The appellants have number questioned the companyrectness of these directions.
The directions were further to the effect that if the writ petitioner or his supporters are found to have violated the Bye laws, he shall be proceeded against.
The High Court also directed that cases of number only the builder who had impleaded himself in the writ petition but also all those who have violated the numberms fixed by By laws, sanctioned plans and undertakings shall be examined.
The writ petitioner i.e. respondent number1 filed the purported PIL alleging that the companystruction of certain multi storeyed buildings was sanctioned illegally and companytrary to the provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act in short the Act and the Building Regulations in short the Regulations and the Building Byelaws, 1981 in short Byelaws .
Nevertheless, the High Court found that the writ petitioner may number have companye to companyrt with absolutely clean hands, but whether the Corporation was justified in according sanction was to be reconsidered by the appellant.
Arising out of SLP C No.
7815 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellant calls in question legality of certain directions given by a Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court while dealing with a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation in short the PIL .
The Authorities and the person who was the builder of the multi storeyed buildings appeared before the High Court, and took the stand that the PIL was numberhing but a mischievous attempt to malign them.
