Krish Construction, Ranchi vs Prabhunath Tiwary and others <BR> Prabhunath Tiwary and others Vs Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi and others

R.K. Merathia, J.

Civil Review No. 21 of 2011 &23 of 2011:

On being asked, Mr. S.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner admitted that in terms of order under review passed on 1.3.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 4016 of 2010, the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A., Ranchi has passed an order after hearing the parties including the petitioner on 30th March 2011. In that view of the matter, these review applications have become infructuous. The parties aggrieved will be at liberty to move appropriate forum, as may be advised.

With this observation, these review applications are disposed of as infructuous.

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 400 of 2011:

Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A. was directed to decide U.C. Case No. 43 of 2008 one way or the other. But, he has passed an order on 30.03.2011 keeping the further proceeding in abeyance awaiting the decision of competent court in Title Suit No. 266 of 2006, whereas he was to take a decision in terms of Section 38 of Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act (''the Act'' for short) whether sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished u/s 37 or not.

Mr. P.K. Singh appearing for the R.R.D.A. submitted that order in question has been complied by passing the order dated 30.03.2011 by Vice Chairman.

Prima facie, it appears that the Vice Chairman has not decided the matter in terms of Section 38 of the Act.

In the circumstances, the matter is again remitted to the Vice Chairman, R.R.D.A.

At this juncture, Mr. Agrawal appearing for the Krish Construction Company and Mr. Ananda Sen, appearing for some of the flat owners submitted that they are also the necessary parties to be heard in the said matter.

Mr. P.K. Prasad submitted that they are not necessary party for deciding the said matter.

Krish Construction Company was heard while passing the order dated 30.03.2011. In my opinion, opportunity of hearing in the said matter can be given to the said parties.

Accordingly, the petitioners, the Krish Construction Company and the two representatives of the flat owners/society will appear before the Vice Chairman at 11:00 A.M. on 14.5.2012 on which date, the Vice Chairman will issue notice to respondent no. 4 - Mr. Md. Anwar and fix other date (s) and will pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. With these observations and directions, this contempt case is dropped.