R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the sanctioned map in terms of Sec.37 of the Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (the Act for short), and Clause 7.2 of the Ranchi Planning Standards and Building Bye -Laws, 2002 (the Bye -laws for short), and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioners is as follows. For constructing a multistoried building, a plan was submitted before respondent No. 3 along with requisite fee on 27.2.2003, which was registered as B.C. Case No. 294 of 2003. On the expiry of four months, the petitioners sent a notice by registered post on 28th June, 2003 in terms of Sec.37 of the Act and Clause 7.2 of the Bye -Laws. Again a notice under the said provisions was sent after expiry of one month on 11.8.2003. When no response was received, a notice dated 11.8.2003 was again sent. On 5.1.2004 from a general notice issued in the newspapers, the petitioners learnt that a letter dated 27.11.2003 has been issued to the petitioners for rectifying the defects in the map and demanding the drainage plan. In order to avoid litigation, the petitioners submitted a representation along with the drainage plan. In these circumstances, the petitioners claim that the Map submitted by them should be presumed to have been sanctioned under Sec.37 of the Act and 7.2 of the Bye -Laws. It is, therefore, prayed that the authorities be directed to release the sanctioned Map to enable the petitioners to start the construction work.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the 'means of access '/ the street is less than six meters in width and therefore the plan submitted by the petitioners is not in terms of Clause 18.6 (iii) of the Bye -Laws. Learned counsel further submitted that the plan can be presumed to have been sanctioned if there is no defect in the same. Clause 7.2 of the Bye -Laws provides that subject to the condition mentioned in the Bye -Laws, nothing shall be construed to authorize any person to do anything in contravention of or against any other regulations, bye -laws or ordinances operating on the site of work. Mr. Singh sought to explain the delay in responding to the petitioners ' application for sanction of Map by saying that till October, 2003 the Vice Chairman was entrusted with other offices also and only after an order was passed by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, a full time Vice Chairman started functioning. He further submitted that now when the petitioners have responded to the notice dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure -A) they have waived their rights under Sec.37 of the Act.;