JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for A.C.B. 2. Instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by Special Judge, A.C.B., Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.90 of 2018 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No.25 of 2009 by which the application of petitioner to discharge from the case was rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of written report, vigilance case was filed with the allegation that in respect of building plan passed by Ranchi Regional Development Authority some irregularities were committed and building plan was passed without following Building Rules and, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged against 10 accused persons with some other unknown persons including this petitioner. Further allegation was that map was passed without taking into consideration that it exceeded the height of the building which was approved by R.R.D.A. On these allegations, Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 under Sections 420, 406, 408, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 13.04.2017 against accused persons including this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that without proper appreciation of the material collected against this petitioner, the impugned order dated 05.03.2018 was passed. He also submitted that on the same very date i.e. on 05.03.2018, the court below has also dismissed the discharge application of co-accused Bhawesh Butala, who is also one of the co-accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No.25 of 2009. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Bhawesh Butala approached this Court in Cr. Revision No.329 of 2018 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2018 quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded back the case to the trial court for passing fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties and on proper appreciation of the material. Learned counsel submitted that the court below while considering the application for discharge did not consider that there are provisions in various Sections of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 which deal such type of irregularity in Sections 35, 36 & 52. Learned counsel submitted that the court below while considering the application for discharge did not consider that there are provisions in various Sections of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 which deal such type of irregularity in Sections 35, 36 & 52. Section 35 read with Bye Law 5.3(v) enumerate that plan for sanction for construction cannot be refused on the ground of non-submission of document of mutation. Section 52 provides imposition of penalties if the contravention is made in the approved or sanctioned plan. Without consideration of these provisions, the petitioner has been made accused to face the criminal prosecution otherwise his act could have been termed as improper or irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that exactly in the same situation, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2018 and remanded the matter for passing fresh order and the case of this petitioner is similar to that of co-accused Bhawesh Butala. 4. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that initially on the direction of Vigilance Commissioner, the case was lodged and investigation was taken up. The petitioner has not only deviated from the approved plan but also obtained sanction of building plan without following the provisions of law. A Title Suit No.176 of 2006 was pending between the land owner and the shop keepers who were carrying business on the said premises even then the plan was approved. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has specifically mentioned in his application that the same Title Suit has already been disposed of and there is no injunction passed against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the A.C.B. submitted that there was criminal conspiracy between the officers of R.R.D.A. with co-accused persons including this petitioner and the building plan was passed by the Authority but the builder/petitioner deviated from the sanction plan and has also raised the height of the building. Learned counsel submitted that Airports Authority of India vide its letter dated 01.01.2009 has issued no objection certificate but no such document was brought on record from the side of petitioner. 5. On consideration of the submission advanced on behalf of both side and on perusal of the papers attached with this application as well as going through the order passed in Cr. 5. On consideration of the submission advanced on behalf of both side and on perusal of the papers attached with this application as well as going through the order passed in Cr. Revision No.329 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018, it appears that in the matter relating to sanction of building plan, the allegation was that some irregularities were committed while passing this building plan. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered and found that impugned order appears to be thoroughly a non-reasoned order and therefore, quashed and set aside the impugned order with direction to the Trial Court to pass a fresh order. In the same and similar situation the impugned order was passed relating to this petitioner on consideration of material, therefore, the impugned order dated 05.03.2018 passed by Special Judge, A.C.B., Ranchi in Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 corresponding to Special Case No.25 of 2009 is also hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties and on appreciation of materials collected during course of investigation. 6. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 7. I.A. No.1941 of 2019 also stands closed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.