Pankaj Kumar Yadav President Centre 4 Rti Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the Resp.No.8 & 9 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. For the E.D. : Mr. A.K. Das, Adv. For the RMC : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Adv.

¶18

15/07.03.2024 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.8 and 9; Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate; Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. as well as Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

¶19

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

¶20

(a) For the direction upon the respondent no.2 and 3 to enquire into the violation of the sanctioned map for Nucleus Mall which has been built by the M/S Adarsh Height Pvt Ltd Company [Directors Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Anushri Agarwal & Pankaj Kumar Pandey (staff of Bishnu Agarwal)] as this company in conspiracy with the town planner, Municipal Commissioner and the secretary of the Urban Development Department has constructed 40000 sq ft area more than the permitted

¶21

-2-

¶22

area and this mall is the only structure which has been given completion certificate contrary to the form permitted in the bye laws, much before the Mall has been completed.

¶23

(b) For the direction upon the respondents to enquire into the extent of deviation of the map sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of the Building Plan No.2012/624 and the Nucleus Mall has already violated the building plan and has deliberately sub-let the Parking Area to “Big Bazaar” and others and has constructed additional area, and due to its location in the residential area, the vehicles are parked outside the mall and the people going through that road are stuck in traffic jam every day.

¶24

(c) For the direction upon the respondents to punish the Mall Management for their act of deliberate violation of the provisions of the Jharkhand Lift and Escalator Rule, 2017.

¶25

(d) For the direction upon the respondent nos 2,3,4 to submit a report before the Hon’ble Court as to how with connivance of the district authorities, vehicles are packed on both sides of the road as if it is the parking area of the mall.

¶26

(e) For the direction upon the Respondent No.6 to investigate the death of “Parthiv Shah” who died due to the gross negligence and fault of the Nucleus Mall Management, who have not maintained proper safety and security of the premises of the mall and has no clearance from the appropriate authority including Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Fire Department & Energy Department, Provisions of Ranchi Planning Standards and Building Bye Laws, 2002, (amended provisions of 2006), etc.

¶27

(f) For the direction upon the respondents, local bodies and the Urban Development Department to frame a “Parking Policy” and recommend strategies for proper management of parking and pricing of parking that can control demand

¶28

-3-

¶29

for parking and decongest commercial and public places effectively and also address the special concern over the congestion impacts of the number of shopping malls that are about to come in near future in the already congested area.

¶30

(g) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case.

¶31

Earlier a counter affidavit was filed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation but since the same did not reply to the issues raised in the writ petition, the said counter affidavit was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2022.

¶32

This public interest litigation seems to have been filed primarily with respect to certain deviation in the construction of Nucleus Mall. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Ranchi Municipal Corporation which has been nomenclated as 1^st supplementary counter affidavit in which it has been stated in the following terms :-

¶33

“9. That the respondent further submits that the statement made in Para 2-(a) requires no comment on the malicious allegations. The total area as per deed is 6461.13 sq. meter. Total area of land after physical verification 6311.23 sq meter. Area left for road widening 276.65 sq meter. Plot area left after deducting the road widening 6034.58 sq. meter. That the ground coverage is less than 50%. It is in fact only 48.96%. That the Semi Ground floor is 4509.34 sq meter and the semi-basement is 4509.34 sq meter because as per building bye laws extended basement is allowed. The area of the semi basement is not counted in the ground coverage. The ground coverage is calculated from the ground floor itself. That the ground floor built-up area is 3350.64 sq meter. For the purpose of calculation of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the ground floor area is divided by the plot area left after road widening. For the purpose of FAR, the ground floor area is taken after deducting the area of lift duct, fire staircase, cut out, atrium, any duct and parking space. The area taken for FAR calculation is different from the built-up area. Therefore the ground floor area 3350.64 sq meter less the

¶34

-4-

¶35

deductions for area of lift duct, Fire staircase, cut out, atrium, any duct is 395.90 sq meter is divided by the plot area after road widening i.e

¶36

Ground Coverage = Cover area ground floor x 100

¶37

Net Plot area

¶38

Ground Coverage=3350.64 (Ground covered area)-395.00(duct) = 2955.64=48.96%

¶39

6311.23(Plot Area)-276.65(R/W) 6034.58

¶40

FAR= Cover area less deductions allowed

¶41

Gross Plot area

¶42

3350.64-395.90=18894.91 = 2.99

¶43

6311.23

¶44

That the permissible ground coverage is 50% and in this case it is 48.97%. Permissible FAR is 3.00 for the commercial buildings and in this case it is 2.99. Therefore the building construction is as per the building bye laws.

¶45

10. That the statement made in para 2 (b) it is stated that FAR Calculation and Ground Coverage Calculation has been explained in detail in the aforesaid paragraph.

¶46

It is also submitted that double basement has already been provided which is as per the provisions of building bye laws. After the provision of double basement there is a lower ground floor which has been marked in the map as semi basement. The nomenclature of the lower ground has been written as semi basement which has lead to the confusion that it is a basement. That this lower ground/semi basement has been sanctioned as commercial space as per the building bye laws.

¶47

14. That the statement made in para 2 (j) it is submitted that the building has been constructed strictly as per the sanctioned map. The completion certificate and occupancy has been duly issued. The FAR is permissible is 3.00 but in this it is within this permissible limit i.e. 2.99. The permissible Ground coverage is 50% and in this case it is 48.97% therefore allegation of the petitioner is baseless.”

¶48

It therefore appears that the details of the construction have been given by the respondent no.3 in their first supplementary counter affidavit. It further appears that there is no deviation in the sanctioned plan made while constructing Nucleus Mall.

¶49

Vide order dated 07.08.2023 in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.8 that the

¶50

-5-

¶51

respondent no.8 has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, a status report was called for from the Enforcement Directorate. The status report has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate through an affidavit wherein apart from the fact that the respondent no.8 has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate for his role in acquiring three Government properties details of which have been given in the said affidavit, it has also been stated therein that the scope of investigation is not related to the mismanagement in the Nucleus Mall as alleged in the public interest litigation.

¶52

We therefore, on consideration of the entire facets of the case, come to a conclusion that the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this public interest litigation has been duly replied to by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and since there does not appear to any deviation as per the affidavit submitted by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, we are not inclined to proceed further in this public interest litigation which accordingly stands disposed of.

¶53

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶54

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶55

Shamim/-

Pankaj Kumar Yadav President Centre 4 Rti v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Yadav President Centre 4 Rti v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnwaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jan Kalyan Morcha through Its President Om Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Uma Shanker Singh Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Vikas Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Adalat Deshwali Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.