In Rohit Kumar @ Rai Rohit Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 4-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it observed that the appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the 4-page long order January 20, 2025 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge of the High Court. This was the 10th judgment authored by Chief Justice Bajanthri.
The Division Bench observed:"4. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated abruptly stalling the construction without assigning any valid reason. Even after a lapse of six years, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran, has not taken any action to pass final order pursuant to Annexure-6 cited supra. In other words, appellant-Rohit Kumar has invested huge amount of money for the purpose of construction of public building. 5. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Single Judge dated 20.01.2025 passed in CWJC No. 2140 of 2022, on the sole ground that Single Judge has committed error in not apprising the impugned order dated 03.08.2018, is without application of mind and it is not with reference to any statutory provision. Accordingly, they are set aside.''
Justice Bajanthri concluded: ''6. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran, is hereby directed to evaluate the construction work undertaken by the appellant-Rohit Kumar under the determine what is the amount appellant-Rohit Kumar has invested on the construction and proceed to pass order. On such determination of amount, the appellant-Rohit Kumar is entitled to interest @ 8 per cent per annum. The same shall be settled along with the invested amount read with interest within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The appellant is entitled to litigation cost throughout the litigations and it is quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. Cost shall be paid by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran to the appellant within 8 weeks from today. 8. Accordingly, LPA stands allowed.''
The appellant had assailed the 5-page long order by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge dated January 20, 2025 passed in Rohit Kumar @ Rai Rohit Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar (& Ors. 2025). The Single Judge after recording certain dates and events from para 3 to 10 of the order proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
The moot question for consideration in the present lis was whether the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran, was empowered to abruptly stall the ongoing construction of a public building or not? which was undertaken by the contractor namely, Rohit Kumar-appellant or not?
Justice Verma had heard the writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the Letter No. 2314 dated August 3, 2018 issued under the signature of the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motihari, East Champaran, the Respondent No. 3 writ petition whereby and where under the petitioner was directed to stop the construction upon the roof of the building situated near sadar hospital, Jai Prakash Market Motihari, East Champaran till the further order of the District Collector, Motihari, East Champaran. The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner for making construction upon the roof of building situated near sadar hospital Jai Prakash Market, Motihari, East Champaran in terms of agreement dated March 31, 2018 to this writ petition prepared in between the petitioner and the respondents concern.
The petitioner had submitted that on March 15, 2018, a tender notice was published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran for settlement of the roof for the purpose of business that is situated near Sadar Hospital, Motihari, Jai Prakash Market. The last date of submission of the tender was on March 26, 2018 and the terms and conditions of the tender was mentioned in the notice dated March 15, 2018. Pursuant to this aforesaid notice, the petitioner filled up the tender on March 24, 2018 and submitted bank draft amounting to Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) along with affidavit and other relevant papers as prescribed in the tender notice to the Respondent No. 3.4. By a letter no. 1236 dated March 28, 2018, the petitioner was informed by Respondent No. 3 that the proposal of settlement of roof has been accepted. Thereafter, on March 31, 2018 an agreement was executed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the map with respect to construction upon the settlement of roof has been prepared and the same was approved by the competent authority including the Respondent No. 3.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has constructed the proposal, which was started under the supervision of Junior Engineer of Respondent No. 3. The said construction was almost completed by the petitioner and the petitioner had invested huge amount of money in the aforesaid construction, but all of a sudden, he received a letter dated August 3, 2018, issued by the Respondent No. 3 to stop the construction work till further order of District Magistrate, Motihari, the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed several petitions before the authority concerned, but no action was taken by them.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Verma had observed: ''it appears from the records that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, apart from that, he has deviated from the sanctioned plan and the matter of the petitioner was enquired by four man Committee constituted by the Respondent No. 3 and report of the four man Committee reveals that there is clear deviation of construction from the sanctioned map. In view of the aforesaid, no interference of this Court is required."
This judgement by Justice Verma was set aside "on the sole ground that Justice Verma, the Single Judge committed error in not apprising the impugned order dated August 3, 2018, is without application of mind and it is not with reference to any statutory provision."
No comments:
Post a Comment