied for certified copy of, the plan, which was sanctioned by the authority. If such application has been filed, respondents shall supply copy of the plan.