High court pulls up PRDA

patna: a division bench of the patna high court comprising chief justice ravi s dhavan and justice shashank k singh on tuesday came down heavily on the patna regional development authority (prda) for allowing unplanned growth of the city in violation of the master plan. the master plan has planned urban expansion and integrated water supply, road, drainage and sewerage system of the city among its main objectives.hearing in the r usha and others case, which snowballed into an issue of planned urban growth, was subsumed by an earlier case relating to illegal construction of a market by the municipality in madhepura on pwd roads. senior advocate rajendra prasad singh, who has been a prda lawyer earlier, blamed the prda for the tardy development of the city. he blamed the indolence of the prda pointing to the illegal buildings in front of the prda office and others around it. the prda counsel, h s himkar repeatedly acknowledged the indolence and omissions of the prda arousing a lot of mirth but even that could not save the day for him. the chief justice was quite peeved at the incoherent arguments of the prda counsel and observed that "he is submitting everything except submitting on the issue". the bench pulled up the prda for not filing its reply on oath even after repeatedly being asked to do so by the court. the bench was also very concerned when an illegal construction in nageshwar colony belonging to one usha rani sinha was pointed out by basant kumar chaudhary. he said the householder had got 'deemed' sanction for alteration on the intervention of the patna high court as the prda had not acted within the stipulated three months. however justice aftab alam while allowing the writ application had directed her to abide by the prda guidelines at all times. using that judgement as a pretext, the houseowner got an apartment block developed instead of the alteration, he submitted. the bench was quite upset about this and asked an explanation from the prda counsel. himkar promised to do the needful which, however, did not satisfy the court. the bench asked him what action he had taken against violators at which himkar answered the prda had issued a notice asking the public to refrain from illegal construction. he also promised to come the next day armed with all the data pertaining to action taken against encroachers.