ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the notice as contained in memo no. 774 dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2-Town Planner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, directing the petitioner to produce the sanctioned building plan of “Big Shop Mall” situated at G.E.L. Church Shopping Complex within 72 hours alleging inter-alia that several complaints have been received against him that the said shop/mall is being run after making an authorized construction, failing which the said structure will be sealed and an appropriate action will be taken in terms with the provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. 2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned notice dated 30.09.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 is wholly without jurisdiction as the petitioner along with other partners and legal entities have occupied various shops in G.E.L. Church Complex, Ranchi on being leased out by the builder/lessee of the G.E.L. Church-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia (lessor of the petitioner) and/or through G.E.L. Church itself. A sample copy of the lease deed dated 22.01.2007 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been regularly paying lease rent to the lessor-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia for which bills and tax invoices are being raised. The lessor-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia uses to regularly realise the municipal holding tax from the petitioner and deposit the same with the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The said shop/mall i.e., “Big Shop” is being run over a portion of G.E.L. Church Complex since 1998 and approximately 200 persons are presently employed under the petitioner. The 3rd floor of the said G.E.L. Church Complex was constructed in a phased manner by its builder/lessee of the G.E.L. Church-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia and was in possession of shops made over the said floor as lessee of the G.E.L. Church. Though the petitioner is not concerned with the sanction of map for the structure where the “Big Shop” is being run, yet on asking the relevant documents from the lessor-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia, it came to his knowledge that the maps of the buildings have duly been sanctioned and/or deemed to have been sanctioned as per different orders passed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in a phased manner. The then Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation vide order dated 28.04.2016 had issued direction for measurement of the land of G.E.L. Church Complex contrary to the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A. Ranchi. The said order was however, challenged by the lessor of the petitioner-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A. Ranchi and an interim order was passed by the said Appellate Tribunal on 18.05.2016, which was to continue till disposal of the said appeal. Since the said appeal preferred by Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the said interim protection is still continuing. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass an order threatening to seal a premise under the provisions of the Act, 2011 and hence, the impugned notice dated 30.09.2021 is completely unwarranted. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither the owner of the building nor is the builder of the shopping complex and, therefore, the mala-fide on the part of the respondent no. 2 in issuing the notice dated 30.09.2021 is self evident. Nevertheless, the petitioner being under distress on collecting relevant information from the lessor-Shri Roshan Lal Bhatia filed representation before the respondent no. 2 requesting inter-alia to allow 30 days’ time to him to furnish the sanctioned building plan irrespective of the fact that he is merely the lessee of the building in question. In fact, the respondent no. 2 should have called upon the builder/lessee of the G.E.L. Church in question with respect to the alleged unauthorized construction of the said shopping complex. It is finally submitted that approximately 200 employees are working under the petitioner at “Big Shop Mall” and if any coercive action is taken by the respondent no. 2 pursuant to the impugned notice dated 30.09.2021, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury particularly in view of ensuing festive season. 4. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that several complaints were received by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation regarding unauthorized construction of the building in which “Big Shop Mall” is being run by the petitioner. Hence, notice dated 30.09.2021 has been issued to him by the respondent no. 2 seeking production of sanctioned map of the building/structure in question. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. Hence, notice dated 30.09.2021 has been issued to him by the respondent no. 2 seeking production of sanctioned map of the building/structure in question. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner merely being the lessee of the building in question could not have been called upon by the respondent no. 2 to produce the sanctioned building plan, rather the same should have been asked from the builder/lessee of the G.E.L. Church, who have constructed the said building. The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 in issuing the impugned notice dated 30.09.2021 particularly with regard to sealing of the premises on failure to produce the sanctioned building plan. It, however, transpires that the petitioner has already submitted his reply (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition) before the respondent no. 2. Under the said circumstance, there is no need to enter into the merit of the case at this stage. 6. Hence, the respondent no. 1-Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and on providing due opportunity of hearing to him/his representative and other concerned persons. 7. It goes without saying that the petitioner is also permitted to raise the jurisdictional issue before the respondent no. 1. 8. Till the said decision is taken by the respondent no. 1, no coercive action shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 30.09.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction. I.A. No. 5786 of 2021 also stands disposed of accordingly.