Court on its own motion vs State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—The applicants of this Interlocutory application are permitted to intervene. A copy of this application be given to the parties by the counsel for the applicants. In this matter, the reply will be filed by the counsel for the R.R.D.A. Today, what has been brought to the notice of this Court is that earlier an order has been passed by the Urban Development Department for removal, but the same has been modified in the guise of a petition being pending before this Court. It is informed to this Court that there is no restraint order of any kind passed by this Court on the local authorities. Why this kind of latitude has been given to the so called businessman, will have to be shown by the authority (R.R.D.A.) by day after tomorrow (16.03.2011).

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the four Deputy Commissioners of the major cities of the State. When being questioned, learned Counsel for the State showed his helplessness in relation to the encroachments in Bokaro Steel City because, according to him, it is the Bokaro Steel Limited which has to look into it. That helplessness reflected lack of communication, so also understanding of law. For that, he wants time. He may get himself updated and file response by day after tomorrow (16.3.2011).

This is also informed by the Amicus Curiae that these cities have no Town Planners for them. No thought has been given by the Urban Development Department to appoint Town Planners for these four cities and there is no concept of Master Plan as exists for this city. It is a very sorry state of affairs and shows lack of will to govern. This kind of dilly-dally governance cannot be permitted to exist. The State Government will have to file a positive response by day after tomorrow (16.3.2011) on this question.

In the meanwhile, a question was raised that none of the buildings which are not perfect in terms of the bye-laws, electricity and water connections had been cut. The counsel for the R.R.D.A submitted that they are still examining. He tried to put an amendment before this Court that compliance of Section 53A of the R.R.D.A Act is not necessary as the same has been amended. When the amendment was looked into, learned Counsel was put to a straight question as to whether any such notification by the State Government that compliance of Section 53A of the Act is not to be made? He was not in a position to answer. He needs instruction. This shows that the authorities instructing him had no occasion to look into the law and understand the views. Thus, he tried to mislead the Court. Such kind of state cannot be appreciated. By day after tomorrow, learned Counsel for the R.R.D.A will come up with a positive response as to why R.R.D.A is not acting in accordance with law and depriving those buildings which are till not in accordance with the bye-laws of its authorities indicated earlier.

Learned Counsel for Chamber of Commerce will also file its plan for removal of encroachments by 16.3.2011.

Put up this case on 16.3.2011.