Allowed

Madan Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Apr 2023CWJC/3915/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of two writ petitions. The court quashed a demolition notice for violating natural justice due to lack of prior proceedings. It allowed the first petition with liberty to proceed afresh if bye-laws were violated and directed authorities to consider regularization petitions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 02.01.2017/31.01.2017 is set aside. The first writ petition is allowed. The second writ petition is disposed off. Authority directed to consider representations for regulariz

Madan Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3915 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Madan Kumar Mishra Son of Sri Mahadeo Mishra, resident of Mohalla - Ayachi Nagar, Ward No. 19, P.S. - Madhubani, District - Madhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani.

¶9

The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhubani.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

======================================================

¶12

with

¶13

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14189 of 2016

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Hari Mohan Khosla Son of Late Yogendra Prasad Khosla, resident of Village/Mohalla- Ayachi Nagar Ward No. 19, Police Station- Madhubani, District- Madhubani

¶16

... ... Petitioner/s

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶19

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶20

The District Magistrate, Madhubani

¶21

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Madhubani

¶22

The District Disaster Management Officer, Madhubani

¶23

The Additional Collector , District Disaster Management Branch Madhubani

¶24

The Officer-in-Charge, Madhubani Police Station, Madhubani

¶25

The Executive Officer Nagar Parishad, Madhubani

¶26

Madan Kumar Mishra son of Mahadeo Mishra resident of Village/MohallaAyachi Nagar Ward No. 19, Police Station- Madhubani, District- Madhubani

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2017(3) dt.20-04-2023 2/5

¶28

... ... Respondent/s

¶29

====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3915 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Karn For the Respondent/s : Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha-AAG7 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-7 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14189 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abbas Haider- Sc6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶30

3 20-04-2023

¶31

The first writ petition (CWJC No.3915 of 2017) has been filed for quashing the notice dated 02.01.2017/31.01.2017, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to demolish second and third floor of the building in question.

¶32

Admittedly, no proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, much less any notice was given to the petitioner to put forth his defence, prior to issuance of the aforesaid notice dated 02.01.2017/31.01.2017, hence, the principles of natural justice has not been complied with. The respondents have also failed to show that either any proceedings were initiated or any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the aforesaid notice dated

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2017(3) dt.20-04-2023 3/5

¶34

02.01.2017/31.01.2017, hence, the said notice stands vitiated in the eyes of law.

¶35

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition (CWJC No.No. 14189 of 2016) submits that in case the petitioner of the first writ petition undertakes not to construct any mobile tower, he shall have no grievance towards him.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition submits that the petitioner of the first case does not intend to install any mobile tower over his building. In view of such an undertaking by the petitioner of the first case, the second writ petition (CWJC No.14189 of 2016) has been rendered infructuous, hence, stands disposed off.

¶37

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, as far as the first writ petition (CWJC No.3915 of 2017) is concerned, the impugned notice dated 02.01.2017/31.01.2017 is set aside, however, liberty is reserved to the Nagar

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2017(3) dt.20-04-2023 4/5

¶39

Parishad, Madhubani and its authorities to proceed afresh, in accordance with law, in case they are of the view that the building constructed by the petitioner is contrary to the building bye-laws and the sanctioned map.

¶40

Accordingly, the first writ petition (CWJC No.3915 of 2017) stands allowed.

¶41

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner of the first case submits that though the petitioner has submitted representations thrice for post facto sanction of the construction made beyond the approved/sanctioned map/building plan, however, the authorities of the Nagar Parishad, Madhubani are not considering the same, hence, they be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶42

It is needless to state that in case appropriate representation has been filed by the petitioner of the first case for regularization/ grant of post facto sanction of the unauthorized construction made by him, the authorities of the Nagar Parishad, Madhubani are duty bound to

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.3915 of 2017(3) dt.20-04-2023 5/5

¶44

consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶45

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶46

kanchan/-

¶47

Madan Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar 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

Jhulan Ram Vs Bihar State Of Housing Board Mangles Road, Patna Through Its Managig Director.

Ashok Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Seema Devi @ Seema, Vs The State of Bihar

Poonam Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Kailash Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Bhandari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.