ORDER : The present case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing letter no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), Ranchi (respondent no.5) whereby the petitioner no.1 has been directed to demolish 20 ft. height of Hariom Nand Tower situated near H.P. Petrol Pump, Kathal More, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as “the said building”) within 10 days and to inform the aforesaid authority about the same. 3. During pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner no.1 has been served with a notice issued vide letter no. 94 dated 25.09.2020 by the Law Officer, RRDA, Ranchi in U.C. Case No. 137 of 2020 alleging therein that it has violated the provisions of Section 37 and 38 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 (in short, “the Act, 2001”) with a direction to appear in the court of Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi on 08.10.2020 to place its case. The said notice has also been challenged by the petitioner no. 1 by filing Interlocutory Application No. 5312 of 2020. 4. By filing another interlocutory application being I.A No. 5941 of 2020, the petitioners have also sought to amend the writ petition by adding prayer to quash the letter as contained in memo no.3089-93 dated 28.09.2020 issued by the Manager, Air Traffic Management (ATM), Airports Authority of India (AAI) addressed to the respondent no. 5, a copy of which has been forwarded to the petitioner no.1 by the aforesaid respondent vide memo no.1381 dated 13.10.2020 directing him to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for the said building from the AAI by applying through the website of AAI and thereafter to produce the said NOC in the office of AAI with a further direction to stop all the construction works till issuance of NOC. 5. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no. 1 entered into an agreement with the land owner for development and construction of residential-cum-commercial units over plot no. 1125 (part) and 1126 (part) situated in Mouza - Gutwa, P.S No. 138, Kathal More, Ranchi and accordingly the building plan was submitted before the respondent no. 5 for its sanction for which B.C Case No. 65 of 2016 was registered. 1 entered into an agreement with the land owner for development and construction of residential-cum-commercial units over plot no. 1125 (part) and 1126 (part) situated in Mouza - Gutwa, P.S No. 138, Kathal More, Ranchi and accordingly the building plan was submitted before the respondent no. 5 for its sanction for which B.C Case No. 65 of 2016 was registered. Having taken into consideration that the height of the building was proposed as 29.80 meters, a recommendation for sanctioning the building plan was made on 28.09.2016 by the Assistant Engineer, RRDA, Ranchi mentioning therein that no NOC was required to be taken from the Airports Authority of India. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the building plan of the petitioner was sanctioned on 21.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 constructed the said building strictly adhering to the sanctioned plan and sold several units of the same to different purchasers. One of the units of the top floor i.e. unit no. 811 situated at 8th floor was booked by the petitioner no.2 and he paid 75% of the consideration amount. Suddenly, the petitioner no. 1 received letter no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020 issued by the respondent no. 5 in pursuance of letter of the respondent no. 3 dated 21.09.2020 by which the petitioner no. 1 was directed to demolish the construction to the extent of 20 ft. height of the said building within 10 days and to inform the same to the concerned authority. 6. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that on receipt of letter of the respondent no. 3 dated 21.09.2020 by the respondent no.5, an inspection was carried out by a constituted committee of RRDA which submitted report dated 23.09.2020 stating therein that the height of the building was sanctioned for 28.80 meters taking into consideration the provisions of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws, 2016 (in short “ the Bye-Laws, 2016”) and the actual height of the building was found to be 27.65 meters. It is further submitted that in the vicinity of the said building, several other buildings are standing having greater height than that of the said building of the petitioner no. 1. The inspection report was also communicated to the respondent no. 3 by the RRDA, Ranchi vide letter dated 23.09.2020 stating therein that since the height of the building of petitioner no. 1. The inspection report was also communicated to the respondent no. 3 by the RRDA, Ranchi vide letter dated 23.09.2020 stating therein that since the height of the building of petitioner no. 1 was less than 30 meters, no NOC from the Airports Authority of India was required. In view of Clause 3.55 of the Bye-Laws, 2016, NOC is required to be taken from the Airports Authority of India for sanction of construction plan of any building whose height is more than 30 meters. Despite the admitted position that the building of the petitioners has been constructed within the parameters of law and no NOC was required from the Airports Authority of India before granting sanction to the building plan, the petitioner no.1 has been directed to demolish construction to the extent of 20 ft. of his building vide impugned letter no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020 in an arbitrary manner, that too, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the distance of the runway from the concerned building is more than 7000 meters and as per clause 40.4 of the Byelaws, 2016, the maximum permissible height for sanction of the building plan is more than 30 meters if the distance of any building is more than 1560 meters from the last point of runway of the airport. The petitioner no.1 after receiving the letter dated 25.09.2020, represented the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 28.09.2020 requesting inter alia to recall the said letter as his building was constructed within the parameters of the sanctioned plan without any deviation and strictly in accordance with “the Bye- Laws, 2016”after obtaining due sanction from the competent authority. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no.1 received letter no. 1326 dated 01.10.2020 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby his representation dated 28.09.2020 was rejected observing that earlier order dated 25.09.2020 (impugned order) would be effective and applicable, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to I.A. No. 5312 of 2020. It is further submitted that as per Bye-Laws 2016, the height of support of roof water tank should have been 3.00 meters and the actual height of same was found to be 3.00 meters i.e within the prescribed limit as per the Byelaws. It is further submitted that as per Bye-Laws 2016, the height of support of roof water tank should have been 3.00 meters and the actual height of same was found to be 3.00 meters i.e within the prescribed limit as per the Byelaws. Height of roof water tank was exempted, but as per the said inspection report, the height of roof water tank was found to be 1.90 meters. So far as height of lightening arrestor is concerned, as per specification, it was also exempted but the existing height of lighting arrestor was found to be 1.10 meters. Height of stair cover should have been 3.00 meters and actual height of that part was found to be 2.55 meters i.e., within the prescribed limit of building bye-laws. It is further submitted that U.C. Case No. 137 of 2020 has been instituted only after receiving a copy of the present writ petition and a notice issued in the said case is back dated. Sections 37 and 38 of the Act, 2001 are not applicable in the present case as the building plan has already been sanctioned and inspection team of the respondent-RRDA, Ranchi has already confirmed that the height of the building is less than 28.80 meters. The casting work of 8th floor (top floor) of the said building was completed on 14.01.2019 and till date, there has been no objection raised either by RRDA, or AAI. The respondent-RRDA has no jurisdiction to demolish any structure after sanction of its map. Section 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (in short, “the Act, 1934”) confers power to the Central Government to prohibit or regulate construction of building, planting of trees etc. Section 9B of the Act, 1934 deals with the payment of compensation to be made to a person who has sustained loss or damage in consequence of any direction contained in notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 9A of the Act, 1934. The respondent-AAI however intends to avoid taking recourse of Section 9B of the Act, 1934 and as such it has directed the respondent-RRDA, Ranchi to take action against the petitioners. The respondent-AAI however intends to avoid taking recourse of Section 9B of the Act, 1934 and as such it has directed the respondent-RRDA, Ranchi to take action against the petitioners. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015 (in short “the Rules, 2015”) provides for developing appropriate mechanism with necessary trained manpower and equipment so as to verify the height of the structures, site elevations and site location or co-ordinates of points on the surface of the earth in World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), however, no such mechanism has been evolved by the authorities for which the petitioners cannot put to adversities. It is further submitted that the respondent- AAI also intends to participate in the proceeding before the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi, however Section 35, 36 and 37 of the Act, 2001 nowhere provides for taking aid of or to implead AAI as party in a proceeding before the Vice Chairman, RRDA. The Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi ought not to have initiated the proceeding as he had no jurisdiction to initiate the same for the reason that the committee constituted by RRDA, Ranchi comprising Junior Engineer has not recommended for demolition of unauthorized construction, on the contrary, the construction has been made as per the sanctioned plan. In view of the Colour Coded Zoning Map (CCZM), any building beyond the height of 695 meters above mean sea level (AMSL), requires NOC from AAI and the present road elevation around the land in question has been found to be 718.6 meters AMSL by the AAI and as such even a single storied building in Ranchi city is required to be constructed after obtaining NOC from AAI as according to AAI, the present road elevation is more than the permissible height. The CCZM has been published on 15.03.2017 whereas the map of the petitioner was sanctioned by RRDA, Ranchi on 18.10.2016 i.e. before the date of publication of the CCZM. The CCZM has been published on 15.03.2017 whereas the map of the petitioner was sanctioned by RRDA, Ranchi on 18.10.2016 i.e. before the date of publication of the CCZM. The petitioner no.1 is the victim of latches on the part of both RRDA and AAI as after enforcement of the Rules, 2015 vide Notification No. G.S.R. 751 (E) dated 30.09.2015, AAI could have directed the RRDA to amend the bye-laws by prohibiting it to sanction any map of those buildings which were proposed to be constructed within 20 km radius of nearest runway of the airport without taking NOC from AAI. It is also submitted that the building in question has already been completed and as such asking for NOC at this stage by the AAI is not justified in the eyes of law. The respondent-AAI has the responsibility under Rules, 2015 to evolve a mechanism with local development authority for verification of heights near airport which has admittedly not been done. 7. Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-RRDA, submits that the Airports Authority of India vide letter dated 17.09.2020 informed the RRDA that the survey team of the AAI had marked the building of the petitioner as an obstacle in operation of flights from Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi and also sought information regarding NOC for height clearance which was replied by the RRDA vide letter no. 1277 dated 23.09.2020 stating inter alia that as per Clause 3.55 of the Byelaws 2016, RRDA is required to take NOC from the AAI when the height of the building is more than 30 meters, however in the case of the petitioner, the proposed height of the building was 29.8 meters for which no NOC was required. The AAI vide letter dated 21.09.2020 again issued letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi requesting inter alia to take steps for decreasing the height of the said building by demolishing 20 ft. of the same. In view of repeated complaints of the AAI, U.C. Case No.137 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner no.1 and others on 25.09.2020 under the Act, 2001 and notices were issued to under Section 39(1) and 54 of the Act, 2001. It is further submitted that in view of letter dated 18/21.09.2020 issued by the Director AAI, the respondent no. 5 vide letter no.1293 dated 25.09.2020 directed the petitioner no. It is further submitted that in view of letter dated 18/21.09.2020 issued by the Director AAI, the respondent no. 5 vide letter no.1293 dated 25.09.2020 directed the petitioner no. 1 to demolish structure to the extent of 20 ft. height of the building within 10 days however the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi vide order dated 08.10.2020 passed in U.C. Case No. 137 of 2020, stayed letter no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020 with a view to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.1. It is also submitted that the building plan of the petitioner no. 1 was sanctioned with the condition mentioned at clause 20 of letter no. Yojna/(65/2016)/950 dated 21.03.2017 that no increase in the building would be admissible, moreover at clause 44, it was mentioned that after sanction of the building plan and before completing the construction of the building, if any new condition/rule was imposed by the Authority, it would be mandatory for the applicant to follow the same during construction of the building. The matter relating to unauthorized construction i.e., height of building being more than permissible sanctioned height is quite serious in nature as it may result in any mishappeneing as apprehended by the AAI and as such UC case no. 137 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioner no. 1 and others. 8. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, submits that an instruction from the Directorate of Air Space Management Corporate Headquarters, AAI was issued on 31.08.2020 to assess the location and check whether the building of the petitioner no. 1 had the NOC and what was its approved height. It was further instructed that the actual highest point of the building should also be ascertained through survey as during review of Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) procedure regarding final approach of Runway (RWY) 13 of Ranchi Airport, based on latest survey data of September 2019, it was observed that the building in question was raising the Obstacle Clearance Altitude (OCA) to the extent of 30 feet. A committee of the officers of the Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi inspected the building site on 02.09.2020 to access the location and its actual height, on which it was found by the committee that no NOC was obtained from AAI as the said site was under the jurisdiction of RRDA, Ranchi in the year 2016 and thus recommended to ascertain the actual highest point of the building by hiring a local surveyor. Thereafter a surveyor agency namely M/s Surveying and Leveling Consultants, Ranchi surveyed the site on 09.09.2020 and submitted its survey report vide letter no. S&I/R-10/20 dated 14.09.2020. The respondent no. 5 intimated the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 23.09.2020 that the permission for construction of the building upto the height of 29.80 meters was given, however the manager (ATM), AAI replied the respondent no. 5 that on survey conducted by a team of AAI, New Delhi as well as by surveying team of Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, the height of the building was found 34.80 meters. In view of Clause 4 read with Clause 7 of the Rules, 2015, any construction within 20 kms from the Aerodrome Reference Point without obtaining NOC of AAI will be deemed to be unauthorized. It is further submitted that part of the said building is a safety hazard for aircraft operations and as such the owner of the building has been instructed to apply for obtaining NOC from AAI and to stop the construction work till the NOC is obtained from AAI. The said building comes under approach/take off path of Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi and will create safety hazard in flight operations, hence it is mandatory to reduce the height of the said building to the permissible limit as per the norms prescribed in Rules, 2015. It is also submitted that the sanctioning authority did not intimate the respondent- AAI about sanction of the construction plan of the said building beyond the permissible limit and as such the height of the building is required to be reduced in compliance of the statutory requirements. It is also submitted that the sanctioning authority did not intimate the respondent- AAI about sanction of the construction plan of the said building beyond the permissible limit and as such the height of the building is required to be reduced in compliance of the statutory requirements. So far as the claim of the petitioner that no objection has been raised with respect to the other buildings of same height in the said locality is concerned, it may be due to the reason that the local sanctioning authority has not approved the height taking into account the mean sea level as well as the fact that Ranchi is plateau region and the surface is not of same altitude due to which during the survey, the same might not have come to the notice of AAI. It is also possible that those buildings which petitioners are trying to make comparison with, were not fully constructed during the survey done in the year 2019. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the building plan of the said building was sanctioned by the respondent-RRDA, Ranchi, however NOC was not taken from AAI on the ground that the proposed height of the building was less than 30 meters. The respondent no. 5 issued letter dated 25.09.2020 to the petitioner no.1 directing him to demolish the structure of the said building to the extent of 20 ft. by referring to the letters of AAI dated 11/17.09.2020 and 21.09.2020 and stating that during the inspection made by the team of AAI, Delhi and Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, it was found that the said building was threat to safe operation of aircrafts as its height was found 20 feet more than the permissible height. The said letter dated 25.09.2020 was put to challenge in the present writ petition, however during the pendency of the same, the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi vide order dated 08.10.2020, stayed the operation of the said order with a view to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.1. Hence, the said prayer of the petitioners has now become infructuous and no order is required to be passed with reference to the letter dated 25.09.2020. 10. The petitioners have also challenged the notice dated 25.09.2020 issued in U.C. Case No. 137 of 2020 whereby the petitioner no. Hence, the said prayer of the petitioners has now become infructuous and no order is required to be passed with reference to the letter dated 25.09.2020. 10. The petitioners have also challenged the notice dated 25.09.2020 issued in U.C. Case No. 137 of 2020 whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been directed to appear before the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi and explain its case alleging the violation of Sections 37 and 38 of the Act, 2001. 11. One of the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-RRDA, Ranchi has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice as the building was constructed strictly in conformity with the building plan sanctioned by the competent authority. While inviting the attention of this Court to Sections 9A and 9B of the Act, 1934 and the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Building and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is AAI which may initiate proceeding for reducing the height of any building likely to cause obstruction in flying of the aircrafts. It has further been contended that the impugned notice has been issued by the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi only on the direction of the AAI without applying his independent mind. It is only the Joint Director General or a Deputy Director General of Ministry of Civil Aviation who, on an examination of the details forwarded to him by the officer-incharge of the concerned aerodrome, after giving the owner an opportunity of being heard, can initiate any proceeding for demolishing of building under the provisions of the Act, 1934 as well as the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Building and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994, that too, only after giving compensation to the affected person, however the AAI just to deprive the petitioner from getting compensation, has taken short cut method for demolishing the building which is not permissible. 12. To appreciate the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the provisions of the Act, 2001. Section 38 of the said Act provides for the action to be initiated against the person whose building plan has been sanctioned under misrepresentation. 12. To appreciate the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the provisions of the Act, 2001. Section 38 of the said Act provides for the action to be initiated against the person whose building plan has been sanctioned under misrepresentation. It has been provided inter alia that if at any time after the sanction to erect any building or addition or alteration thereto has been accorded, the Vice-Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi is satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 37, he may, by order in writing and for the reasons to be recorded, cancel such sanction and erection of any building or addition or alteration thereto shall be deemed to have been done without such sanction. However before making any such order, the Vice-Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected to explain as to why such order should not be passed. 13. Sections 9A and 9B of the Act, 1934 provide for issuing notification prohibiting the construction/erection of buildings or planting of trees within the radius of twenty kilometers of the aerodrome reference point or demolition of any building or reduction of height of any building within such radius or as the case may be, to cut such tree as well as for payment of compensation to a person who sustains any loss or damage by issuance of any of the aforesaid directions, in accordance with the prescribed principles mentioned therein. The Rules, 1994 provides the procedure for removing obstructions caused by building and trees etc. around the aerodromes. 14. The petitioners have failed to show before this Court any specific provision in the Act, 1934 which completely bars the initiation of proceeding under other statutes. I am of the view that if under given circumstance, the action is permissible under two statutes, the affected person cannot compel the authority to proceed only under a particular statute of his choice. Merely because there is provision under the Act, 1934 for taking action against any building whose height is found to be more than the permissible limit, does not invalid any action contemplated under the Act, 2001 if there prima facie appears fraud and misrepresentation in the conduct of any person while getting the plan of any building sanctioned. 15. Merely because there is provision under the Act, 1934 for taking action against any building whose height is found to be more than the permissible limit, does not invalid any action contemplated under the Act, 2001 if there prima facie appears fraud and misrepresentation in the conduct of any person while getting the plan of any building sanctioned. 15. Moreover, Rules, 2015 has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) as well as clauses (o) and clause (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with Section 9A of the Act, 1934, which mandates for obtaining NOC prior to making construction within the radius of twenty kilometers from the Aerodrome Reference Point and the same was applicable at the time when the petitioner no. 1 had made application for getting the plan of the said building sanctioned. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the impugned notice has been issued on the basis of the information received from the AAI and the authority-RRDA, Ranchi has not applied its independent mind. I am of the considered view that the impugned notice is not vitiated merely by the fact that the same has been issued on the basis of the information given by the AAI. The proceeding under Section 38 of the Act, 2001 can be initiated on the satisfaction of the Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi based on the information received from any source. 17. Admittedly, the building plan of the petitioner no. 1 was sanctioned for 28.80 meters of height. Though it is claimed by the petitioner no. 1 that the actual constructed height of the building was found to be 27.65 meters during an inspection conducted by a constituted committee of RRDA, Ranchi, which is less than the sanctioned limit, yet in course of inspection made by the team of AAI, New Delhi, the height of the building of the petitioner no. 1 was found to be 34.80 meters. AAI after inspection, reported the said fact to the RRDA with a request to take steps for reducing the height of the building to the extent of 20 ft. and thereafter the case of unauthorized construction was lodged against the petitioner no.1. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent-RRDA has invited attention of this court to the application of the petitioner no. and thereafter the case of unauthorized construction was lodged against the petitioner no.1. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent-RRDA has invited attention of this court to the application of the petitioner no. 1 for sanction of the building plan wherein the petitioner no. 1 had proposed the height of the said building to be 29.80 meters, however it would be evident from the inspection report annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition that the total height of the building including the height of support of roof water tank as well as height of roof water tank and lightening arrestor is 33.65 meters which indicates that the height of the building is more than 30 meters. It has also been contended that the petitioner no. 1 has got the plan sanctioned by misrepresentation and as such vide impugned memo no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020, he has been directed to submit reply. The petitioners may putforth their case before the Vice Chairman, RRDA which will be duly considered while taking appropriate decision in the matter. 19. Otherwise also, the petitioners have raised factual plea before this Court that the height of the building is less than 30 meters which is contrary to the report of the AAI as well as the report of inspection team of the respondent- RRDA. Moreover, the veracity of such factual plea is required to be determined by the competent authority of the respondent- RRDA after taking into consideration of all the relevant documents and if required, by making fresh inspection of the said building in presence of the parties. 20. The legal principle with respect to the extent of intervention of the writ court at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under:- “14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under:- “14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 21. Thus, only in rare and exceptional circumstance, the High Court should entertain the writ petition at the stage of issuance of show cause notices. The petitioners have not been able to make out any such exceptional circumstance before this Court so as to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. Moreover, the allegation mentioned in the show cause notice is factual in nature which is based on the inspection of the said building carried out by the respondents. 22. The petitioners have also challenged the letter dated 28.09.2020 issued by the Manager (ATM), AAI to the Secretary, RRDA, Ranchi, a copy of which has also been circulated to the petitioner no.1 for information and compliance whereby RRDA has been requested to take steps directing the petitioner no. 22. The petitioners have also challenged the letter dated 28.09.2020 issued by the Manager (ATM), AAI to the Secretary, RRDA, Ranchi, a copy of which has also been circulated to the petitioner no.1 for information and compliance whereby RRDA has been requested to take steps directing the petitioner no. 1 to get NOC of the said building and in the meantime to stop construction work of the said building. 23. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that since the proposed height of the building was less than 30 meters, the petitioner no. 1 was not required to get NOC from the AAI in view of Clause 40.4 of the Building Byelaws, 2016. To counter the said argument, the learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondent- AAI has invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Rules, 2015 and has contended that it is mandatory to obtain NOC from AAI before making any construction within 20 kms from Aerodrome Reference Point. 24. It appears that in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) and clause (o) and (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 read with Section 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (XXII of 1934), the Central Government has framed “The Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015” issued vide notification no. G.S.R 751(E) dated 30.09.2015. 25. Rule 4 of the said Rules, 2015 provides as under:- “4. Restrictions on constructions, erections, trees, etc.- (1) No structure shall be constructed or erected, or any tree planted or grown on any land within a radius not exceeding twenty kilometers from the Aerodrome Reference Point of the civil and defence aerodromes, as specified in Schedule III to Schedule VII, without obtaining a No Objection Certificate for the height clearance, except in cases specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 7. (2) No structure shall be constructed or erected, or any tree planted or grown on any land within the areas specified in Schedule I of the civil and defence aerodromes, as listed in Schedule III to Schedule VII, except for essential navigational aids and other installations required for aeronautical purposes. (2) No structure shall be constructed or erected, or any tree planted or grown on any land within the areas specified in Schedule I of the civil and defence aerodromes, as listed in Schedule III to Schedule VII, except for essential navigational aids and other installations required for aeronautical purposes. (3) No structure higher than the height specified in Schedule II, shall be constructed or erected and no tree, which is likely to grow or ordinarily grows higher than the height specified in the said Schedule shall be planted on any land within a radius of twenty kilometers from the Aerodrome Reference Point. (4) The level roads and level railway lines within one kilometer of the airport boundary wall shall also be subject to issuance of the No Objection Certificate.” 26. Rule 7 of the Rules, 2015 further speaks of approval for construction of buildings, structures, etc. which is quoted hereunder:- “7. Approval for construction of buildings, structures, etc.- (1) After considering the No Objection Certificate issued by the designated officer or the authorised officer, the concerned Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development Authorities shall approve the construction of buildings or structures not exceeding the Permissible Top Elevation. Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development Authorities shall also consider the existing building regulations or bye-laws or any other law for the time being in force before approving the construction of buildings or structures. (2) In cases of aerodromes where the Colour Coded Zoning Maps has been issued, the Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development authorities shall, in accordance with the height specifications provided in such Colour Coded Zoning Maps, approve the construction of the structures, as per the existing building regulations or bye laws or any other law for the time being in force: Provided that no such approval shall be given by the Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development authorities for sites which lies in approach, take off and transitional areas of an airport or in any other area, marked in the Colour Coded Zoning Map for the compulsory obtaining of No Objection Certificate from the designated officer or authorised officer. (3) The Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development authorities shall certify on the sanction plan that the Floor Space Index or Floor Area Ratio and the related height of the building or structure is within the permissible elevation as indicated in the Colour Coded Zoning Map for the given site. (4) The Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development Authorities shall submit the details of structures approved under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) to the concerned designated officer or the authorised officer within a period of thirty days from the date of such approval.” 27. Rule 12 of Rules, 2015 deals with the responsibilities of local authorities and airport operators- “12. Responsibilities of local authorities and airport operators.- (1) For the effective verification, monitoring and controlling the obstructions around the airports, it shall be the responsibility of the Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development authorities and the airport operator to ensure that the height of the structures and their locations are in accordance with the approved building plans and the No Objection Certificate issued by the concerned designated officer or the authorised officer. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the Local, Municipal or Town Planning and Development authorities and the airport operator shall develop appropriate mechanism with necessary trained manpower and equipment so as to verify the height of the structures, site elevations and site location or coordinates in World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84).” 28. It may thus be construed that rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 specifically provides that except the cases specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 7, it is mandatory to get NOC for height clearance from AAI before making any construction within twenty kilometers from the Aerodrome Reference Point of the civil and defence aerodrome as specified in Schedule II to Schedule VII. Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi also comes under Schedule II to VII and as such the said restriction was also applicable in the case in hand. However, there is no such provision for post-construction approval of NOC. The case of the petitioners is that the construction of the said building has already been completed thus the direction to the petitioner no. 1 to get NOC from AAI is not consistent with the Rules, 2015. 29. Rule 15 provides for the procedure to be followed in the case of violation of the provisions of Rules, 2015 which reads as under:- “15. 1 to get NOC from AAI is not consistent with the Rules, 2015. 29. Rule 15 provides for the procedure to be followed in the case of violation of the provisions of Rules, 2015 which reads as under:- “15. Procedure in case of violations.- The cases of violations where the height of any existing building, structure or tree on any land within the limits specified in rule 4 exceeds the height specified in Schedule I and Schedule II, or any other violation arising out of non-compliance of the provisions of these rules, shall be dealt in accordance with the provisions of the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994.” 30. Thus, if any violation of the provisions of Rules, 2015 is found, action against the violator can be taken under the provisions of Rules, 1994. If AAI finds that the petitioner no.1 has violated the provisions of Rules, 2015, it is free to take action against the petitioner no.1 under the Rules, 1994, nevertheless direction to the petitioner no. 1 to obtain NOC after completion of construction does not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of Rules, 2015. 31. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations:- (i) Since letter no. 1293 dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), Ranchi (respondent no.5) has already been stayed by the Vice Chairman, RRDA, there is no need to pass any order in this regard. (ii) This Court does not find any exceptional circumstance so as to interfere with the notice dated 25.09.2020 issued by the Law Officer, RRDA, Ranchi in U.C Case No. 137 of 2020 whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been asked to appear and explain its case. (iii) The Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi who is in seisin of U.C Case No. 137 of 2020 shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (iv) Since the matter involves safety of public at large, the Vice Chairman, RRDA Ranchi is at liberty to implead the AAI as party in U.C Case No. 137 of 2020 and if necessary it may direct for an inspection of the building to be carried out in presence of the representatives of AAI, RRDA and the petitioners. (v) Letter no. (v) Letter no. 3089-93 dated 28.09.2020 issued by AAI directing the petitioner to get NOC for the said building is hereby quashed. However, the AAI will be at liberty to take suitable action against the petitioner no. 1 under the provisions of the Rules, 2015. (vi) The Vice Chairman, RRDA, Ranchi shall conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. 32. I.A. No. 5312 of 2020 and I.A. No. 5941 of 2020 also stand disposed of.