Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1512 (JHR)

RAJESH KUMAR BAJPAYEE v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2015-12-07

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Seeking a direction upon the respondents to take action under the Jharkhand Municipal Act for demolishing the illegal structure constructed on Holding No.484A, Kashidih, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Alleging connivance of the officers of the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 has illegally constructed a five storied building without a basement. It is submitted that Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee has not sanctioned plan for construction of Mansurya Hotel however, they have not taken action for demolishing the said structure. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 is a private dispute and the present writ petition is an outcome of the grudge of the petitioner against his own brother respondent no.5. 4. A perusal of the writ petition discloses that in paragraph no.6, the petitioner has stated that a five storied building without a basement has been constructed whereas, in paragraph no.8 he has asserted that the basement of Mansurya Hotel is used for commercial purposes. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent no.5 has encroached a Gali near Girls High School and constructed a three storied building. It is also alleged that the respondent no.5 has constructed two buildings and he is running a Bar with the help of his father-in-law. The petitioner has alleged in his representation to the Deputy Commissioner that the respondent no.5 and his father are accused for an offence under Section 307 IPC. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has made complaint against his brother due to some dispute between them. The entire writ petition is directed against the alleged illegality committed by the respondent no.5. In the writ petition, except alleging, the petitioner has not produced any evidence which would prima-facie disclose that the respondent no.5 is carrying commercial activities in the basement. Except producing the alleged representation dated 21.11.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, the petitioner has not averred the foundational facts, which would confer a legal right in him to seek mandamus against the respondents. In the garb of the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent nos.2 and 4, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Except producing the alleged representation dated 21.11.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, the petitioner has not averred the foundational facts, which would confer a legal right in him to seek mandamus against the respondents. In the garb of the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent nos.2 and 4, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has misused the process of law to satisfy his grudge against the respondent no.5. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, within six weeks. A copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.