In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Cr.M.P.No.141 of Binod Kumar Singh..Petitioner V E R S U S

Transcription

1 In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.141 of 2013 Binod Kumar Singh..Petitioner V E R S U S Central Bureau of Investigation through its S.P, (A.C.B), Ranchi Opposite Party CORAM: HON BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner :Mr.S.N.Prasad For the C.B.I :Mr.M.Khan 13/ One writ application, vide W.P (PIL) No.1531 of 2011 was filed before this Court for issuance of mandamus directing the respondent-state including Vice-Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi, and Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi to remove unauthorized structure being used as go-down and shop constructed in the parking area of Chandralok Apartment. During hearing of the case, it was brought to the notice of the court that such permission has been granted by the officials of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority illegally in connivance with the builders and others not for one Apartment but in many of the Apartments. At the same time, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that number of multi storied buildings have been constructed by deviating from their sanctioned maps. Such deviation and alteration made with the connivance of the officials of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority was taken by the Court not only a civil wrongs but also criminal offence as such a space dedicated to common use being used for other purposes amounts to encroachment to the rights of the others. Therefore, the Court did find it proper and appropriate to get the matter be investigated upon by the C.B.I. Accordingly, a formal letter was issued to the C.B.I to institute a case and to proceed with it against the persons

2 2 committed wrong in connivance with the officials of Ranchi Regional Development Authority. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged by the C.B.I against unknown persons under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d)of the Prevention of Corrupti9on Act and also under Section 52 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 as well as under Section 82 of the Registration Act. Having lodged the case, the C.B.I took up the investigation. During investigation, the matter relating to sanction of the building plans of M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited, Ranchi and M/s. Rani children Hospital and Research (P) Limited were also examined. In that course, it was found that one Dr.Rajesh Kumar, Director of M/s. Rani Children Hospital & Research Center (P) Limited and Dr.Sudhir Kumar, Director of M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited had purchased the lands bearing plot no.564, appertaining to Khata No.27 situated under Mouza Hatma from Sri Basant Toppo after getting permission in terms of the provision of Section 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. After purchasing the land, M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited submitted building construction plan in the year 2008, upon which a case bearing B.C No.269 of 2008 was initiated. On submission of such plan, the applicant according to the case of the C.B.I became apprehensive that map may not be sanctioned as the land over which map was sought to be sanctioned was Public Open Space. Therefore, the plan was again submitted by M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited through M/s. Grids Consultants to which this petitioner was one of the partners by showing the plot as plot no.568 upon which a case bearing B.C No.531 of 2008 was initiated.

3 3 In the said case, map was sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority by showing plot no.564 as 568 as R.S.plot no.564 situated in Mouza Hatma was Public Open Space. The said map had been prepared under the supervision of this petitioner. In the said map, two roads were shown existing in front of the plot. One was shown to the north of the plot but in fact, no such road was existing. The other road was shown to be of width of 9 meter but, in fact, the land was recorded as Kaisare Hind and width of that road was never of 9 meters. According to the case of the prosecution, this was done by M/s. Grids Consultants to which this petitioner is one of the partners to get the map of the building ( G+4 ) sanctioned in collusion with the officials of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. On such allegation, charge sheet was submitted against M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited and other persons including this petitioner as well as other partners of M/s. Grids Consultants so far building plan relating to M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited is concerned. Likewise, charge sheets were also submitted against other accused persons whose culpability was found in getting the map sanctioned for other buildings in contravention of the provisions of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority Act as well as Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws, 2002 which was framed by the authority in terms of the provision of Ranchi Regional Development Authority Act, Upon submission of the charge sheet, the court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 478 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act s well as under Section 52 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001.

4 4 Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the C.B.I that under the supervision of this petitioner, an Architect, a lay out plan for construction of a building (G+4) was prepared which on its submission by the owner of the land got sanctioned by the authority of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority but the petitioner an Architect is being prosecuted on the premise that the land over which map was sanctioned happens to be the Public Open Space (POS) and that two roads were shown to have been approaching that land but in fact, only one road was in existence but this ground cannot be valid ground for prosecuting an Architect who is supposed to draw a map to be submitted by the owner before the authority of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for its sanction as no law or regulation is there for fastening responsibility upon an Architect to make investigation over the nature of land before an Architect draws a plan. In this regard it was further submitted that in terms of the provision of Section 32 of the Act, the landlord is supposed to give a lay out plan on the basis of which an Architect is supposed to prepare a sketch map which is sanctioned in terms of the provision as contained in Section 37 of the Act if it is in accordance with the Act, Rule and Regulation. If the land owner on making any misrepresentation gets a map sanctioned, it is liable to be cancelled in terms of the provision as contained in Section 38 of the Act and even the building constructed on such map, can be demolished. Thus, it was submitted that if the map is sanctioned by making any misrepresentation, it is the owner who is to be held responsible and not the Architect. In spite of that, the petitioner is

5 5 being prosecuted which is quite illegal and hence the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. As against this, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I submits that when the C.B.I was directed by this Court to make investigation over the matter relating to the buildings constructed by making deviation from the map and also in the matter allowing the builders to use the space of common use for other purposes by the officials of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, a case was registered. During investigation, it was found that building has been constructed over Public Open Space after the building plan submitted by M/s. Jagannath Lifecare (P) Limited was sanctioned by the officials of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. The building plan had been prepared by M/ s. Grids Consultants to which this petitioner is one of the partners and under his supervision, the building plan had been prepared. The building plan was shown to have been prepared for construction of building over R.S. plot no.568 but in fact, it was R.S plot no.564 and that in order to have more floors in the building, two roads were shown to have been existing abutting the said plot but in fact, only one road was existing and that width of the road which was existing was shown more than its actual width so as to have have an additional floor which is certainly in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. The petitioner in such situation cannot take plea that it is none of his business to make any enquiry or investigation of the land before drawing building plan as the Architect under the provisions of the Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Bye-laws 2002 (Amended) is duty bound to see that the building plan which is prepared is in accordance with the provision of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority its regulation and bye-laws. If such responsibility has been fastened under the said bye-laws, even the Architect can be prosecuted it, it

6 6 is found that he by ignoring the provision of the Act, Rule and Regulation has prepared building plan. illegality. Thus, the order taking cognizance never suffers from any From the averment made on behalf of the parties what has emerged is that according to the petitioner, an Architect who prepares building plan is never supposed to make enquiry with respect to the land for which building plan has been prepared, rather building plan is prepared as per the instruction of the land owner whereas the stand which has been taken on behalf of the C.B.I is that even an Architect under the provision of bye-laws named as Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Byelaws, 2002 (Amended) is supposed to adhere to the provision of the Act, Rule and bye-laws. It be stated that it is the case of theprosectuion that building plan was prepared for construction of the building over the plot which had been delineated for Public Open Space and that two roads were shown to have been passing through the land in question but only one road was in existence and that width of the other road was shown more than its actual width so as to have have one additional floor over the building. The question does arise as to whether on account of it this an Architect can be held responsible for commission of the offence under which cognizance of the offence has been taken. In this regard, I may refer to clause c of appendix C of Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Byelaws, 2002 which reads as follows: C Architects who are registered under the council of Architects Act 1972 shall be entitled for a registration as a licensed Technical personnel of R.R.D.A without paying any annual licensing fee for the same. However, if they desire to be enrolled as life-time-licensee of the Authority, a lumpsum payment of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) shall have to be made to the Authority as a fee for such

7 7 enrolment, so that the Authority may be able to intimate them by post time-to-time about the provisions of planning standard and Building Byelaws and other relevant information with amendments (if any) in rules and Bye-laws of the Authority. But in case of Architect either already enrolled or likely to be enrolled in future as a R.R.D.A. Licensee, violates any of the rules, regulations, bye-laws and/or planning Standards of R.R.D.A, for the time being in force, his enrolment in R.R.D.A shall be cancelled and the enrolment fee of Rs.500/- charged initially from him shall be forfeited by the Authority. From its perusal, it does appear that an Architect who is registered under the Architect Act 1972 is entitled for a registration as a licensed Technical personnel of R.R.D.A. Further clause C-8 of the Bye-laws speaks about the duties and responsibilities of technical personnel. Relevant provision for the purpose of deciding the issue would be clause (a) and (g) of clause C-8.1 which reads as follows: (a) There shall be conversant with the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipalities Act Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, Bihar Restriction of Use of Land Act, 1948 Rules and Bye-laws made thereunder and as well as the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951, Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 and the regulations made therein and shall prepare plans, sections elevations and other structural details as per the requirements of the clauses above to prescribed scales marking clearly all the dimension etc. Furnishing the Area table and shall, draw specifications. Etc. (g) They shall be held responsible for work executed on site in contravention of provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipalities Act, 1922, Patna Municipal Corporation Act, Bihar Rstriction of Uses of Land Act, 1948, Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951, Jharkhand Regiional Development Authority Act, 1982, 1975 and Rules and Bye-laws, framed thereunder. The aforesaid two provisions does stipulate that technical person must be conversant with the provision of not only Jharkhand

8 8 Regional Development Authority Act but other related acts, byelaws and rules so that any structural details be made in accordance with the Act and Rules. If there happens to be any contravention of the provision of the Act, Rules or Bye-laws in the matter of construction of the building, technical person can be held responsible. In such situation, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that an Architect cannot be held responsible for building plan being not in conformity with the provision of the Act, Rules and the Bye-laws, is not acceptable. However, it would be seen during trial as to whether the petitioner being an Architect was responsible or not in making building plan as according to the petitioner, the petitioner though was one of the partners of M/s. Grids Consultant but had nothing to do with preparation of building plan wherein it is the case of the C.B.I that under the supervision of this petitioner, building plan had been prepared. Under the situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, before parting with this order, it be observed that any finding recorded for the purpose of disposal of this case may not be prejudicial to the case of the parties. ND/ ( R.R.Prasad, J.)