ORDER : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the following orders:- a. Order dated 31.7.2007, as contained in Annexure-6, to the writ petition passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi, dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006 filed by the petitioner. b. Order dated 30.12.2005 passed in Unauthorized Construction Case No. LS/1/2005 by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi, as contained in Annexure-4, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the illegal construction or else to suffer demolition at the hands of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:- (a) Inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner on 21.4.2005 by three Junior Engineers wherein it was reported that the petitioner was getting construction done on G+2 floors and when the petitioner was asked to produce sanctioned map he could not produce the same. In view of the report, rough sketch was also prepared which is at page 24 of the writ petition. (b) By Annexure-2 dated 26.4.2005 another report was prepared on the basis of the inspection report, dated 21.4.2005 by only one of the Junior Engineers inspecting the site mentioning that shuttering work was going on and the petitioner was directed to stop the work of illegal construction. (c) Thereafter notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. LS/01/05-112 dated 26.4.2005 alleging violation of Sections 35 and 36 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 mentioning therein that the petitioner may produce the copy of the sanctioned map or may apply for further sanction and appear on 4.5.2005 before the said authority, failing which appropriate action for demolition under Section 54 of the said Act will be taken and penalty under Section 52 will be imposed. (d) Thereafter U.C. Case No. LS/1/2005 was proceeded against the petitioner and ultimately the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 was passed by the Respondent No. 1 authority asking the petitioner to remove illegal construction work within fifteen days, failing which the same will be demolished and the expenses incurred for demolition will be realized from the petitioner. (e) Against this order, the petitioner filed Misc. (e) Against this order, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. (f) This appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 31.7.2007. 3. By assailing the impugned order, the petitioner submits that the specific case of the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was that construction over the property was existing since 7.3.1979 and therefore, there was no requirement of the sanctioned plan, as the property was existing much prior to coming into force of the said Act itself. The petitioner tried to substantiate this plea by referring the sale deed which admittedly has not been filed by writ petitioner before this court. He submits that only some renovation and repair work was going on internally and no construction work was being done. The second limb of the argument is that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2005, another show cause notice was required to be issued by the respondent-authority in terms of proviso to Section 54(1) of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 398 (Patna) and submitted that there was no requirement to leave the set back area as the house of the petitioner was constructed prior to 1987. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits as under:- (i) Contention of the petitioner is that the structure was existing much prior to coming into force of the said Act itself, was to be established by the petitioner which the petitioner failed to do. (ii) Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission it is submitted that the construction which was going on, was not for renovation and repair work but the construction was being done by the petitioner on the set back area and the inspection reports are clear on the point. (iii) By referring to the order sheet of the U.C. Case No. LS/1/2005 at Annexure-4 to the writ application, counsel for the respondents submits that on repeated occasion the petitioner has represented before the respondent no. (iii) By referring to the order sheet of the U.C. Case No. LS/1/2005 at Annexure-4 to the writ application, counsel for the respondents submits that on repeated occasion the petitioner has represented before the respondent no. 2 and submitted that he would be removing the illegal construction over the set back area including on 28.8.2005 wherein it has been recorded that he had submitted that the petitioner would remove construction on the set back area within a period of six months. (iv) From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.12.2005 it appears that in spite of the repeated undertaking given by the writ petitioner before the Vice-Chairman, R.R.D.A, the petitioner having not removed the illegal construction, Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. had no option but to order for demolition directing the petitioner to demolish the illegal construction within a period of fifteen days, failing which same will be demolished by the respondents. (v) Counsel for the respondents further submits that from perusal of the memo of appeal filed before the appellate authority it appears that it was never the case of the petitioner that such assurance regarding removal of illegal construction at the set back area was not given by the petitioner before the Vice-Chairman, R.R.D.A. (respondent no. 1). 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed on account of the following facts and reasons:- (a) From perusal of the order sheet of the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioner had himself undertaken to remove the illegal construction over the set back area within the period of six months various dates including on 28.8.2005 but in spite of such undertaking the petitioner did not remove the illegal construction. Accordingly, the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. had no option but to order for demolition vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005 directing the petitioner to demolish the illegal construction within a period of fifteen days, failing which same will be demolished by the respondents. Accordingly, the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. had no option but to order for demolition vide impugned order dated 30.12.2005 directing the petitioner to demolish the illegal construction within a period of fifteen days, failing which same will be demolished by the respondents. (b) So far as the point regarding issuance of further show cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 is concerned, I find that notice, as contained in Annexure-3 itself was sufficient and no further show cause was required, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had given undertaking from time to time that he would remove illegal construction and but in spite of the same he did not remove the illegal construction. Therefore, Vice-Chairman has rightly passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2005. (c) From perusal of the memo of the appeal it appears that undertaking given by the petitioner before the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. regarding removing of illegal construction was never disputed in the memo of appeal. (d) So far as the case of the petitioner regarding building having been made prior to the promulgation of the Act is concerned, the same is fit to be rejected on two grounds. Firstly the petitioner had tried to make this submission by referring to the sale deed which is admittedly not filed by the writ petitioner, and, secondly, the records of the case shows that construction was being made in this set back area which amounted to further construction and it was not work of renovation as claimed by the petitioner for which sanction was certainly required. (e) So far as the reliance by the petitioner in judgment reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 398 is concerned it does not help the petitioner in any manner. From the perusal of the said judgment it appears that in the said case construction in the set back area was already existing since prior to 1987 when the requirement of set back area was said to have been introduced and the petitioner of the said case had undertaken repair work on the existing building. In the instant case further construction was being undertaken by the petitioner in the set back area and this court is of the view that further construction in an old building can be taken up only as per the existing building bye-laws. In the instant case further construction was being undertaken by the petitioner in the set back area and this court is of the view that further construction in an old building can be taken up only as per the existing building bye-laws. There is no such exception under the provisions of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be given liberty to apply for sanction in accordance with law. 8. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position that the petitioner can always apply for sanction as per law. This court does not consider it necessary, to give any observation in this regard. However, if laws so permits, the petitioner may apply for sanction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.