WP(C) 982/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bora, learned standi ng counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. NNB Choudhury, l earned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. I have also heard Ms Ajitsari a, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent No. 5, Gauhati M etropolitan Development Authority (GMDA). The grievance of the petitioner, in the present petition, is that the respondent No. 4 is carrying out unauthorized construction of marriage hall (Bibaha Bhawan ) at Kamakhya Temple Foot Road (Bye lane) near Viswakarma Temple, Kamakhya Gate over a plot of land covered by Dag No. 639 of KP Patta No. 167 under GMC Ward No . 7. The whole grievance, as it appears from the averments made in the writ peti tion is about making construction without any permission as required from the Ga uhati Municipal Corporation (GMC) or the Gauhati Metropolitan Development Author ity. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing ha s submitted that on enquiry the petitioner could come to know that the Chief Exe cutive Officer of the GMDA on 6.8.2009 has granted permission to the respondent No. 4 for construction of a three storied building i.e. ground, first and second floor for residential purpose over a plot of land covered by Dag No. 639 of KP Patta No. 167 (copy of which has been annexed to the application filed in Misc. Case No. 620/2010). It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 24.2.2010 informed the petitioner (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to Misc. Case No. 620/2010) that the building would be co nstructed strictly in terms of the permission granted by the authority on 6.8.20 09 and shall not be used for any purpose other than residential purpose. The petitioner having admitted issuance of the permission by the Development aut hority on 6.8.2009 to the respondent No. 4 for making the construction on ground and two floors above it, no lis survives in the present writ petition. However, the respondent No. 4 is to make the construction strictly in terms of the permi ssion granted by the Development Authority on 6.8.2009 and in accordance with th e approved plan and the building shall be used for the purpose for which the per mission has been granted unless of course permission, if permissible, for use of such building for any other purpose is obtained from the competent authority. It is needless to say that the GMDA shall make periodic inspection as required u nder the Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1986 so that the constr uction is made by the respondent No. 4 in terms of the permission granted as wel l as the approved plan. The writ petition is disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.