CWP No. 2605 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2605 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.9.2008 Leela Bhawan Market Welfare Society and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1 Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4 Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5 ***** T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral) This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It alleges violation of Municipal Corporation Buildings Bye-Laws, 1997 by respondent No. 3 who has constructed a Multi storied building named Prem Heights Multiplex at Sibia Colony in Patiala. A mandamus directing official respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate steps for removal of the violations has been prayed for by the petitioner association who claims to be a welfare society comprising shop-keepers of Leela Bhawan Market and residents of Ajit Nagar situate in the vicinity of the building in question. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents, we see no reason to issue any directions in exercise of our writ jurisdiction in public interest. We say so because the CWP No. 2605 of 2008 [2] petitioners have not admittedly approached the competent authority, namely, Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Patiala for appropriate action against the alleged violations. The proper course for the petitioners was to first demand action by the corporation authorities for the alleged violations and upon their failure to take such action, approach this Court for appropriate directions. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that this writ petition could be treated as a representation and the corporation directed to take action on the same. We are not impressed by that submission. We see no reason why the petitioners should not themselves file a proper representation before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala setting out the nature of violations and praying for appropriate action in accordance with law i.e. particularly when the building in question is alleged to have been completed in 2001 and let out to different occupants thereafter who are making use of the same. We are also informed that municipal authorities have already issued a completion certificate in favour of the owners which implies that there were either no violations or the violations were duly compounded. Be that as it may, the petitioners would still be free to make a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, in which event, the Municipal Commissioner is expected to look into the same and initiate appropriate action, if any, called for under the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. In case, the issue has already been examined and appropriate orders regarding compounding of the alleged violations already passed, the Commissioner shall on receipt of the representation from the petitioners intimate to them about the said fact. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek such redress as may be CWP No. 2605 of 2008 [3] permissible in law against any such intimation or order. With these directions, the Civil Writ Petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) 04.09.2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'