IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.313 of 2008 UPENDRA KUMAR & ANR Versus THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Corporation : Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.P.Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate (in person) ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 30th July, 2008. The counsel for the appellants submits that as a matter of fact there is no garage in existence at the subject place and, therefore, there was no justification in the order of the Municipal Commissioner directing demolition of garage. 2. That the appellants are owner of the land is not in dispute. That the said land has been given for development to the developer is also not in dispute. That the land has been developed and the building constructed thereon is also an admitted position. Whatever be the dispute between the owner and the developer or between the flat purchasers and the developer, so far as the present - 2 - appeal is concerned, it is confined to two aspects, namely, (one) the removal of unauthorized garage constructed by the appellants and (two) commercial user of one of the residential flats by a Non Governmental Organisation. 3. In so far as the garage is concerned, in its order dated 16.10.2007, the Municipal Commissioner directed the owner to remove the garage, which was found to be unauthorized. Now since the counsel for the appellant submits that there is no garage in existence, there should not be any serious objection to the order of Municipal Commissioner. The question of demolition of garage will arise only if it is in existence. If the applicant is wrong in contending that there is no garage in existence and, in fact it is, then the garage needs to be demolished. 4. In so far as user of residential flat as commercial by a Non Governmental Organisation is concerned, the counsel for the appellant submits that the commercial user has now been stopped. If that be so, we hardly find any justification in the present appellants assailing the order dated 16.10.2007, which has been impugned in the writ petition. The order dated 1.10.2007 is also to the same effect, save and except that by that order it has also been ordered that the land owner and developer will resolve their inter-se dispute concerning respective shares. This is not the subject matter of controversy in this appeal. - 3 - 5. Seen thus, we find that this appeal is frivolous and devoid of any substance. It is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-