RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS public interest Petition is presented on the allegation that the 5th respondent was attempting to occupy the additional floors of a commercial complex called 'sangeeta' which are directed to be demolished by an order of this Court as they were built in breach of an undertaking given before this Court by the 5th respondent and without license from the corporation of the City of Bangalore and in plain contravention of the Comprehensive development Plan promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planing Act, and therefore the 5th respondent should be restrained from occupying that portion of the building. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, it is necessary to set out the history of the case. ( 3 ) THERE are two commercial multistoreyed buildings called 'rajatha' and 'sangeetha' which have been constructed by Rajatha Enterprises and Vinayaka Investments the 5th respondent, respectively. 'rajatha' is notorious for having been constructed even when an interim injunction issued by this Court in a public interest petition restraining the builder of that building from constructing the building, was in force (See: S. K. Sharma -v.- The Corporation of the Bangalore) ILR1986 KAR 2536. 'sangeeta' is notorious for its 4th and 5th floors having been constructed in breach of the undertaking not to construct them, given by the 5th respondent before this Court in a public interest petition challenging the legality of the license given for construction of basement plus ground and three floors, without license and in contravention of the Comprehensive Development Plan ('odp' for short) framed under the Act. (See: K. K. Govindaraju -v.- Commissioner of the Corporation) ILR1987 KAR 1570. The buildings have been constructed at Chickpet, Bangalore, which happens to be the hub of business activity and the buildings constructed in that locality have the potential of earning huge amounts in the form of Pagdi, advances and rents. ( 4 ) THERE were public interest petitions questioning the legality of the license issued by the corporation in respect of both these buildings. The petition relating to 'rajatha' was by S. K. Sharma1. It was allowed by us following the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in m. D. Narayan v.- State of Karnataka 1982-2 Kar. L. J. S. N. Item 35. The petition relating to 'rajatha' was by S. K. Sharma1. It was allowed by us following the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in m. D. Narayan v.- State of Karnataka 1982-2 Kar. L. J. S. N. Item 35. This Judgment has been confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B. K. Srinivasan -v.- State of Karnataka ilr 1987 KAR 1867 decided on 19-1-87. The special leave sought for to appeal against the above Judgment has not been granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to which we shall refer later. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivasan's case AIR1987 SC 1059 , JT1987 (1 )SC 180 , 1987 (1 )SCALE142 , (1987 )1 SCC658 , [1987 ]1 scr1054 , 1987 (1 ) UJ657 (SC ), we held in Govindaraju's case2 regarding 'sangeeta' that there should be an order similar to the one made in S. K. Sharma's case1. Paragraph 15 of the Judgment reads : ''15. In the result, we hold that these three petitions are entitled to succeed and we should make an order on lines similar to the one made in S. K. Sharma's case. " Accordingly, we made the following order in three public interest petitions against 'sangeeta'. "in W P. Nos. 7628 to 7630/1986. 2 (i) Rule made absolute (ii) The Writ Petitions are allowed (iii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall issue to respondent No, 1 to decide after issuing notice to respondent-3, the actual extent of violation of the Outline Development Plan and the zoning Regulations promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the Licence L. P. No. 2611/80-81 dated 25-10-1980 and/or construction of the building on premises bearing No. 771 to 774, O. T. C Road, Chickpet Bangalore, and after considering the reply, if any, furnished by respondent No. 3 and if the finding were to be that there has been such violation of Zoning Regulations as would call for demolition of any portion of the building, he shall take further action for demolition of the offending portion so as to bring the building in conformity with law. (iv) Time for compliance : four months. (iv) Time for compliance : four months. " At this stage it is necessary to state that the above order related to the license granted by the corporation for construction of basement, ground and three more floors in violation of law and that what is relevant to this petition is not the above order made in the public interest petition but the order made in Writ Petition No 8351 of 19862 presented by the 5th respondent that is, vinayaka Investment -v.-Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore. ( 6 ) THE brief facts and circumstances in which W. P. No. 18351/19862 was presented by the 5th respondent are these : The three public interest petitions regarding 'sangeeta' in which we made the order, extracted earlier, had come up before a Division Bench of this Court on 1-10-1986. On the said date, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners therein expressed an apprehension that respondent No. 5 (Respondent-3 in that petition) apart from constructing five floors under a license which itself was in contravention of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, was attempting to construct three more floors without license in contravention of the Comprehensive development Plan approved and published under the Planning Act which had since come into force in October 1984, On the said date, the learned Counsel, who was appearing for respondent no. 3 gave an undertaking before that Division Bench. The undertaking reads : "call this matter on 22-10-1986 at the request of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. We also place on record the submission of Sri G. Lingappa, Learned Counsel, that the appellant need not have any apprehension about any illegal construction and that respondent-3 will not put up any additional floor in excess of what is sanctioned. This submission is placed on record. " (underlining by us) within 20 days thereafter, respondent No. 5 strangely, presented Writ Petition in W. P. No. 18351 of 19862 before this Court seeking for the issue of a direction to the Corporation not to prevent it from constructing three more floors. In that Writ Petition, the fact that there was an earlier public interest petition pending before this Court in which the legality of the construction of five floors itself had been challenged, was suppressed by respondent No. 5. More glaringly, the undertaking given by respondent No. 5, extracted above, was also suppressed. Respondent no. In that Writ Petition, the fact that there was an earlier public interest petition pending before this Court in which the legality of the construction of five floors itself had been challenged, was suppressed by respondent No. 5. More glaringly, the undertaking given by respondent No. 5, extracted above, was also suppressed. Respondent no. 5 contended in that petition that it must be deemed to have Secured a license on the ground that the Standing Committee of the Corporation had not rejected its application for license on merits, but it had only rejected that appeal before it, as not maintainable. On that petition, one of us (Ramakrishna, J) before whom the matter came up for preliminary hearing, made the following order : "heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner issue Rule. xx xx xx sri Keshava Iyengar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the work is required to be taken up expeditiously as things stand, interim order permitting the petitioner to take up the work may be accorded. As the Division Bench has indicated in other cases, petitioner is permitted to do so at. his risk inasmuch as it depends upon the finality of the Writ Petition. However, it is made clear that if he takes up the construction work during the pendency of the writ petition and if the writ petition were to go against the petitioner, there would not be any alternative but to pull down the construction work so taken up during the pendency of the writ petition, without any right fro seek compensation. " (underlining by us) later the said Writ Petition was also referred to a Division Bench and was directed to be posted along with the earlier public interest petition. Both the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order made by us on 16-4-1987. In that order, we held that the above order was secured by the 5th respondent by suppression of the undertaking given before the Division Bench. It was only during the hearing, all the above facts came to light and by that time respondent No. 5 had completed the major part of the additional floors. This Court found that the construction of additional floors was in breach of the undertaking given before this Court and without license and in flagrant violation of Comprehensive Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations. This Court found that the construction of additional floors was in breach of the undertaking given before this Court and without license and in flagrant violation of Comprehensive Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations. In view of these findings, we made the following order in W. P. No. 18351 of 19862 ; " (i) The writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000-00 payable by the petitioner to the first respondent. (ii) In terms of the condition imposed in the interim order, a direction shall issue to the first respondent to take steps forthwith to demolish the additional floors constructed by the petitioner over and above the number of floors sanctioned vide L. P. No. 2611/80-81 dated 25-10-1980 without license and in contravention of the provisions of the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations annexed thereto and in breach of the undertaking given before this court. (iii) The first respondent shall be entitled to recover the cost of demolition from the petitioner. "(underlining by me) as against the order made in the three public interest petitions and in the above petition respondent No. 3 has filed the Special Leave Petition (C) 5138 5139 of 1987 and 5818 5820/ 1987, before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. On 18-5 1987 Hon'ble the Supreme Court made the following order : "issue notice on the special leave petitions in all the matters returnable within two weeks after re-opening of the Court. Pending notice, the respondents are restrained from demolishing the construction. SLP (C) 5818-20/87 : the Municipal Corporation, however, can proceed with the direction for determining the actual extent of violation of the ODP and the Regulations as regard to W. P. Nos : 7628 to 7630 of 1986 as directed by the High Court but I make it clear that no effect will be given to the final order made by the Corporation until further orders. " (underlining by us) it is the first order which is relevant to this petition. The second concerns the building which was covered by the license issued by the Corporation, but found to be illegal, in respect of which we had directed the Corporation in Writ Petition Nos. 7628 to 7630/1986 to identify the offending portion and then demolish that portion only. The second concerns the building which was covered by the license issued by the Corporation, but found to be illegal, in respect of which we had directed the Corporation in Writ Petition Nos. 7628 to 7630/1986 to identify the offending portion and then demolish that portion only. As far as the additional floors are concerned, they were directed to be demolished in terms of the condition imposed in the interim order made in Writ Petition No. 18351 of 1986 as the construction was found to be wholly illegal. 6. The petitioner, on coming to know that the fifth respondent who had occupied certain floors was trying to occupy the additional floors also, made a representation to the Commissioner on 31-8-1987. Relevant portion of the letter reads : "i am one of the petitioners in the Petitions referred above The Petitions were decided on 16-4-1987. An order has been made directing the Corporation, among other things, to demolish the additional floors constructed on the premises mentioned above which are without licence and in contravention of the C. D. P. and the Zoning Regulations. In the meanwhile, Vinayaka Investments have leased out the basement and ground floor of the premises. Under Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 it incumbent on every person completing the erection of a building to apply and obtain a completion certificate from the Commissioner. No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied or use or permit to be use the building or part thereof unless the Commissioner has issued permission. No such permission has been given to Vinayaka Investments. Hence, you are requested to cause immediate action to be taken to ensure that Vinayaka Investments do not lease or occupy the premises till the requirements of Section 310 are complied with by locking premises which are ready for occupation. " (underlining by us) thereafter, the petitioner came forward with this petition. The matter came up for preliminary hearing before one of us (Rama Jois, J) on 8-10 1987. On the said date, after setting out all the facts and circumstances of the case, an ex parte interim order was made to the following effect : " (i) Respondent No 4 is directed not to permit Respondent No. 5 or any other person to occupy the top three floors directed to be demolished by the order of this Court made in Writ Petition no. 18351/1984. 18351/1984. (ii) Respondent No. 5 is restrained from occupying or from permitting any other person to occupy the top three floors, directed to be demolished pursuant to the orders of this Court made in Writ Petition No. 18351 of 1986. " the above case and another pending public interest petition W. P. No. 977/1987 which was presented in January 1987 at the time when the 5th respondent had started construction of additional floors in breach of the undertaking given before this Court and without license, came up for orders on 27-10-1987. It was common ground that the matter was covered by the earlier division Bench Judgment in Govindaraju's case2. But for the allegation that the 5th respondent was attempting to occupy the additional floors directed to be demolished, there was no necessity to pass any order in the Writ Petition. However, in view of the allegation that the 5th respondent was trying to occupy the additional floors, an order was made allowing the Writ Petition in terms of the order made by the Division Bench in Govindaraju's case2 and an additional direction was given to the Corporation to close the entry to the additional floors of the building. In view of that order, no orders were passed in this petition. ( 7 ) IN this petition the learned Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board filed a memo on 27-10-1987 stating that the Board had not supplied electric energy to the additional floors as alleged, as the construction was made without a license, The said memo filed on behalf of the electricity Board was recorded and a direction was issued to the Electricity Board not to supply electric energy to the additional floors. ( 8 ) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on the very next day, a Writ appeal was filed by Respondent No. 5 against the order made in W. P. No. 977/1987 stating that the additional floors had been let out to the tenants and therefore that part of the order made in W. P. No. 977/1987 directing the Corporation to close entry to the additional floors should be stayed and in view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant therein, a stay of that order was granted. ( 9 ) ON 30-10-1987. ( 9 ) ON 30-10-1987. another W. P. No. 16512/1987 filed by Sri S. K. Sharma who was the public interest petitioner in the case of Rajatha1 seeking similar orders in respect of floors fourth to eigth of Rajatha Complex, came up for preliminary hearing before one of us (Rama Jois, J ). The petitioner therein had produced as Annexure-B to the Petition an order of Hon'ble the Supreme court refusing to entertain the Special Leave Petition No. 1122 of 1987 presented against our judgment in respect of Rajatha Complex1. The Supreme Court, however; permitted the seeking of some further direction regarding the implementation of the order of the Corporation made pursuant to our order. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reads : "we are informed that subsequent to the judgment of the High Court the Commissioner of the bangalore Mahanagara Palike has examined the question pursuant to the direction of the High court in the Writ Petition and has given its decision In the circumstances, we feel that we should not entertain this Petition at this stage, under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, however, permit the petitioner if he is so advised to file a Petition before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner or an interlocutory application in the Writ petition seeking appropriate relief before the Learned Judges who disposed of the Writ Petition so that they may pass appropriate orders on the writ petition or the application as the case may be. If such a petition is filed we request the High Court to dispose the matter expeditiously. " (underlining by us) As Hon'ble the Supreme Court directed that the question of issuing further directions in respect of orders made by the Division Bench of this Court should be considered by the same Learned judges and should be disposed of expeditiously and as the Learned Counsel for the petitioner therein also submitted there was urgency, Counsel who were appearing for the parties were directed to take notice and the Writ Petition was referred to Division, Bench with a direction to seek the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for its posting in terms of the order of Hon'ble the supreme Court for hearing, on 6-11-1987. As the facts and circumstances of the Case and the nature of the relief sought for in this Writ Petition was also in similar circumstances and incidental to the order made by us regarding 'sangeeta', when this Writ Petition came up for further orders on 31-10-1987, it was also referred to Division Bench with a direction for its being posted along with Writ Petition No. 16512/1987 for hearing. Accordingly, both, these petitions have been posted for heading to-day before us we had decided both the cases relating to Rajatha and Sangeetha. ( 10 ) IN W. P. No, 16512/1987 relating to Rajatha the plea of the petitioner has been that floors 4 to 8 were in violation of law and therefore the whole of it or most part of it was liable to be demolished and therefore a direction should be issued to the Corporation to close the entrance to 4 to 8 floors of the said building and a direction should also be issued to the Electricity Board not to supply electricity to the said floors of the building. We heard Sr. H. B. Datar, Senior Counsel and Sri H. N. Narayan, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. D. Karanth, the learned Counsel for the Rajatha and the Learned Counsel for the Corporation and the Electricity board. Learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that as no permission to occupy the floors 4 to 8 was granted and as there was an order for demolition of the offending portion, it is expedient to pass an order as prayed for. Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that supply of electric energy could not be given for the same reason. Sri K. R. D. Karanth, learned Counsel for Rajatha submitted that it was true that permission to occupy floors 4 to 8 had not been given and therefore he would not oppose the passing of an order as prayed for by the petitioner therein. He submitted that he would be filing a separate application regarding extent of demolition or for any other relief and that might be considered alter it was filed. In the circumstances, we have to-day made the following order in W. P. No. 16512/87 concerning rajatha. It reads : "respondent No, 2 is restrained from occupying the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the building. In the circumstances, we have to-day made the following order in W. P. No. 16512/87 concerning rajatha. It reads : "respondent No, 2 is restrained from occupying the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the building. The Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore is directed to close the entrance to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the buildings. The Karnataka Electricity Board is directed not to supply electric energy to these floors and if electric energy has already been given, to disconnect the same immediately. " ( 11 ) IN the nature of things, there has to be a similar order in respect of the additional floors of sangeeta. But Sri H. B. Datar, Senior Counsel and Sri H. N. Narayan, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 in this Petition relating to Sangeeta, however, submitted that there should be no such order in respect of Sangeeta, In support of this submission, the Learned counsel submitted that the additional floors directed to be demolished had been occupied by as many as 20 tenants even prior to the date on which we made our order on 15-4-1987 for their demolition. Sri Vijayashankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not true that any one had occupied the premises at any time earlier to the Judgment and that no one could or had occupied it after the Judgment. He submitted that in fact no one has occupied it till now. He also submitted that in the Writ Appeal filed against the order in W. P. No. 977/1987 in support of the application for stay, except making a bald statement that the additional floors had been let out to twenty tenants some time earlier to the Judgment, no scrap of paper was produced in evidence of it. ( 12 ) AS stated earlier, we made an order dated 15 4-1987 directing the demolition of the additional floors forthwith for the reasons set out in our Judgment2. At that time if really the premises was already in occupation of the tenants, the fifth respondent would have brought that fact to our notice. ( 12 ) AS stated earlier, we made an order dated 15 4-1987 directing the demolition of the additional floors forthwith for the reasons set out in our Judgment2. At that time if really the premises was already in occupation of the tenants, the fifth respondent would have brought that fact to our notice. The very circumstance that no such fact was brought to our notice is sufficient so state that the present stand taken by the fifth respondent that the tenants had been inducted and they had occupied the additional floors even prior to 15-4-1987 is clearly an after thought and factually not true. As to why the above stand is taken by the 5th Respondent is not far to seek. On 15 4-1987 we made an order dismissing the Writ Petition of the 5th Respondent with a direction to demolish the additional floors constructed in breach of the undertaking given before this Court and without license. Therefore, the appellant could neither himself occupy nor induct anyone as tenant into these floors on and after the said date as it would amount to Contempt of court. It is for this reason it appears to us, the fifth respondent has come forward with the story that 20 tenants had occupied the additional floors prior to our Judgment in April 1987. Learned counsel submitted that there was no sufficient time to produce evidence and wanted time to produce evidence. But as stated earlier, as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the Writ Appeal filed on 28-10-1987 only a bald statement was made to the effect that 20 tenants had occupied the additional floors before our Judgment and not an iota of evidence was produced. This statement was not controverted by the Learned Counsel. The 5th Respondent who had taken such a plea in the appeal on 28-10-1987 would have certainly produced material in support of it, if he had any before us. The, non-production leads to the inference of non-existence of any such evidence. Moreover, the order posting this case for hearing was made on 31-10-1967 and therefore the appellant bad a week's time. The, non-production leads to the inference of non-existence of any such evidence. Moreover, the order posting this case for hearing was made on 31-10-1967 and therefore the appellant bad a week's time. In view of the allegation that the 5th Respondent was making hectic move to induct tenants and also having regard to the fact that if it had any such evidence, the 5th respondent had sufficient time to produce it to-day, we found no justification to give time as sought for. Moreover, it is not disputed that the 5th respondent has not secured permission to occupy the additional floors, as required under Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Section 310 of the Act as amended with effect from 17th June 1986, reads : "310. Completion Certificate and permission to occupy or use : (1) Every person shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of a building or the execution of any such work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner at his office notice in writing of such completion, accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed in the bye-laws signed and subscribed in the manner prescribed and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such buildings or of such work and shall apply for permission to occupy the building. 1a. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1 ). where permission is granted to any person for erection of a building having more than one floor, such person shall within one month after completion of execution of any of the floors of such building, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner at his office, a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed in the byelaws, signed and subscribed in the manner prescribed and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for inspection of such floor of the building and may apply for permission to occupy such floor of the building. (2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or part of the building or use or permit to be used the building or part thereof affected by any work, until : (a) permission has been received from the Commissioner in this behalf, or (b) the Commissioner has failed for thirty days after receipt of the notice or completion to intimate his refusal of the said permission. " (Underlining by us) The language of Sub-section (2) is peremptory. The securing of permission to occupy the premises is a condition precedent for occupying any newly constructed building, each of the floors or part thereof. Sri Castelino, learned Counsel (or the Corporation submitted that no such permission has been granted by the Corporation. It is also not the case of the 5th respondent that he had applied and/or secured permission in terms of Section 310 of the Act for occupying the additional floors. This is another strong circumstance which shows that the plea of the 5th respondent that 20 tenants had occupied the additional floors is not true. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute that as far as the building covered by the license is concerned, pursuant to the interim order made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Corporation has to determine the extent of violation and to identify the portion of the building to be demolished, but should not proceed to demolish the building. It is also not in dispute that though in respect of the aforesaid portion of the building, that is, basement, ground, first, second and third floors, the Corporation had not issued the permission to occupy, the 5th respondent had filed W. P. No. 21897 of 1986 in which this Court had permitted the 5th respondent to occupy these floors by an ex-parte interim order made on 26-12-1986. In view of the above order, we are confining this petition only to additional floors directed to be demolished by our order made in Writ Petition No. 18351 of 19862. ( 14 ) THERE is also no dispute that even regarding the additional floors, directed to be demolished by our order, the Corporation is prevented from demolishing it, in view of the interim order made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent gave a clarification regarding the additional floors. ( 14 ) THERE is also no dispute that even regarding the additional floors, directed to be demolished by our order, the Corporation is prevented from demolishing it, in view of the interim order made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent gave a clarification regarding the additional floors. He submitted that three additional floors had not been constructed fully and that construction of only two additional floors, namely, 4th and 5th floors, had been completed. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the 5th respondent maintained that as the demolition of those additional floors has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the 3th respondent was entitled to occupy the said floors. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that when a finding has been recorded by this Court that the additional floors were constructed in breach of the undertaking given before this Court and without license and also in flagrant violation of the comprehensive Development Plan and the matter is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme court in Srinivasan's case4, the 5th respondent cannot occupy the said floors and that the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court staying the demolition of the additional floors pending consideration of the Special Leave Petition, does not authorise the 5th respondent to occupy the said floors. We are entirely in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the stay of demolition of additional floors only restrains the Corporation from demolishing them pursuant to the orders of this Court but does not enable the 5th respondent to occupy the additional floors. ( 16 ) EVEN assuming that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the fifth respondent is correct, the fifth respondent has to seek the permission of the Corporation before occupying or permitting any one to occupy the additional floors, in view of the mandatory provisions of section 310 of the Act, extracted earlier. Therefore, until the 5th respondent secures any such permission, the additional floors cannot be permitted to be occupied. Therefore, until the 5th respondent secures any such permission, the additional floors cannot be permitted to be occupied. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, we are convinced that if we fail to pass an order directing the corporation to close the entrance to the additional floors of 'sangeeta' and thereby allow the 5th respondent to induct tenants to the additional floors, constructed without license, in violation of the undertaking, in violation of the Planning Act and without permission under Section 310 of the Municipal Corporations Act, and under order of demolition, and to collect the pagadi, advances and rents, rule of law would irretrievably suffer and would have the effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the authority and efficacy of the orders of the courts. We are astonished at the vehemency with which an argument was advanced that the 5th respondent has the right to occupy the additional floors. If we concede the argument, we are convinced that it is the rule of law which gets demolished. ( 18 ) FURTHER, we are also unable to appreciate as to how the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent themselves, while arguing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 16512/1987, asked US to pass an order for closing entrance to the 4th to 8th floors of 'rajatha', could argue not to pass similar order against the additional floors of 'sangeeta'. ( 19 ) CONSISTENCY and judicial propriety demands that we must make similar orders in both the cases as both the cases are similar and are main order is similar. ( 20 ) SRI H. B. Datar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that as one of us (Rama Jois, J) had passed an order for closing entrance to the additional floors of 'sangeeta' in W. P. No, 977/1987 and as that order was pending in Writ Appeal before another division Bench and has been stayed, as a matter of property, this Bench should not pass any orders regarding 'sangeeta'. ( 21 ) WE are fully conscious of the fact that we Judges, as individuals, are ephemeral and this court to which an exalted position is given by the Constitution, is eternal and it is our duty to ensure and protect the faith of the public in this exalted institution and do nothing which detracts from it. It is an article of faith with us. It is an article of faith with us. ( 22 ) AT this stage it is appropriate to recall as to what one of us (Rama Jois, J.) said and did in the case of R. Chandrappa -v.- H. M. T. Watch Factory, 1983 (1) KLC 1. A batch of Writ Petitions were heard on 1-9-1982 by him and orders were reserved. When he was going through the records he noticed that when the matter had earlier come up before Puttaswamy, J. the learned counsel for the petitioner therein asked the Judge to post the case before Rama Jois, J. stating that a case in which the question-whether a Government Company was 'state' was involved, was being heard by him. The Learned Judge directed that the case be posted after the disposal of those cases and adjourned the matters. The learned Counsel, thereafter, filed a memo before hon'ble the Chief Justice requesting that the case be posted before Rama Jois, J. when the matter came up before the learned Judge (Puttaswamy, J.) on 4-1-1982, he was annoyed and made an order to the effect 'not before me'. The Learned Judge was under no disability. He could have disposed of the matter expressing displeasure at or censuring the conduct in making such request. But the noble Judge avoided unpleasantness by making an order 'not before me'. After noticing these facts which were on record, he (Rama Jois, J) directed the posting of the case for 'for being spoken to' and when it was so posted informed the Learned Counsel that the very request made that the matter be heard by a particular Judge would constitute a valid ground for that Judge not to hear the matter. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that he had no objection for his (Rama Jois, J) delivering the Judgment as the matter had been heard for a full day on 1-9-1982 and on an earlier date, on grounds of propriety Judgment was not delivered. Relevant portion of the order made by him (Rama Jois, J) giving reasons for doing so reads : "5 -- Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, in the best traditions of the Bar, submitted that he had no objections at all for my deciding these cases, though he appreciated the force of my feelings. Relevant portion of the order made by him (Rama Jois, J) giving reasons for doing so reads : "5 -- Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, in the best traditions of the Bar, submitted that he had no objections at all for my deciding these cases, though he appreciated the force of my feelings. Yet I consider that in order to uphold the higher values touching properties of judicial conduct and ethics, I should decline to decide these matters. XXX XXX XXX 14. A request made by a party to the effect that his case be posted before a particular Judge is likely to create an impression in the mind of the opposite party that the Judge is favourably disposed towards his opponent and consequently would undermine his faith and confidence in such Judge. XXX XXX XXX 15. . . . . . . . (ii) Judges and lawyers as individuals are ephemeral. But a sound judicial system built up by them, are of sternal value to the society. They owe a duty to the society to develop, protect and sustain a sound judicial system and not to do anything which detracts from it. 16, After giving my anxious thought and after due deliberation, it appears to me that the proper course for me in these cases is to decline to decide these cases and to make the same order which was made by my brother Puttaswamy, J,. e. , 'not before me'. Ordered accordingly," ( 23 ) THEREFORE, in view of the question of propriety raised by Sri H. B. Datar, learned Senior counsel, we sent for the Learned Advocate General, appraised him of the facts and circumstances set out above and requested him to tell us as to whether it is appropriate or not for us to make an order in this petition. ( 24 ) THE Learned Advocate General submitted that having regard to the following facts, namely. (i) as both the Judgments, namely, the Judgment in S. K. Sharma's case regarding Rajatha and the judgment in the case of Vinayaka Investments regarding Sangeeta, were rendered by us. (ii) the orders sought for in both the petitions that is, in W. P. No. 16512/1987 regarding Rajatha and in this petition regarding Sangeeta, are in the nature of directions in furtherance of the directions given by this Bench in the two cases. (ii) the orders sought for in both the petitions that is, in W. P. No. 16512/1987 regarding Rajatha and in this petition regarding Sangeeta, are in the nature of directions in furtherance of the directions given by this Bench in the two cases. (iii) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its order on the Special Leave Petition by Rajatha had expressly directed that the question of giving further directions should be considered by the same learned Judges ; and (iv) the petition before us is a Writ Petition and not an appeal against an order made by one of us, there was no impropriety in this Bench passing an appropriate order. He also submitted that when the two cases are similar, in view of the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is appropriate that we should pass orders in both the cases and the fact that in the other case one of us (Rama Jois, J) had passed a similar order and it is pending in Writ Appeal, does not in the least be made the basis for the objection raised by Sri H. B. Datar for passing an order in, this petition. ( 25 ) AFTER giving our anxious consideration, we accept and follow the opinion expressed by the learned Advocate General. As can be seen from the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, there is a direction that the same learned Judges who disposed of the case of Rajatha, should hear any application or petition seeking any specific directions regarding Rajatha. As we had decided the case of 'sangeeta' following our decision in Rajatha, the same directions hold good to 'sangeeta' also. ( 26 ) ONE other aspect of the matter should also be noticed. The two petitioners, namely, Sri S. K. Sharma and Sri Mahadeva, were the public interest petitioners relating to Rajatha and Sangeeta respectively. Though they have chosen to present these two Writ Petitions, they are not independent Writ petitions seeking adjudication of any new question for the first time. These writ Petitions are really in the nature of interlocutory applications by the petitioners in the earlier petitions praying for passing certain further and protective orders to ensure that the directions issued by us in the two earlier public interest petitions are effectively implemented and public interest is safeguarded. These writ Petitions are really in the nature of interlocutory applications by the petitioners in the earlier petitions praying for passing certain further and protective orders to ensure that the directions issued by us in the two earlier public interest petitions are effectively implemented and public interest is safeguarded. Under the rules any such application filed after the disposal of the case, has to be treated as an interlocutory application and when such an application is made, it has got to be considered by the same Bench which had made the final order in the proceedings. The directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is also to the same effect. ( 27 ) IN this situation, we told the learned Counsel that in this Petition we propose to make an order similar to the one we have made for Rajatha to-day in W. P No. 16512/1987 with a condition that our order shall not be given effect to till the end of this month and that before that date the 5th respondent might make an application/petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court seeking such orders as it considers entitled to seek. ( 28 ) WE also requested the learned Advocate General and all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to make a joint request before the other Division Bench of this Court to adjourn the appeal to next month. All the learned Counsel agreed for our suggestion. ( 29 ) WE gratefully acknowledge the valuable guidance and advice tendered by the learned advocate General and the co-operation extended by all the learned Counsel, by agreeing to our suggestion. ( 30 ) IN the result, we make the following order : (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part, that is, only in so far it relates to the additional floors of the building constructed by the fifth respondent by committing breach of the undertaking given before a Division Bench of this Court, without license, in violation of the Comprehensive development Plan and which portion is directed to be demolished by our order made in Writ petition No. 18351/1986. (ii)a. A direction shall issue to the fourth respondent--Corporation, to close entrance to the additional floors constructed by the fifth respondent over and above the number of floors sanctioned vide LP No. 2611/80-81 dated 25-10-1980 and/or lock it and keep the key in its custody until the fifth respondent secures permission for occupation, in accordance with law. b. The above direction shall not be given effect to till 30th November 1987, but shall be given effect to on 1st December 1987.