‘Improper’: Jharkhand High Court slams civic body over sealing of Physics Wallah premises

‘Responded to notices’

The court was hearing the plea challenging notices issued by the RMC on July 1 and July 6, directing the coaching institute operating from the premises at Lalpur to correct alleged deficiencies. The July 1 notice gave the institute seven days to address the issues, failing which the premises would be sealed under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, and the Jharkhand Building Bye-laws, 2016.

The owner of the premises submitted that he had responded to the notices on July 8 and 9, but the municipal authorities did not pass any order on the replies and proceeded to seal the premises on September 3, prompting him to move the high court.

Justice Rajesh Shankar allowed the petitioner another opportunity to submit a response to the RMC within two weeks.

Opposing the petition, the municipal corporation submitted that the replies were evasive and did not address the issues mentioned in the notices. It argued that the notices had clearly warned that the premises would be sealed if the deficiencies were not corrected.

After examining the records, the court noted that the notices alleged that the premises were being used for commercial purposes in violation of safety and other mandatory provisions of the municipal law and building bye-laws.

Highly improper: HC

The court observed that the doctrine of administrative fairness requires any public authority to act reasonably and impartially. It added that if the public authority issues a show-cause notice to a person and that person responds to the notice, that authority must pass an appropriate order supported with reasons as to why the reply is not acceptable.

It said, even otherwise, if any order is passed against the concerned person, he can avail of further remedy under the law. “In the present case, the municipal authority instead of passing any order, straightway sealed the premise on 3rd September, 2026. The said procedure adopted by the municipal authority, in view of this Court, is highly improper,” the court observed.

The court granted the petitioner another opportunity to submit a detailed response to the RMC administrator within two weeks. The administrator has been directed to provide the owner or his representative an opportunity of hearing, conduct an enquiry into the premises and take an informed decision in accordance with the law within three weeks of receiving the response.