BOPANNA, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are inter-related and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are based on the same set of facts. ( 2 ) W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242 and 4607 of 1987 are filed by the petitioners as public interest litigation petitions. W. P. No. 1856/89 is filed by a certain D. P. Sharma, who claims to be the present owner of the premises in question. ( 3 ) IN all these petitions, the actions taken by the Commissioner, Corporation of the city of Bangalore, under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged by the petitioners. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections filed by the owners of the buildings, namely, Respondents 4 to 8 in W. P. No. 4240/87 to 4242/87 and 4607/87, an objection is taken by them to the effect that these petitions are not public interest litigation petitions, but they have been filed with a view to have some private grievance ventilated by one Shivakumar and therefore that issue must be decided by this court before going into the merits of the case. ( 5 ) SINCE on the facts averred in the writ petitions by the petitioners, a bona fide doubt, whether these petitions are really public interest litigation petitions, arises. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides on this point and am satisfied that this point must be decided as a preliminary issue. It is all the more necessary since in another connected writ petition which was the subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, on facts more or less similar to the facts here had made certain observations about the alleged public interest in the appeals disposed of by it. ( 6 ) IN W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242/87 filed by three persons, namely, M/s. Mahadeva, V. K. Manjunatha and G. A. Narasimhaiah, they claim to have their place of business at o. T. C. Road, Chickpet, Bangalore, where the building in question had been put up by r-3 to R-7 who are now represented by their power of Attorney Holder one D. P. Sharma. 4240 to 4242/87 filed by three persons, namely, M/s. Mahadeva, V. K. Manjunatha and G. A. Narasimhaiah, they claim to have their place of business at o. T. C. Road, Chickpet, Bangalore, where the building in question had been put up by r-3 to R-7 who are now represented by their power of Attorney Holder one D. P. Sharma. In that writ petition, these petitioners have alleged that they are citizens of India, residents of the City of Bangalore and ratepayers having their place of business at o. T. C. Road, Chickpet, Bangalore; that these petitions are in public interest and they have no personal interest in the subject matter of these petitions. There is no other pleading in these petitions apart from what has been stated above in support of their plea that these petitions are in Public Interest. The petitioners have not alleged that the building has come up on account of the dishonest or fraudulent actions either of the authorities or the builders in question. Their case is that the building in question has come up in violation of certain statutory provisions of the karnataka Country and Town Planning Act of 1983 (for short KTP Act) and the provisions of the Act. In paragraphs 3 to 9 of the petitions, they have alleged that the building which respondents 3 to 7 are constructing is in total violation of the bye-laws and other provisions bearing on the question; that O. T. C. Road, Chickpet is one of the busiest commercial areas in the City of Bangalore; that due to the narrowness of the road, there is congestion at all times of the day till 8 in the evening; that pedestrians find it difficult to walk through the area and there is no space for vehicles to move freely or for parking and that the prevailing confusion on o. T. C. Road will increase enormously if buildings built in contravention of the relevant laws, are permitted to come up without any check or hindrance. ( 7 ) THE petitioners have not made any allegation about the safety of the building or about the quality of the construction or about the deprivation of right of enjoyment of the properties of the adjacent owners of shop premises in the area in question. These petitions were filed on 18-3-1987. It is common ground that no interim order was obtained by the petitioners. These petitions were filed on 18-3-1987. It is common ground that no interim order was obtained by the petitioners. Close on the heels of these petitions, presumably because an interim order was not granted by this Court, w. P. No. 4607/87 is filed by another four persons claiming to be residents of Bangalore city. In paragraph-1 of the petition, they have stated that they are residents of Bangalore and carrying on their business at o. T. C. Road, Chickpet, Bangalore; that they have not claimed any individual relief and therefore a joint writ petition is maintainable. In para-6 of the petition, they have stated that they are al! residents of Bangalore and have locus standi to present this petition to prevent the construction of any building which is not only contrary to Comprehensive development Plan and the bye-laws but also constitutes a fraud on this Court on the part of the respondent and that the Hon'ble supreme Court in B. K. Srinivasan's case decided on 19-1-1987 has emphasised that it is the duty of the Citizens to have greater vigilance to expose the deplorable laxity on the part of the Corporation and Planning authority. In this petition these petitioners had obtained an interim order but subsequently it was vacated. ( 8 ) ALL these pleadings regarding the alleged public interest in these petitions are controverted by respondents 4 to 8. In this petition these petitioners had obtained an interim order but subsequently it was vacated. ( 8 ) ALL these pleadings regarding the alleged public interest in these petitions are controverted by respondents 4 to 8. In the statement of objections filed by them, they have stated that these petitions were filed at the instance of one K. V. Shivakumar, who is inimically disposed towards the respondents; that the petitioners are either in employment with K. V. Shivakumar or his henchmen and therefore, the petition is not a bona fide petition; that petition also does not disclose as to how they are affected by the construction in question; that after obtaining the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after getting the sanctioned plan strictly in accordance with the rules governing the matter, the respondents started the construction and have completed the same; that though this Court granted an interim order of stay, staying the construction, the same was thereafter vacated in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 865/1987 (as per annexure Respondent-1); and inspite of these orders, the henchmen of k. V. Shivakumar, i. e. , the petitioners without any basis and against the order of this Court in W. P. No. 4607/87 preferred W. A. No. 1554/87 before the Division Bench that this writ appeal was also dismissed in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india, in C. A. No. 865/87; that after the dismissal of W. A No. 1554/87 the said D. S ashoka and others approached the Hon'ble supreme Court of India in SLP No. 786/88 (Civil Appeals ). But the same was dismissed as withdrawn as per annexure Respondent-2; that the way in which the petitioners are fighting the litigation upto the highest Court in the land, even at the inter-locutory stage, clearly shows that it is actuated by mala fides and at the instance of K. V. Shivakumar, who is financier of the litigation and that the petitioners have not stated as to how the plan sanctioned is in violation of law. The statement of objections is common to W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242 and 4607/87. The statement of objections is common to W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242 and 4607/87. ( 9 ) IN order to test the correctness of these averments in the statement of objections, it would he necessary to trace the history of litigation between the parties which initially commenced in the Civil Court in O. S. No. 3326/83. That was a suit filed by one Eswari prasad against the Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore, who is the 2nd respondent herein and T. S. Umapathi, who is the father of respondents 3 to 6 and husband of respondent No. 7 in W. P. 4607/87. It is seen from the order made by Kulkarni J. in m/f. A. 541/85, that the plaintiff in that suit was a tenant of the suit premises belonging to t. S. Umapathi and he filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-2 from issuing a licence in favour of umapathi for putting up a construction in property No. 182, O. T. C. Road, Chickpet, bangalore, which would affect the easementary right of water and sewerage lines running in the lane adjacent to the property and not to in any way destroy or abridge the passage IJKL and the bridge MNOP indicated in the suit sketch or in any manner affect or injure the plaintiffs tenancy rights and plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said rights in the suit schedule property. The trial Court had dismissed the LA. on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for Umapathi that he would not interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial Court recorded the submission made by the counsel for Umapathi and dismissed I. A. I. This order was challenged by the plaintiff in m. F. A. No. 541/85. Kulkarni J. , allowed the appeal and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining respondent-2 from issuing a licence in favour of Umapathi pending disposal of the suit. The matter did not rest there. Umapathi made an application for modification of the said order of the learned Judge on 5-2-1987. Kulkarni J. , allowed the appeal and granted an order of temporary injunction restraining respondent-2 from issuing a licence in favour of Umapathi pending disposal of the suit. The matter did not rest there. Umapathi made an application for modification of the said order of the learned Judge on 5-2-1987. In the affidavit, in support of his application, for the modification of the said order, Shivakumar, legal representative of late Umapathi has stated as follows:"after the disposal of the above appeal on account of a stay obtained by one of the tenants in the connected HRC case, the proceedings in the eviction case started by the second respondent in HRC No. 1648/81 on the file of the Court of Small causes at Bangalore (SCCH IV) has also been stayed and the result is there is no progress in the eviction proceedings and as a submission has been made that the appellant will not be evicted except in due course of law, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the first respondent from granting the licence and thus the two matters are inter linked. "this application was allowed by the learned Judge and an order was passed in terms of this application permitting the second respondent-Corporation to issue a licence to Umapathi. It should be noticed that this order was made after hearing the counsel for both the parties. The upshot of this order is found at page 123 of the file. K. V. Shivakumar, against whom allegations are made by the contenting respondents that he is the person behind this litigation in this Court had made a very strong representation to respondent-2 and the same if found at page 123 of the Corporation file. In that representation, he has described himself as a Managing Partner of M/s. Rajatha enterprises who are the owners of the building in 812/1 OTC Road, Chickpet, bangalore and also a rate-payers of bangalore Corporation. In the second paragraph of the representation, he has stated thus:"i have learnt that an illegal order has been obtained in M. F. A. No. 541/85 and on the basis of the same the heirs of late t. S. Umapathi have made a strange application for grant of building licence in nos. 180 to 183 OTC Road, Bangalore. In the second paragraph of the representation, he has stated thus:"i have learnt that an illegal order has been obtained in M. F. A. No. 541/85 and on the basis of the same the heirs of late t. S. Umapathi have made a strange application for grant of building licence in nos. 180 to 183 OTC Road, Bangalore. The application made on 18-12-1981 bearing No. LP 4653/81-82 was lapsed as no sanction was given and as no representation (appeal) was made to the standing Committee under Section 302 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation act. An order based on a compromise to which Corporation is not a signatory cannot be a basis to violate the bye-laws or the comprehensive development plan which have come into force on 12-10-1984. The order in M. F. A. also appears to be fraudulent as it shows that Sri H. R. Datar appearing for one B. Ramaswamy lyengar who is shown as the advocate for the corporation. To my knowledge Sri B. Ramaswamy lyengar is not one of the standing Counsel for the Corporation and he has not been served with I. A. No. II filed in the said M. F. A. Further the m. F. A. is against an order vacating temporary injunction in a suit. Therefore no orders can made in such M. F. A. to issue a building licence. "shivakumar relied extensively on the decisions of this Court in M. D. Narayana v state of Karnataka and Others,dd: 11-6-1982 and Shanta v Commissioner of Corporation of bangalore (ILR 1986 (2) Karnataka 1037) and requested the Commissioner to direct an enquiry to be made as to the authority of the counsel to represent the Corporation and whether any consent was given to pass the order without prior approval of the corporation. He also stated in the concluding paragraph that in regard to the property in question he had filed a civil suit no. 685/87 seeking an order of injunction against the owner from selling the property to Sri D. P. Sharma and the said suit is pending before the City Civil Judge. Significantly, the Files disclose that none of the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 685/87 seeking an order of injunction against the owner from selling the property to Sri D. P. Sharma and the said suit is pending before the City Civil Judge. Significantly, the Files disclose that none of the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242/87 and W. P. No. 4607/87 who claim to prosecute these petitions in public interest had raised any objections about the order made by this court in the M. F. A. or regarding the licence proposed to be granted to Umpathi on his application made in 1981. On the other hand what we find in the file is that the neighbours of the premises in question had given their no Objection Letters to the Corporation, presumably in compliance with the requirements of relevant bye-laws expressing their approval to the construction to be put up in terms of the application made by umapathi for grant of licence. That No objection Letter is found at page 85 of the records. The relevant portion reads thus:"we the undersigned, the owners of the premises Old No. 359, late No. 845 and still later No. 1028 and present bearing municipal No. 185 situated at OTC Road, chickpet, Bangalore, do hereby state that we all, the neighbours of Bombay Anand bhavan, on premises Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 183 belonging to Smt. M. S. Parvatamma and her children namely Sri u. Shivakumar, Sri U. Praveen Kumar, Sri u. Girishkumar and Smt. Lalitha Karunakar. Our property bearing new municipal No. 185 on the Western side of bombay Anand Bhavan, with the following measurements, measuring East to West 50 ft. approximately, measuring ncrth to South 85 feet approximately bounded on East: House of Sri Talkunte shivappa; west: Drainage land vacant place and Sri chenna Shetty house and Sri asulaps and other buildings. North: Sri Chandanmal and Sri Jugraj's building and Chickpet OTC Road; south: Vendor's property Sri Bardukunte basappa's house and shop owned by M/s. Mohanlal Moolchand we learned that the owners of Bombay anandha Bhavan, OTC Road, Chickpet are applying for sanction of plan and licence, to demolish and reconstruct the whole-sale Textile Market, in the Bombay ananda Bhavan. We have absolutely No objection, whatsoever, for the said construction, proposed to be reconstructed and for which application is made, for sanction of plan and licence, to about our premises wall, on the western side and to our Eastern side. We have absolutely No objection, whatsoever, for the said construction, proposed to be reconstructed and for which application is made, for sanction of plan and licence, to about our premises wall, on the western side and to our Eastern side. " ( 10 ) ONE more fact which requires to be noticed is the order made by the Supreme court in Civil Appeal filed by aggrieved party in M. F. A. on the file of this Court. ( 11 ) IT transpires that notwithstanding the modification of the order made by the learned Judge in the M. F. A. , preferred by the plaintiff in the original suit (which was a consent order), Umapathi could not get the licence on the terms prayed for in the year 1981 and therefore he approached the supreme Court in C. A. No. 865/87. Special leave was granted and by consent of parties, the injunction granted by the High Court was vacated, Respondent-2 Corporation was directed to consider the application of umapathi in LP No. 4653/81-82 in accordance with the then existing Outline Development Plan and Zonal Regulations 1972 with such modifications and/or deviations as may be necessary or permitted. The appeal was disposed of on the above terms without costs. ( 12 ) ON the strength of the order of the supreme Court Umapathi obtained the licence in question. The petitioners have approached this Court even before the grant of licence to Umapathi. They have alleged that on making enquiries they learnt that the building was demolished for the purpose of constructing a commercial complex. That on further enquiry they have been able to gather the following particulars:- "that the original owner T. S. Umapathi whose legal representatives are 3 to 7, seem to have applied with a plan in the month of December 1981 to the second respondent for the issue of licence to construct a lodging house on the site in question. The plan was given LP No. 4653/81-82. To the best of petitioners' information the said plan was not sanctioned by respondent-2. Respondents 3 to 7 seem to have submitted a modified plan under the same LP number to the second respondent during the last week of February 1987 for permission to construct a basement floor, ground floor and first to third floors. To the best of petitioners' information the said plan was not sanctioned by respondent-2. Respondents 3 to 7 seem to have submitted a modified plan under the same LP number to the second respondent during the last week of February 1987 for permission to construct a basement floor, ground floor and first to third floors. This only shows that what appears to be public interest on paper is not public interest at all, but the private vendata of Shivakumar who is the Managing Partner of Rajatha enterprises. He was the only person who made a representation to the Corporation as found in the Corporation file. The manner in which the representation was made shows that he had some score to settle with the contesting respondents. This file maintained by the Corporation shows that apart from shivakumar who on his own showing is the partner of Rajatha Enterprises, no one was adversely interested in the Construction of the premises and therefore the plea of the petitioners now in these petitions that they are prosecuting these petitions in public interest and the plea of the contesting respondents that these petitioners are set up by the said Shivakumar has to be seriously considered. ( 13 ) THAT this Shivakumar is a partner of rajatha Enterprises is also clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the connected public interest litigation in civil Appeal No. 634/89 before the Supreme Court. The appellant in that case was Rajatha enterprises whose partner is Shivakumar and respondents are one S. K. Sharma and others a Division Bench of this Court, on the writ petition filled by S. K. Sharma and others purporting to be public interest litigation petition, had allowed the petition and issued a direction to the Corporation restraining it from issuing the licence to the appellant rajatha Enterprises on the ground that the said licence was in violation of the relevant building bye-laws, and Zonal regulations, the provisions of K. T. P. Act and the Act. the plea of public interest alleged in that petition was upheld by this Court. This Court also found on merits that S. K. Sharma and others were justified in claiming the reliefs against the Corporation and issued a directive to the corporation as prayed for. the plea of public interest alleged in that petition was upheld by this Court. This Court also found on merits that S. K. Sharma and others were justified in claiming the reliefs against the Corporation and issued a directive to the corporation as prayed for. Before the supreme Court, the plea of public interest was challenged by the Appellant Rajatha enterprises and the Supreme Court observed as follows:"it may however, be stated at this Stage that no contention has been urged before us regards the safety of the building consequent upon the alleged violation of the statutory provisions. It is not suggested that the appellant has acted fraudulently or dishonestly. In fact, the commissioner categorically finds in his order dated 17-8-87 that the appellant has not been guilty of any misrepresentation in his endeavour to obtain the permission of the authorities. There is no material whatsoever to suggest that the appellant has at any time acted dishonestly or that the building has in any manner become a source of danger either to its inmates or to the neighbouring public. The quality of the construction of the building is not under any challenge whatsoever. "the Supreme Court further observed:"the public is in no manner aggrieved by the construction of the building. No member of the public has come forward to any that his privacy has been affected by the construction of the building or the safety of the neighbourhood or of the inmates of the building has been in any manner endangered. The first respondent, counsel says, he is neither a resident in the neighbourhood of the building nor is he a person affected by the construction of the building. He has neither any personal grievance to vindicate nor any public cause to espouse in challenging the validity of the licence granted to the appellant. The first respondent, counsel says, he is neither a resident in the neighbourhood of the building nor is he a person affected by the construction of the building. He has neither any personal grievance to vindicate nor any public cause to espouse in challenging the validity of the licence granted to the appellant. "in page 15 at para 5 the Supreme Court further observed:"in the circumstances, in the light of what the Commissioner says about the practice of the Corporation in regard to the commencement certificate and in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of the first respondent, the High Court was not justified at the instance of the first respondent claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any pan of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the pan of the builder. See the principle stated by Sabyasachi mukharji, J. , in Ramasharan Autyanupresi and Another v Union of India and by khalid, J. , in Sachidanand Pandey and another v State of West Bengal and others. "in the light of these observations especially in view of the fact, Shivakumar is a partner of rajatha Enterprises the bona fides of these petitioners who have filed this petition allegedly in public interest, will have to be examined. ( 14 ) CERTAIN material is placed before me as to the place of residence of first petitioner in W. P. 4240/87 to 4242/87. This Mahadeva does not specify the place of residence in the cause title to the petition. He does not even say that he is a resident of the locality which is close to the premises in question. He has described himself as S. M. Mahadeva son of madappa, 56, OTC Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. His plea regarding public interest is that he is a rate-payer and a Citizen of India and he has his place of business at OTC road. The nature of his business or the premises in which he is doing business is not clear from the petition. His plea regarding public interest is that he is a rate-payer and a Citizen of India and he has his place of business at OTC road. The nature of his business or the premises in which he is doing business is not clear from the petition. There is some material to show that he is an employee of rajatha Mahal who are jewellers having an air conditioned premises at No. 499, Avenue road, Bangalore. These Jewellers must be quite prosperous since their apartment appears to be air conditioned. In the report of the Senior Labour Inspector of Bangalore, the name of the first petitioner is found as one of the employees of this Rajatha Mahal. The other two petitioners are residing at mavalli Tank Bund Road. But all the same, they say that they have their place of business at OTC Road. Where is their place of business, is not disclosed nor the type of business they are carrying. Thus, it appears these petitioners are name lenders to the petitions. The voters' list produced by the contesting respondents shows that this Mahadeva who is petitioner-1 is a resident in Vasavi Temple road, VV Puram. His name is found at sl. No. 251 of the said list. There is no need to go into the antecedents of the petitioners in W. P. No. 4607/87 because that petition, in the light of the allegations made by the petitioners in W. P. No. 4240 to 4242 of 1987 is not maintainable since it is well settled that there cannot be two public interest litigation petitions at the same time against the same parties. When the first batch of petitions itself would have served the public purpose. Whether these persons are name lenders or the henchmen of Shivakumar need not be enquired in to, and this Court can treat this petition as not a petition in public interest. ( 15 ) THE tenacity with which this litigation was fought as noticed earlier even at the inter-locutory stage upto the Supreme Court, only shows that only Shivakumar could have financed the litigation upto the Supreme court and not these faceless petitioners. According to me they are namelenders and are people not residing in the locality adjacent to the building in question and are in no way interested in the building in question. According to me they are namelenders and are people not residing in the locality adjacent to the building in question and are in no way interested in the building in question. ( 16 ) THIS Shivakumar has master-minded this litigation under the guise of public interest litigation. Therefore the first question has to be answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. ( 17 ) A reference must be made to the decision of the Division Bench on which the learned counsel for the petitioners relied since I was a party to that decision reported in ILR 1978 Karnataka 982 (R. Rama Jois and Others v State of Karnataka And Others), the locus-standi to file a writ against a resolution passed by Town Municipal Council to lease out a part of land belonging to it and within the limits of Municipality by two of the rate payers and a member of the Advisory Council appointed to assist the Administrators of Municipality was challenged in that case. The Division Bench following the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ramadas Shenoy v THe Chief Officer, T. M. Council, Udupi (AIR 1974 S. C. 2177) observed "having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the grievance put forward by the petitioners, we are of the opinion that they are persons who have substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings complained of and have locus-standi to maintain this petition. The objections raised by respondents are therefore not valid. " That decision to which I was a party shows that the question of public interest has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. As noticed earlier in this case, these petitioners are nonentities and they were not acting in public interest but were supporting Shivakumar against the contesting respondents. The fact that only Shivakumar was objecting to the licence could be found in the proceedings before the Corporation. He was the person who strongly objected and he has very cleverly screened his identity by setting up the petitioners allegedly in the interest of public and therefore this case will have to be distinguished from the facts of the other case to which I was a party. He was the person who strongly objected and he has very cleverly screened his identity by setting up the petitioners allegedly in the interest of public and therefore this case will have to be distinguished from the facts of the other case to which I was a party. ( 18 ) THAT takes me to the second question: whether this Court should examine the case on merits notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have not filed these petitions in public interest but with a view to ventilate shivakumar's private grievance' against respondents for private reasons. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court in the appeal filed by Rajatha Enterprises did find that there was no public interest in the petition filed against them. But all the same the supreme Court has gone into the merits of the case for recording a finding in favour of the appellants. The interest in the property would not have been transferred to D. P. Sharma, but for the fact the heirs of late umapathi felt that they would not be in a position to fight this litigation right upto the supreme Court and having fought the tenants upto the Supreme Court earlier, they must have found it too expensive to carry on with the litigation in these petitions. Whatever else may be reason for the transfer of their interest to D. P. Sharma, since it is brought to the notice of this Court that there are allegedly serious violations in the matter of grant of licence to Umapathi, I think it is proper for this Court to go into the merits of the case even though the petitions could not be characterised as public interest litigation petitions. ( 20 ) THE allegations against the Corporation is that they have granted the licence in flagrant violation of provisions of the KTP act of the bye-laws and the Act. The original plan was sanctioned on 5-12-1987 as could be seen at page 199 of the original file. It is seen from the note-sheet maintained by the Corporation that the building site was inspected by the Commissioner on 29-9-1987. "it was observed that no ramp has been provided as shown in the sanctioned plan and also the void at northwestern corner to a depth of 12 feet has not been left to provide for the head-room. It is seen from the note-sheet maintained by the Corporation that the building site was inspected by the Commissioner on 29-9-1987. "it was observed that no ramp has been provided as shown in the sanctioned plan and also the void at northwestern corner to a depth of 12 feet has not been left to provide for the head-room. It was also observed that eventhough the plan sanctioned is for bf+gf+2 UFs, the building was already having 3rd floor roof casted. In view of the above, it was instructed to issue a notice to stop the work forthwith and to provide the void and the ramp before sanctioning the modified plan for upper floors as per the high Court Judgment and decision of the s. C. (TP and I ). Accordingly, a letter is addressed to the party on the above lines. The draft letter was also shown to the legal advisor. " Further note shows "that kind attention is invited to Para 147. . . The 6' 0" head room available at the relevent point is adequate for the movement of the vehicles only. There is no mention of the minimum head room in the old Bye-law as well as in the new bye-laws. However, as per the prevailing bye-law the Basement floor shall have maximum height of 2. 75 Mtrs. i. e. , 9' 0"-The minimum head room has not been specified in the Bye-law. This is for favour of kind further needful action on the para 146. "the other noting is not very material. But however the order of DD of Town planning made on 28-11-1987 needs to be noticed since it throws some light on the action taken by the authorities in ensuring that the builders comply with the relevant provisions of law. By that time the order was made, d. P. Sharma has come into the picture as gpa Holder which was executed in his favour on 19-12-87 and it finds a place at page 131 of the file. In his letter dated 26-11-1987 he had requested the sanction for a modified plan immediately. The note dated 28-11-1987 reads thus:"earlier the standing Committee (TP and I) in its meeting held on 12-8-1987 has resolved to approve the Commissioner's note and to sanction the modified plan in accordance with High Court and Supreme court decision permitting a Floor area ratio of 2. 50. The note dated 28-11-1987 reads thus:"earlier the standing Committee (TP and I) in its meeting held on 12-8-1987 has resolved to approve the Commissioner's note and to sanction the modified plan in accordance with High Court and Supreme court decision permitting a Floor area ratio of 2. 50. Since the applicant has not provided the ramp leading to Basement floor while sanctioning earlier plan consisting of basement Floor Ground floor + Two upper floors, it was informed to provide ramps with normal width and gradient to sanction the modified plan for 3rd and 4th and 5th upper floors in accordance with the decision of the SC (TP and I ). In view of the final request of the applicant the sanction of modified plan may be considered limiting the FAR 2. 50 as corrected in plan vide flaf 'a' subject to the condition that width and gradient of the ramp should be of normal standards/specifications to have easy entry and exit for the vehicles. The applicant shall obtain the occupation certificate before occupation of the building after completing the building in conformity with sanctioned plan. "further note shows that the Corporation was seized of the matter and was keeping an eye on the construction which was sought to be put up by the Power of Attorney Holder pursuant to the revised sanctioned plan. The d. D. T. P. had made it clear that the builder should obtain occupation certificate before occupying the building after completing the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan. The record discloses that an application for revised plan was filed by D. P. Sharma as the General Power of Attorney holder of the legal representatives of late umapathi. On that application, a calculation sheet was prepared which reads as ( 21 ) THE Corporation has filed its counter in W. P. 4607/87. It is stated therein "that on the other hand after taking legal advice the officers of the Corporation had considered the plan according to the Zoning regulations and the Bye-laws in force at the time the application was filed and hence sanction was accorded to respondents 4 to 8 to put up the construction consisting of basement plus two upper floors. The basement being reserved for car parking, after making the necessary corrections and alterations in the plan submitted, so as to conform to the then existing Zoning regulations and Bye laws. The basement being reserved for car parking, after making the necessary corrections and alterations in the plan submitted, so as to conform to the then existing Zoning regulations and Bye laws. It is denied that the sanction so granted to the respondents 4 to 8 is violative of Section 505 of the karnataka Municipal Corporation Act". Under Annexure-3 in W. P. No. 4240 to 4242/87 filed along with the counter affidavit, the Chief Engineer, Bangalore City corporation, has issued occupation certificate permitting the owners to occupy the third upper floor and part of 4th and 5th upper floors. It reads as under: "on receipt of the notice of completion of the building from registered Architect and on the basis of the inspection report submitted by the Assistant Executive engineer (Chickpet) and Executive engineer (South West) Zone, I am satisfied that the building at site No. 180 to 183 has been completed in accordance with the licence LP No. 4653/81-82 sanctioned on 4-12-1987. I hereby, therefore, grant permission to occupy the 3rd upper floor and part of 4th and 5th upper floors. The basement floor shall be used exclusively for car parking only and the part of 4th and 5th upper floors shall be used as roof garden only as per the sanctioned plan. " on this material before me, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the licence was issued by the Corporation on account of any fraud or dishonesty or fraudulent practice committed by the builder and, therefore, this is not a fit matter for interference under article 226 of the Constitution. ( 22 ) THAT takes me to the last writ petition no. 1856/1989. It is not disputed that in terms of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner sharma was only permitted to use the basement floor for car parking. His grievance is that he cannot utilise the basement floor for car parking since the ingress and egress of vehicles in that area would pose a traffic hazard and his request to the police authorities to post traffic police constables to regulate the traffic was turned down on the ground that there was no provision either to control the traffic in that area or to post police constables from the police Department for monitoring the traffic in a private parking area and therefore the petitioner should make his own arrangement for controlling the traffic. It appears that on receipt of the reply, from the police authorities, petitioner made an application to the Corporation authorities for modification of the plan so as to enable him to convert the basement floor into a shopping complex. That was not sanctioned. His appeal to the standing Committee was allowed and it granted approval only on the ground that by such approval the Corporation would be benefitted by an increase in the payment of tax and similar applications have been granted to other persons in that area. However, the Administrator who had by that time taken charge of the affairs of the corporation in exertion of the power under section 100 (2) of the Act had set aside the resolution of the Standing Committee and directed the demolition of the shopping complex on the ground that it was against the sanctioned plan. 22. Mr. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Standing Committee having granted the permission to other builders in the area to convert the basement floor into a shopping complex, the Administrator was not justified in setting aside the resolution of the Standing Committee and that decision of the Administrator is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further the impugned order, he contends, is violative of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forth his case before the Administrator. ( 23 ) IN my view, the power of the administrator under Section 100 (2) of the act cannot be questioned on the ground that the decision taken by him is arbitrary. Admittedly, the conversion of basement floor into a shopping complex was opposed to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, it was within the power of the administrator to set aside the resolution of the Standing Committee and restore the order of the Commissioner. Assuming that the Standing Committee granted permission to other builders of the area, power of this court to interfere under Article 226 of the constitution does not rest on such discrimination being made either want only or illegally. Assuming that the Standing Committee granted permission to other builders of the area, power of this court to interfere under Article 226 of the constitution does not rest on such discrimination being made either want only or illegally. As observed by the Division bench of this Court in K. K. Govindaraju v commissioner, Corporation of City of bangalore, (I. L. R. 1987 Kar, 1570):" The petitioner has raised an additional ground to the effect that the sanction had been accorded by the Government for relaxing the regulation regarding height and FAR in respect of an administrative building in Gandhinagar and for construction of a Central Telegraph office building at Raj Bhavan Road. The corporation has, in its additional objection, stated that it has not granted any licence and it has also denied that ,any relaxation has been made in respect of commercial building of Canara Bank in visweswarapuram. Whatever that may be, in view of the mandatory provisions of section 14 of the Planning Act there can be no departure from the provisions of odp, CDP, or Zoning Regulations, unless written permission is secured from the planning Authority. Admittedly the petitioner has not secured any such permission. Therefore, there is no substance in this additional ground. "hence, it cannot be said that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court should direct the authorities to compound the illegality committed by the authorities. ( 24 ) THE 2nd contention as to want of notice does not require any serious consideration since the conversion of basement floor into a shopping complex is admitted by the petitioner and what he requires is sufficient time to reconvert that into the car parking area after demolishing the shopping complex. If sufficient time is granted by this Court, the grievance of the petitioner would be effectively removed. Accordingly, instead of remitting the matter to the Corporation, I direct the respondent/corporation to grant time to the petitioner to convert the shopping complex in the basement floor into car parking area as originally sanctioned and in case he fails to do so within 3 months from this day, the authorities are at liberty to take action according to law without any notice. ( 25 ) I. A. I for impleading is rejected in view of the observations made in the other connected cases. ( 26 ) IN the result, W. P. Nos. ( 25 ) I. A. I for impleading is rejected in view of the observations made in the other connected cases. ( 26 ) IN the result, W. P. Nos. 4240 to 4242 of 1987 and 4607 of 1987 are dismissed. W. P. No. 1856 of 1989 is disposed of with a direction as above in para 24 of this order. No costs. --- *** --- .