- (1.) AT the outset, Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the R.R.D.A., submitted that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal under section 54(2) of the Regional Development Authority Act.
(2.) MR. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, disputed this submission and submitted that only the person against whom an order is passed for demolition, can file appeal under the said provision and not the petitioner who is claiming violation of the sanctioned map by R.R.D.A. by private respondent. He further submitted that the R.R.D.A. authority themselves are at fault. He also referred to the letter dated 7.8.2010 issued by the R.R.D.A. to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand saying that the contravention is apparent. However, he could not shown as to under what provision, the petitioner made complaint. In my opinion, such complaint could be filed under section 54 of the Act. The concerned authority suo motu or on complaint made to it, can examine the matter and take action in terms of section 54 of the Act. In that view of the matter, case of the petitioner is covered by sub-section 2 of section 54 if he is the person aggrieved by the order passed by the Vice-Chairman even if, no order has been passed by the concerned authority on the complaint of the petitioner for demolition.
(3.) IN my opinion, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal which can examine the facts and all the points raised by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. On this, Mr. Bhanu Kumar submitted that the petitioner will file appeal, but at least, delay may be condoned.;