S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) BENI Das Agarwal (for short `bda') respondent herein, in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge sought following reliefs:- (i) to quash the order dated July 10, 1995 of Member Secretary Building Plan Committee II (for short BPC-II) as well as the minutes drawn on July 10, 1995 by BPC-II Jaipur Development Authority (JDA ). (ii) to direct JDA not to act contrary to the approved maps. (iii) to direct JDA not to demolish construction made by BDA.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge vide order dated November 25, 1997 allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer made by BDA. Challenge in this appeal is to the aforequoted order of learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed in the backdrop of the facts that the plot No. H-19 Subhash Marg C-scheme Jaipur owned by BDA was a sub-divided plot of original land situated at Mirza Ismile Road Jaipur. The plot came to be allotted to M/s. Chunni Lal Ramgopal & Sons on June 7, 1994 for commercial use. The measurements of plot were 210 ft. x 200 ft. In due course of time the original land was sold through sub-division in favour of different persons. BDA moved application for construction of a Commercial Complex in the name of his father. The then Urban Improvement Trust granted permission and handed over approved maps through letter dated April 18, 1970. However, the construction could not be started. In the year 1992 BDA again applied for permission to raise construction of commercial complex. In the meeting of BPC-II held on October 15, 1993 the permission was accorded. The information was sent to BDA vide letter dated December 6, 1993. BDA raised construction according to parameters and the map approved by JDA on October 15, 1993. In June, 1995 JDA issued show cause notice to BDA stating therein that since the permission was accorded on wrong parameters, why not it be revoked. JDA also intended to demolish the contruction already raised. BDA approached JDA Tribunal and interim order was issued by the Tribunal in favour of BDA. Despite interim order BDA was asked to appear before JDA on June 26, 1995. The counsel of BDA was also informed that the case of BDA was covered under Regulation 11. 5 of Jaipur Development Authority Regulations, 1989 (for short `regulations' ). Counsel for BDA sought time to explain as to how Regulation 11. 5 was not applicable. However the case was fixed for June 13, 1995. On that day BDA was informed that the permission granted on October 15, 1993 had been revoked. BDA under these circumstances preferred the writ petition. The JDA filed reply raising preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of writ petition. It was stated that under Section 83 of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 the order dated July 10, 1995 could be challenged by filing of appeal before the JDA Tribunal. The second ground was that copy of order assailed in the writ petition was not filed and the third objection was that the writ petition involved umpteen disputed questions of facts. It was also averred that BDA was guilty of submitting documents with material change. According to JDA subdivision in itself meant creation of separate property. The JDA had legal authority to revoke the permission granted by it. Lok-Aayukta after due enquiry pointed out applicability of wrong parameters in granting permission to BDA. Since the plot in question situated on Subhash Marg, parameters applied to the plot situated on MI Road were not applicable to it. Learned Single Judge after having considered the submissions of both the parties and relying on the ratio indicated by Apex Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133, made following observations in para 34 of the impugned order:-      " In view of above observations of Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that once the permission of construction of commercial complex has been granted by the JDA and on that permission the petitioner has acted upon and raised construction as per parameters stipulated by the JDA, that cannot be revoked, subsequently on the basis that while the permission was given the Authority of JDA has not properly considered the provisions in respect of parameters before approving the map of building. "
(3.) MR. Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for JDA criticised the impugned order from various angles. Submission of MR. Vyas may be summarised thus:- (i) Writ petition of BDA was not maintainable in view of alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 83 of JDA Act. (ii) Writ petition was not maintainable since the order under challenge was not placed on record. (iii) Learned Single Judge did not properly consider the relevant statutory provisions. (iv) Since permission was not granted in accordance with law, its revocation was just and reasonable. (v) Order of learned Single Judge is based on misapplication of facts. The JDA Tribunal never stayed revocation of permission but learned Single Judge stated in the impugned order that the Tribunal has stayed the proceedings of revoking the permission. Having pondered over the submissions we find that before revoking the permission, reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to BDA. Learned Single Judge took notice of certain admitted facts and observed in para 13 of the impugned order thus:-      " In the case in hand the facts are not in dispute that permission for construction of commercial complex has been granted by JDA in December, 93, thereafter the petitioner has acted upon on that permission and raised construction of commercial complex and invested a huge amount. Before the BPC-II there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner. The Tribunal has stayed the proceeding of revoking the permission, inspite of that show cause notice has been issued to petitioner as to why the permission should not be revoked and why the building already raised should not be demolished. Not only that the petitioner was directed to appear before the BPC-II on 10. 7. 95. On 10. 7. 95, the petitioner was out of station, his counsel appeared and prayed for time. Instead of allowing him time and giving reasonable opportunity, the decision has been taken to revoke the permission granted to petitioner in December, 93. That was communicated to petitioner only 13. 7. 95, on a hearing date in JDA Tribunal. The JDA officer has informed the counsel for petitioner that permission has been withdrawn. This is clearly in violating of principles of natural justice and in such matters this Court cannot dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, but should interfere in such arbitrary actions of executive authorities, keeping in view the facts of original plot, I find no force in the submission of Mr. Vyas that the writ petition is not maintainable. Not only this the writ petition was filed as back as in July, 1995 and now all pleadings are completed and after two and a half years, this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. " Since principles of Natural Justice had been violated by the JDA, in our opinion, the writ petition was maintainable and it could not have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. ;