RSA No.77 of 1999 07.08.2009 Present: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. K.L. Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate seeks the liberty of the Court to withdraw the present regular second appeal to enable him to make a representation to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla on the basis of bona fide agriculture certificate obtained by his client. In these circumstances, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the present regular second appeal and liberty is reserved to him to make a representation to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla within a period of three weeks from today on the strength of the certificate issued by the competent authority. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla i.e. respondent No.1 shall decide the case of the appellant within a period of eight weeks after the representation made by the appellant. The representation made by the appellant shall be decided by a self-contained order. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate during the course of hearing has argued that the case of his client may be covered by the proposed Draft Rules published by the State Government vide notification dated 24.12.2008. The copy of the notification was placed on record. The Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) was also added as party for effective adjudication of the Regular Second Appeal in view of the submissions made by Mr. B.M. Chauhan. It transpired during the course of hearing that as far as Sr. No. 2 of Draft Rule 3 of notification dated 24.12.2008 was concerned, in the considered opinion of the Court, it was against the spirit of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. Item No.3 dealt with those cases where the permission had not been taken for building construction i.e. total unauthorized construction. The Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) was directed to seek instructions whether Sr. No.2 of Draft Rule 3 could be deleted or not. Consequently, the State Government has filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) dated 30.7.2009 whereby Sr. No.2 of Draft Rule 3 stands deleted. In other words, total unauthorized construction cannot be regularized. The Court appreciates the stand taken by the State Government in its affidavit by not permitting the regularization of total unauthorized construction. This stand is now in conformity with the letter and spirit of the Town and Country Planning, 1977. The Court hopes and trusts that in future, the State Government shall desist from making any retention policy permitting the regularization of total unauthorized construction. The decision of the State Government of deleting Sr. No.2 of Draft Rule 3 of the notification dated 24.12.2008 will send a clear message to the unscrupulous persons, who have been raising unauthorized construction hoping against hope that it shall be regularized. The decision of the State Government will strengthen the rule of law. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the Regular Second Appeal is disposed of. It is made clear by way of abundant precautions that till the representation made by the respondent is not decided, the construction shall not be demolished. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 7, 2009. *awasthi*