Eii Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order 28.4. 8 Present: Mr. Jorgay Namka, Petitioner in Person. Mr. J.B. FTadhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, Government Advocates for the State-Respondents. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, Sr. Advocate with Ms. 8. Dutta and Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Advocates for Respondent No. 4. This wit petition is filed by a single wit petitioner by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging basically a provision in a Notification dated 15.10.2001. The said provision is to be found at page No. 55 of the annexures to the wit petition being the inserted sub-Regulation (vi). To understand the said regulation, it is best to set out in full the second clause of the said notffication dated 15.10.2001 and it is so set out below: ~ "2. In the si]din Building construction Regulation, 19 91 ; (hereinafter referred to as the said regulations), in. regulation 17, - (a) for. sub-regulation (i), the following shall be substituted namely: - SerialNo.otOrder fi Date-ofOrder Order with Signature Office Note as toaction(ifany)takenonOrder I "(i) The maximum heicht of bufldings constructed in allotted sites or private holdings within a notified area shall be in accordance with the suitability and proffie of the locations based on the stabhity map of the area as prepared by the Mines and Geology Department from time to time which shall be as follows: - Stabilitv zone Admissible number of floors1.51/2storeys 2. 4 1/2 storeys 3. 3 1/2 storeys 4. 2 % storeys 5. 1 I/2 storeys 6. No constructio is allowed.Providedthattheheight of buildings shall furtlier be regulated in accordance with the size of the plot allotted or possessed and structural design of the foundation • of the proposed building; (b) after sub-regulation (V) the following sub-regulation shall be added, nanely: - "(vi) Any structure beyond the permissible number of floors or allotted area or approved Blue Print Plan completed or under construction on or before the date of notification of these regulations, shall be re.gularized after payment of regularization fee to be prescribed by Notification by the Government". " I Seria Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Order I order taken on Order IIIIiIII Et will be seen that by the said amending notification a certain basic scheme was formulated for the purpose of building safety for the preservation of the interest of the general priblic. The building zones were created with . varying degrees of ground strength allowing, in general the buildings to have storeys only upto a prescribed number.Itshouldbeunderstood that this provision is in addition to the general provision, existing almost everywhere in urban India, that no building is to be constructed without the previous sanction of the concerned Municipal Authority and that if such sanctioned approval or plan is not adhered to, the Authority normally retains the power to demonsh the wrongly built portion and bring the building in accordance with the provisions and the sanctioned plan.Thesubmission of the writ petitioner is that the sixth regulation permitting, in particular cases, buildings to go beyond the prescribed nulnber of storeys is wholly illegal and sliould be struck out. Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order The fourth respondent |is inpleaded as a case in point where a I.elaxation was allowed for construction. The regularizition was that he was anowed. to construct a buflding of 6 I/2 storyes height in stability Zo+e No. 1 where the admissible number of storeys, in any event, is 5 I/2 storeys. i It is quite clear that the power of regularization cannot be exelcised unless there is something to regularize ii.e. no power of regularizationcanbeexercise'diftherespondent No. 4 wished to build olily up to 5 % storeys in Zone No.1. I The said respondent |was permitted to I.aise the extra storey on payment of Rs.1,79,000/-, which payme+t was made on or about 27.11.2003 and the construction in questionwasalsocompleted;nthatyear. The construction has {remained in tact since. Insteadofshchgthal regularization has inegally, wrongly or to thei detrinent of the public, the example shows that the regularization process has worked out norl]ially. __==`> ±_ --Order. with signature •- -i_i_i- _ t-`_ Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken on Order -I .---- i - -.=== The fourth respondent is happy. The Governlnent Iias been able to utilize the extra revenue for governmental purposes. No neighbour has complained and no untoward incident has been taken place. It is well Imown that although certain provisions might be branded as irrelaxable in municipal regulations and rut,es, yet in all of the few cases known to this Court, there are always provisions for regularization of relaxable deviations, on condition inter alia of application of mind by the concerned authority to all the relevant facts and circumstances of each deviating instance. The `instant regularization is no different from this general category containing powers of regularization. We are quite clear in our minds that the litigation of the instant natur? cannot be filed by a single citizen ].ust because he decides one day to take up the Court's tine by going through the process of filing a wit petition and pursuing it £