WP(C) 5034/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5034/ 2010, Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the GMC and Mr. J. Roy, learne d counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Also heard Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. The petitioners in WP (C) No.5624/2010 are the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No.5034/2010, who are r epresented by Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel. The grievance of the petitioner in WP(C) No.5034/2010 is that though the GMC authority has issued notice under Section 337(1) & (2) of the Guwahati Muni cipal Corporation Act, 1971 on 20.05.2010 directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 ( petitioners in WP(C) No.5624/2010) to stop further construction of the building and to show-cause as to why the unauthorized construction as reflected in the sa id notice should not be removed/demolished, the said proceeding has not been fin alized by the GMC authority till date. The petitioner in the said writ petition, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent GMC authority to finalise th e said proceeding in accordance with law. The petitioners in WP(C) No.5624/2010 have challenged the aforesaid noti ce dated 20.05.2010 issued by the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, under Section 337 (1) & (2) of the 1971 Act contending inter alia that though the petitioners file d the application for regularization of the deviation found as well as submitted revised building plan, the same has not been considered and instead such notice has been issued. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5034 /2010 has submitted that since the Commissioner, GMC, initiated the proceeding b y issuing the notice dated 20.05.2010, it cannot sit over the matter for an inde finite period of time. According to the learned counsel the proceeding is still pending. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the GMC authority may be d irected to decide the said proceeding in accordance with law. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent GMC authority , has submitted that after issuance of notice dated 20.05.2010, the respondent N os.4 and 5 (petitioners in WP(C) No.5624/2010) have filed an application for reg ularization of the deviation from the plan, which is under consideration by the GMC authority and necessary order would be passed thereon in accordance with the provisions of the 1971 Act and the building Bye-laws formulated. It has also be en submitted that if the regularization of such deviation is not permissible, th e proceeding initiated vide notice dated 20.05.2010 shall be finalized. It has a lso been submitted that there are certain deviations in respect of the building constructed by the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5034/2010, for which the petition er has also filed an application for regularization of the deviation. The furthe r submission is that similar notice under Section 337(1) & (2) of the 1971 Act w as also issued to the petitioner and the said proceeding will be decided after c onsideration of the application filed by the petitioner for regularization of th e deviation. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in WP( C) No.5034/2010, who are the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.5624/2010, submits tha t the application filed by them for regularization of deviation has not been dec ided as yet. It has also been submitted that similar notice under Section 337(1) & (2) of the 1971 Act was issued to the present petitioner, who has also filed an application for regularization of the deviation and as such the GMC authority may be directed to consider both the applications filed by both the parties and decide the proceedings in accordance with law. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the par ties, as noticed above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direct ion to the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation to consider the applicat ions filed by the petitioners in both the writ petitions for regularization of t he deviations and to pass necessary order. While doing so, the authority shall a lso consider as to whether the notice under Section 337(1) & (2) of the 1971 Act can be issued in respect of the construction made by the petitioner in WP(C) No .5034/2010, since it is the contention of the petitioner in the said writ petiti on that such building was constructed prior to 1971. The application seeking reg ularization of deviation shall definitely be considered subject to the provision s of the 1971 Act and the building bye-laws formulated by the Corporation for th at purpose. In case, such regularization is not permissible, the authority shall proceed to decide both the proceedings initiated under Section 337 of the Act. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 3(three) mont hs from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to b e filed by the petitioners in both the writ petitions along with the copy of the writ petition with annexures appended thereto. The writ petitioners are accordingly disposed of. Till such decision is taken, the petitioners in both the writ petitions are directed not to make any further construction except the internal plastering , wherever required.