Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18707 of 2011 Date of Decision :4.10.2011 Saneh Lata ....Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Bathinda ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinde r S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Building-site plan, submitted by the petitioner Saneh Lata for the purpose of raising construction of her house, was sanctioned on 19.10.2006 by the respondent Municipal Corporation (for brevity “the MC”), Bathinda, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). Since the petitioner raised an un-authorized construction in complete violation of terms and conditions of the sanctioned site plan, so, the MC served a show cause notice to her. In pursuance of show cause notice dated 19.10.2009, she filed her replies on 22 & 29.10.2009, wherein, she admitted, but claimed that the un-authorized/additional constructions have been pulled down. Taking into consideration the indicated violations, the MC directed the petitioner to remove the un-authorized constructions, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P2). 2. Aggrieved by the decision (Annexure P2) of the MC, the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Additional District Judge (appellate authority), by way of impugned order dated 23.7.2011 (Annexure P1). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -2- the authorities below and preferred the present writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has already pulled down the un-authorized/additional constructions, so, the MC committed a mistake in passing the impugned order (Annexure P2), which was wrongly accepted by the appellate authority, by means of impugned order (Annexure P1), lacks merit. 6. As is evident from the record that the MC has passed the impugned order (Annexure P2), after giving the statutory show cause notice to the petitioner. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has raised un-authorized/additional constructions, completely in violation of the terms & conditions of the sanctioned site plan under the Act. In these circumstances, the MC was well within its right/jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, in view of the law laid down by this Court in case Raghbir Singh and another v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, through its Commissioner (2011-3) P.L.R. 315. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Hence, the contrary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 7. Not only that, the impugned order (Annexure P2) was upheld by the appellate authority, vide impugned order (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is (para 10) as under:- “So, after carefully considering the respective contention of learned counsel for the parties and above discussed material brought on record by the parties, I have reached at a considered opinion that the appellant is raising construction in violation of the sanctioned site plan dated Civil Writ Petition No.18707 of 2011 -3- 19.10.2006 for demolition of which show cause notice was issued to her and then impugned order dated 30.10.2009 was passed to demolish the unauthorized construction by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation while exercising the powers conferred under Sec.269 of the Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 269(2) of the Act.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders of the authorities below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 9. Meaning thereby, the authorities below, after taking into consideration the entire material brought on record by the parties, have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 4.10.2011 Judge AS