Judgment Barin Ghosh and Ajay Kr.Tripathi JJ. 1. On 26th of July, 1982 Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter called "P.R.D.A.") granted sanction to a pian for construction of Surya Apartment. In February, 1984 the Vice-Chairman, P.R.D.A. directed stop construction of Surya Apartment. On 31st July, 1984 it transpired that there is an allegation that Surya Apartment is being constructed on the land which does not belong to the person who applied for sanction for construction of that Apartment. The matter was enquired upon and it transpired that about 1848 sq. ft. of land belonging to Patna Municipal Corporation has been allegedly encroached upon for constructing Surya Apartment. No one tried at any stage to look into the title of the person who was accorded permission to construct or to the title of Patna Municipal Corporation pertaining to that 1848 sq. ft. of the land. The matter was then brought to the notice of the Government who on 29th September, 1984 resolved the matter by directing payment of compensation at market rate to Patna Municipal Corporation. At that stage it was also decided by the Government that if any minor deviation has been made condonation fee payable to P.R.D.A. be paid. This decision was also taken by the Government on 29th September, 1984. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, P.R.D.A. prepared a report and submit the same to the Government. In that report it was held out that no construction can be made on the land belonging to Patna Municipal Corporation and that the other set backs as made are within the permissible limit of 5% except the front set back. This report is dated 5th December, 1984. In the report it was suggested that condonation fee of Rs. 67,100/- be recovered from the owners of Surya Apartment by P.R.D.A. and the owners of Surya Apartment be permitted to construct the Apartment on the remaining part of the land, but not the set back as proposed to be made in the front. The report suggested that by that time fifth floor of Surya Apartment had been constructed. Subsequent thereto on 10th January, 1985 the Standing Committee of Patna Municipal Corporation assessed a sum of Rs. 2,08,625/- as compensation pertaining to the said 1848 sq. ft. of land on which Surya Apartment was being constructed. The report suggested that by that time fifth floor of Surya Apartment had been constructed. Subsequent thereto on 10th January, 1985 the Standing Committee of Patna Municipal Corporation assessed a sum of Rs. 2,08,625/- as compensation pertaining to the said 1848 sq. ft. of land on which Surya Apartment was being constructed. These two decisions one of P.R.D.A. contained in the said report and other emanating from the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation were brought to the notice of the Government; whereupon the Government by an order dated 15th January, 1935 approved the claim of Patna Municipal Corporation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,625/- and also the condonation fee, as was claimed by P.R.D.A., to the tune of Rs. 67,100/-, but interfered with the decision of the Chief Engineer not to allow the front set back. The owner of Surya Apartment thereafter on 22nd January, 1985 paid Rs. 67,100/- to P.R.D.A. as condonation fee and thereafter on 16th October, 1985 paid Rs. 2,08,625/- to Patna Municipal Corporation and thereupon proceeded to make further construction in terms of the order of the Government dated 15th January, 1985. Subsequent thereto on 28th January, 1986 P.R.D.A. by a letter held out to the owner of the Surya Apartment that the Government has cancelled the decision dated 29th September, 1984 followed by the decision dated 15th January, 1985 and accordingly the owner of Surya Apartment shall not handover the flats to the allottees. This letter was followed by yet another letter dated 2nd July, 1986 whereby and whereunder P.R.D.A. proposed to refund Rs. 67,100/- paid by the owner of Surya Apartment as condonation fee, principally on the ground that the said amount was deposited by the owner of Surya Apartment on their own volition and not on the direction of P.R.D.A. 2. The owners of Surya Apartment then filed the writ petition challenging the decisions as conveyed by P.R.D.A. in its letters dated 28th June, 1986 and 2nd July, 1986. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of suppression. The writ court fell that the writ petitioner was seeking to deceive the court by keeping secret material facts known to the writ petitioner. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of suppression. The writ court fell that the writ petitioner was seeking to deceive the court by keeping secret material facts known to the writ petitioner. 3. P.R.D.A. did not bring on record of the writ court the purported decision of the Government by which the Government said to have cancelled its earlier decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th of January,. 1985, which were the basis of the decisions of. P.R.D.A. communicated by the letter dated 28th June, 1986 followed by the letter dated 2nd July, 1986. 4. The Government was present before the writ court, it did not urge that the Government has cancelled its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and dated 15th January, 1985. The Government is present before us. Even before us the Government did not urge that the Government has decided to cancel its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985. 5. Therefore the logical conclusion would be that P.R.D.A. after having accepted the condonation fee of Rs.67,100/- on the basis of the decision of the Government dated 15th January, 1985 and thereby cleared all the hurdles for construction of Surya Apartment wanted to turn around on the purported ground that the Government has backed out from its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985, when, in fact, the Government did not. 6. There is no dispute that Section 65 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act authorises the State Government to set aside any order of any officer of the Authority if in the opinion of the State Government the order is in excess of power conferred by law. The Chief Engineer, P.R.D.A. held out in writing that upon payment of condonation fee of Rs. 67,100/- and upon imposing condition pertaining to the front set back, as recorded in his report dated 5th December, 1986, the owner of the Surya Apartment may be permitted to complete the construction of Surya Apartment on the basis of the original sanctioned plan. The Government by its decision dated 15th January, 1985 retained the said decision, but set aside a part thereof pertaining to the front set back. P.R.D.A. accepted the said decision of the Government by accepting remittance of Rs. The Government by its decision dated 15th January, 1985 retained the said decision, but set aside a part thereof pertaining to the front set back. P.R.D.A. accepted the said decision of the Government by accepting remittance of Rs. 67,100/- by the owner of Surya Apartment on 22nd January, 1985 and thereupon encashed the cheque by which such remittance has sent to P.R.D.A. Subsequent thereto it was not permissible for P.R.D.A. to cancel the permission, which was originally accorded, subject to the modification effected by the Government by its order dated 15th January, 1985. It could do so provided the permission that was accorded was based on any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement in terms of the power contained in clause 11 of the Bihar Building Bye-laws, but it was never the case of P.R.D.A. that any such misrepresentation or fraudulent statement had been furnished by the owner of Surya Apartment. 7. The case as was made out by P.R.D.A. was simply that the Government has cancelled its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985. As aforesaid that was a factual misrepresentation made by P.R.D.A. There was, therefore, no ground for writing the letter dated 28th June, 1986 impugned in the writ petition. By the said letter the owner of Surya Apartment was directed not to handover the fiats to the allottees on the purported ground that the State Government has cancelled its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985. In the absence of the Government cancelling its decisions dated 29th September, 1984 and 15th January, 1985 there was no justification for asking the owner of Surya Apartment not to handover the flats to the allottees. 8. After having had acted upon the decision of the Government dated 15th January, 1985, whereby part of the decision of the Chief Engineer of P.R.D.A. as contained in his report dated 5th December, 1984 was approved, and after accepting condonation fee of Rs. 67,100/- on 22nd January, 1985 on the basis of such decisions, it was unjust on the part of P.R.D.A. to return the sum of Rs.67,100/- under cover of its letter dated 2nd July, 1986 on the pretext that no decision has been taken by RR.D.A. asking the owner of Surya Apartment to deposit Rs.67,100/-. 67,100/- on 22nd January, 1985 on the basis of such decisions, it was unjust on the part of P.R.D.A. to return the sum of Rs.67,100/- under cover of its letter dated 2nd July, 1986 on the pretext that no decision has been taken by RR.D.A. asking the owner of Surya Apartment to deposit Rs.67,100/-. The decision of any officer of P.R.D.A. as interfered by the State Government is a decision binding equally upon RR.D.A. and the person for or against whom such decision has been taken. 9. The writ court had been swayed for the fact that at the initial stage of construction and also at subsequent stages various orders were issued by P.R.D.A., but those were not brought on record by the writ petitioner. 10. Having regard to the nature of the controversy as resolved ultimately by the final order of the Government dated 15th January, 1985, those orders lost their relevance. In any event it cannot be said that by reason of not bringing those orders on record, the writ petitioner tried to deceive the writ court. 11. For the reasons indicated above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order under appeal. The writ petition too is allowed and the letter dated 28th June, 1986 being annexure-5 to the writ petition and the letter dated 2nd July, 1986 being annexure-6 to the writ petition, both written by P.R.D.A. to the owner of Surya Apartment are quashed. 12. Let it be recorded that in course of submission it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that condonation fee as was returned by a draft under cover of the letter dated 2nd July, 86 has been returned by the owner of Surya Apartment to P.R.D.A. lt snall be open to P.R.D.A. to encash the draft, if not already encashed.