:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2000 Smt.Ramadevi Tantia. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.C.G.Gavenekar for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 15.4.2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a petition filed by Smt. Ramadevi Tantia (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner"). The said petitioner who is accused No.1 is arrayed as accused No.1 in Criminal Case No.6/P/1999 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar. There were originally four other accused in the said case and they are as follows. Accused No.2-Shri.P.K.Jain. Accused No.3-Shri.S.P.Rao. Accused No.4-Shri.S.P. Jain. Accused No.5-Shri.Y.K.Shankardas. 2. On perusing the complaint, it appears to be the grievance of the complainant that the present petitioner has illegally constructed a mezzanine floor of area 1400sq.ft. in her premises. Her premises is situated on the third floor of the building known as Bharat :2: Insurance Building situated at Harnimal Circle. The petitioner was a tenant of the premises in which she constructed a mezzanine floor. There was also some illegal construction on second floor of which Mr.P.K. Jain was tenant. The record indicates that apart from the petitioners all other accused persons have been discharged. The case of the present petitioner stands on the different footing . In so far as she is the only person against whom allegations have been made to the effect that she has illegally constructed mezzanine floor on the third floor. The case of the respondents No.2 and 3 is that this act violates the provisions of M.R.T.P. Act and therefore she is liable to be punished under Section 52 of the said Act. 3. The petitioner made an application for discharge before the Metropolitan Magistrate and this was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide an order dated 9.12.1999. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay and the revision came to be rejected by an order dated 30.8.2000. Both these orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition. The Advocate for the petitioner states that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted, no offence could be said to have been committed. His contention that Section 43 of the Act prohibits the development of land without the permission in writing of the planning authority but :3: there are several exceptions which are stated in the section itself. He relies upon the proviso (i) which is in the following terms: "for carrying out works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the external appearance thereof {except in case of heritage building or heritage precinct}). 4. In my view the construction of mezzanine floor is a matter of internal alternation to the building and for such an alteration to the building no permission would be required. Such matter would be covered by proviso (i) to Section 43 of the said Act. 5. The Advocate for the original complainants is absent in this case. There is no material in the complaint to indicate violation of any permission. In any case, the case of the complainant that no such permission was taken. In my view, therefore, this is a fit case where petition should be allowed. The petition therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)