Disposed

Shashank Shekhar Prasad v. Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and Ors.

Patna HC6 Mar 2014CWJC/945/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of two writ petitions challenging orders for the removal or demolition of buildings passed by the Municipal Commissioner. The High Court granted liberty to petitioners to file appeals within two weeks and stayed demolition directions pending the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appeals within two weeks granted with stay on demolition directions pending Tribunal disposal.

Shashank Shekhar Prasad Vs Patna Municipal Corporation… — Property and Title | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.945 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== 1. Shashank Shekhar Prasad Son Of Sri Jagdish Prasad Resident Of 3SFA, 1/32 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhootnath Ashram Road, P.S. Agamkuan, District - Patna, Partner Magadh Homes, 58/59 Gol Market Block No. 4, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, District - Patna And Developer Of 'Royal Residency' Project At Gate No. 45 Main Road, Mainpura, Patna

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus 1. Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna, Through Town Commissioner 2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 3. Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 4. Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation Maurya Lok Complex, Patna

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.948 of 2014

¶7

====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Sinha @ Sanjay Singh Son Of Sri Dharmendra Prasad Singh Resident Of 601, Radhe Krishna Apartment, R.K. Bhattacharya Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District - Patna, Partner Nutan Construction Hariom Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna

¶8

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna, Through Municipal Commissioner 2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 3. Additional Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation Maurya Lok Complex, Patna

¶10

Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation Maurya Lok Complex, Patna

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶13

7 06-03-2014 There is agreement at Bar that both the applications

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.945 of 2014 (7) dt.06-03-2014

¶15

2/3

¶16

raise common grounds in assailing the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner of the Patna Municipal Corporation ( for short ‘the Corporation’) in Vigilance case no. 22(B) of 2012 (in C.W.J.C.No. 945 of 2014) and the order passed on the same day by him in Vigilance case no. 19B of 2012 (in C.W.J.C. No. 948 of 2014). Both of the writ petitions have, therefore, been heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of.

¶17

Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha learned senior counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. H.S. Himkar who appeared on behalf of the respondent Corporation.

¶18

Any order passed by the Municipal Commissioner in such Vigilance proceeding is appealable before the Tribunal constituted under Section 329 of the Bihar Municipal Act,2007 which is now said to be functional. Mr. Sinha, counsel for the petitioner, after making submissions at some length, states that the petitioners would assail the impugned orders before the said Tribunal by filing appeal(s) within two weeks from today.

¶19

The petitioners are granted liberty to file the same within the aforesaid time. If any such appeal(s) is/are filed within two weeks from today the Tribunal where the appeal shall be filed shall endeavour to dispose of the same in accordance with law as quickly as possible preferably within one month from such

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.945 of 2014 (7) dt.06-03-2014

¶21

3/3

¶22

filing/presentation. The aforesaid direction has been issued presupposing the fact that the petitioners would fully cooperate in early disposal of the appeal(s) and will not seek unnecessary adjournment(s). If for any reason the Tribunal is unable to dispose of the appeal(s) then it will be open to the petitioners to either pray for any appropriate interim relief before the Tribunal and/or approach this Court.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case(s), this Court further directs that until disposal of the appeal(s) the direction contained in Clause (1) at internal page 9 of the impugned order directing removal/demolition of part of the apartment/building in question shall remain stayed.

¶24

The applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s).

¶25

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶26

Shyam/-

Shashank Shekhar Prasad v. Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Shekhar Prasad v. Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bisheshwar Prasad Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors.

M/s Kamla Construction, Begusari Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Begusari and Anr.

Kamaldeo Singh Vs The Estate Of Jamuna Singh, Saran and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs The Patna Municipal Corporatio and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mangal Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.