Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 143 (JHR)

Rohtas Munda v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation

2018-01-17

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Letter No. 2694 dated 3.12.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has directed the petitioner to submit the sanctioned building map and also to install the decentralized composition machine, failing which the petitioner's license for running the marriage hall known as "Celebration Marriage Hall" will be suspended/cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decentralized composition machine has already been installed in the premises in question recently in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. 2. In view of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, no order is being passed regarding installation of the decentralized composition machine in the premises in question. However, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation may inspect the said premises of marriage hall in order to verify installation of the decentralized composition machine, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide the impugned Letter No. 2694 dated 3.12.2017, the petitioner has been directed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation to submit the sanctioned building plan and in absence of the same, his license for running a marriage hall will be suspended. It is further submitted that as per the Jharkhand Urban Area, Dharamshala, Marriage Hall, Banquet Hall Lodge and Hostel Construction and License Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2013'), there are specific provisions for grant of license for construction of marriage hall and other establishments and at the time of grant of the said license, its building plan is required to be submitted by one or the other persons intending to obtain the said license. The license for running a banquet hall has been granted to the petitioner only after approval of its building plan as per the Rules, 2013 and as such there is no further requirement under the law to get a separate building plan sanctioned under the provisions of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 read with the building bye-laws framed thereunder. Thus, after issuance of the said license to the petitioner by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it would be presumed that the building plan submitted by the petitioner at the time of making application for issuance of the said license, has already been sanctioned. 4. Mr. Thus, after issuance of the said license to the petitioner by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it would be presumed that the building plan submitted by the petitioner at the time of making application for issuance of the said license, has already been sanctioned. 4. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, while relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that Rule 4 of the Rules, 2013 provides that under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and the bye-laws framed thereunder, prior permission and sanction of building plan should be obtained before construction of Dharamsala, marriage hall, banquet hall, lodge and hostel. Since the building plan of the premises in question has not been sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation as yet, the petitioner is required to get its building plan approved/sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 5. Be that as it may, it appears that the building plan of the marriage hall premises in question submitted by the petitioner before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation at the time of making application for issuance of the said license, has not yet been sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. A banquet hall is constructed for the use of the public at large and there cannot be any compromise with the safety aspects of the same. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa reported in (2004) 8 SCC 733 , has observed as under: "22. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. It can be stated in a way that power to plan development of city and to regulate the building activity therein flows from the police power of the State. The exercise of such governmental power is justified on account of it being reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and ecological considerations; though an unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of the property may not be justified. 23. The municipal laws regulating the building construction activity may provide for regulations as to floor area, the number of floors, the extent of height rise and the nature of use to which a built-up property may be subjected in any particular area. The individuals as property owners have to pay some price for securing peace, good order, dignity, protection and comfort and safety of the community. Not only filth, stench and unhealthy places have to be eliminated, but the layout helps in achieving family values, youth values, seclusion and clean air to make the locality a better place to live. Building regulations also help in reduction or elimination of fire hazards, the avoidance of traffic dangers and the lessening of prevention of traffic congestion in the streets and roads. Zoning and building regulations are also legitimised from the point of view of the control of community development, the prevention of overcrowding of land, the furnishing of recreational facilities like parks and playgrounds and the availability of adequate water, sewerage and other governmental or utility services." 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 6 SCC 398 , has held as under: "46. It is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety. The children cannot be compelled to receive education from an unsound and unsafe building. 47. It is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety. The children cannot be compelled to receive education from an unsound and unsafe building. 47. In view of what happened in Lord Krishna Middle School in District-Kumbakonam where 93 children were burnt alive and several similar incidences had happened in the past, therefore, it has become imperative to direct that safety measures as prescribed by the National Building Code of India, 2005 be implemented by all Government and private schools functioning in our country. We direct that: (i) Before granting recognition or affiliation, the State Governments and Union Territories concerned are directed to ensure that the buildings are safe and secure from every angle and they are constructed according to the safety norms incorporated in the National Building Code of India. (ii) All existing Government and private schools shall install fire extinguishing equipments within a period of six months. (iii) The school buildings be kept free from inflammable and toxic material. If storage is inevitable, they should be stored safely. (iv) Evaluation of structural aspect of the school may be carried out periodically. We direct that the engineers and officials concerned must strictly follow the National Building Code. The safety certificate be issued only after proper inspection. Dereliction in duty must attract immediate disciplinary action against the officials concerned. (v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use the fire extinguishing equipments." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court subsequently considered the judgment rendered in the case of Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India (supra) in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 in the following terms: "73. In Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India a public interest litigation was filed, when 93 children were burnt alive in a fire at a private school in Tamil Nadu. This happened because the school did not have the minimum safety standard measures. The Court, in order to protect future tragedies in all such schools, gave directions that it is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety, hence the Government should implement the National Building Code and comply with the said orders in constructions of schools for children." 9. The Court, in order to protect future tragedies in all such schools, gave directions that it is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety, hence the Government should implement the National Building Code and comply with the said orders in constructions of schools for children." 9. Thus, without going into the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it seems desirable that the decision on the building plan of the concerned marriage hall premises is taken by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation without any further delay. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit the updated building plan of the marriage hall before the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, within a period of three weeks. On receipt of the said building plan, the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation shall take appropriate decision with regard to sanction of the said building plan submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three weeks thereafter. 10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 11. In view of the aforesaid order, the operation of the impugned letter No. 2694 dated 3.12.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is kept in abeyance. I.A. No. 9884/2017 stands disposed of accordingly.