Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1211 (JHR)

Krishna Apartment Society v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment : Seeking initiation of immediate action against the illegal and unauthorized construction affecting the vicinity under Mauza Dhanbad, Mauza No. 51, Tikuri No. 203, Holding No. 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 73 Rangatand, Dhanbad, especially against respondent no. 4 and with a further prayer to ensure that the 4th respondent's premises are constructed strictly as per the sanctioned map and all deviations and illegal constructions be demolished and penalty be imposed for the illegal construction, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Krishna Apartment Society (North Block). 2. The brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, one Shankar Mitra respondent no. 4 applied for construction of Mitra Shopping Complex adjacent to Krishna Apartment. The intention of the respondent no. 4 was to encroach upon the open space of the Krishna Apartment and to make illegal construction there on. The respondent no. 4 made G+2 construction in Mitra Shopping Complex in illegal manner and is running a guesthouse there effecting the members of the society. The members of the petitioner society are peacefully living. The petitioner society protested time and again however, no action was taken. Finally, vide application dated 25.01.2014, the petitioner society sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and communication dated 12.06.2014 reveals that sanction for one floor vide Building Construction Case No. 9/9293 has been given. The petitioner society thereafter made representations dated 25.06.2014 and 28.06.2014 however, no action has been taken by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Constrained, the petitioner society had approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the information contained in communication dated 12.06.2014 makes it abundantly clear that sanction for constructing only one floor has been granted to the respondent no. 4 however, the respondent no. 4 has constructed two more floors illegally. Nonetheless, the respondent authorities have not taken any action against the respondent no. 4. The illegal construction of two additional floors in the Mitra Shopping Complex have interfered with the peaceful living of the members of the society. The inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 5. The inaction on the part of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner society has averred that it protested time and again to the illegalities of the respondent no. 4 however, no action was taken. However, in the writ petition there is no mention of any representation to any of the authorities. The materials brought on record disclose that for the first time on 23.05.2014, the petitioner society sought information through the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter, it filed another application on 04.06.2014 and thereafter, it allegedly made representation on 25.06.2014 and 28.06.2014. Apparently, the petitioner society has made a false statement in the writ petition. It is not disclosed in the writ petition when the alleged illegal construction of 2nd and 3rd floor in the Mitra Shopping Complex started and was completed and why the petitioner did not raise any objection at initial stage, though the alleged illegal construction must have taken more than 2 years' time. The information disclosed in communication dated 12.06.2014 reveals that the permission for construction as commercial building has been granted for 1st floor only and in that context, it is mentioned in communication dated 12.06.2014 that the constructions of 2nd and 3rd floor are illegal. The writ petition is completely lacking in necessary details. The petitioner has failed to aver a legal right in it for moving this Court. It appears that the sole basis for moving this Court is, the information revealed through RTI. The writ petition has not been filed with bonafide intention. Barely, one and half months after receipt of the RTI information dated 12.06.2014, the petitioner rushed to this Court. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has abused the process of law and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/ imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited at JHALSA within a period of four weeks from today. 7. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi.