ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - A construction on the third storey of a building in a locality known as Kaisthan, Saharanpur is the subject matter of this writ petition. The Municipal Board has denied permission to the petitioner, Bhagawat Prasad, one of the co-owners of the house to construct a room as the third storey up to the second storey there is no issue. The construction of a third storey, a room is the controversy in this petition. 2. The facts on record are thus: 3. The Court notices from the record that the Municipal Board had at the very inception checked the petitioner to refrain from building activity over the second storey. The petitioner did not pay heed to the warnings of the Municipal Board. He continued with the constructions and, thus, invited a notice dated 31st October, 1968 that he must desist from carrying out the constructions and remove whatever he has constructed. On this notice, the petitioner made an endorsement declaring as an explanation that he was repairing the old house and also constructing some new rooms. Thus he accepted that what was under construction is without permission. Four days after the receipt of the notice, on 4th November, 1968 he wrote a letter to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Saharanpur referring to the notice dated 31st October, 1968. In this letter he refers to having submitted a map seeking sanction for the constructions he was carrying out. The map was submitted on 29th October, 1968. In this letter the petitioner also mentions that he had construction material stored for carrying out repairs and that the material was likely to deteriorate. Thus, he sought recall of the notice. 4. The petitioner did not fall in line with the law even when he was caught. It is accepted to the petitioner that the map he had submitted for seeking sanction of the constructions carries the same date as the date of the notice which he was seeking a recall. The petitioner had already violated the law. 5. That the petitioner had been carrying out constructions unauthorisedly without sanction is not a matter in issue but one of record. The sanction which the petitioner received is dated 13th January, 1969. The petitioner had already violated the law. 5. That the petitioner had been carrying out constructions unauthorisedly without sanction is not a matter in issue but one of record. The sanction which the petitioner received is dated 13th January, 1969. But, the sanction which was permitted to the petitioner became a subject matter of an appeal under Section 318 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 by a co-owner of the same building. 6. The law permits an objection to any person interested in the locality whether he is a co-owner or a rate-payer, Prem Prakash who filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Saharanpur had the status to object. He is the co-owner and a rate payer both. In the appeal before him, under Section 318 of the Act, aforesaid, the District Magistrate records that the constructions were made by Bhagwat Prasad, without the approval of the plans by the Municipal Board, as prescribed by the bye-laws the objections of the co-owner were not taken into consideration when the unauthorised constructions were approved by the Municipal Board, the third storey could only be made if the house was at the edge of the street. The District Magistrate was of the opinion that the order sanctioning the map for the third storey, particularly, was too sketchy and not consistent with the bye-law. The matter was remanded to the Municipal Board for examining the matter de novo and the matter of sanctioning the constructions to be considered strictly in accordance with the bye laws. The order of the District Magistrate is dated 22-5-1969. 7. Thereafter, the Chairman, Public Works Committee and the Public Works Engineer alone with other members of the Committee inspected the site after notice to the petitioner which he attempted to evade. The Public Works Committee of the Municipal Board gave its decision that the construction as the third storey was against the Municipal bye-laws; the house abuts on a private lane the width of which is less than 15 feet with houses on either side and members of the public have an unrestricted entry and a right of passage over this street and the third storey causes obstruction to the flow of fresh air and light to the house of the objector. The constructions on the first and second storey were found in order, but not the constructions on the third storey. 8. The constructions on the first and second storey were found in order, but not the constructions on the third storey. 8. On 3rd November, 1969, the Nagar Palika, Saharanpur, cancelled the ex-post facto permission granted to the petitioner to regularise the irregularly made constructions as the third storey and directed the petitioner to demolish the third storey room within a week. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur which now lay under Section 318 of the Act. 9. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority noticed the entire record, the circumstances in which the constructions had been made previously without permission and unauthorisedly and thereafter the petitioner seeking, in effect, ex post facto sanction on a fact accomplished illegally. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the objections of the co-owner Prem Prakesh, and the version of the petitioner Bhagwat Prasad himself. Another aspect noticed by the appellate authority was that under the bye laws, the height of the building stretched beyond 30 feet. The petitioner, by building the room on the third storey had violated the bye-law, and on the other hand the petitioner's house not being at the edge of the street a third storey in any case could not be permitted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noticed the record to comment that the petitioner knowingly violated the law after he had been warned and cautioned by the Municipal Board that what he was attempting to construct was irregular and illegal and is to be removed. 10. The legal submissions before this Court are confined to two aspects (i) The petitioner cannot be required to conform to the bye-laws as the lane or the street, in context, is a private street, and not within the definition provided for under the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (ii) The second argument follows from the first. The submission is that under Section 178 of the Act there is no obligation on petitioner to take permission or give notice of an intention to construct a building or part of it, if the building intended to be constructed is not adjacent to a public street. 11. Both the arguments can be dealt with simultaneously. Now that the petitioner is talking of legalities to escape the obligation of the law, the law itself will need to be examined. 11. Both the arguments can be dealt with simultaneously. Now that the petitioner is talking of legalities to escape the obligation of the law, the law itself will need to be examined. Bye-law 14 of the Municipal Board, Sharanpur refers to the expression "street". It neither mentions public nor private street, but, plainly the word `street'. The prohibition is that if the building be placed at the edge of a street is not more than 15 feet wide, then, there shall not be more than two storyes of an aggregate height of 30 feet. 12. Section 18 of the Act is of no help to the petitioner. In fact it makes the petitioner's case worse. This section is reproduced below- "178. Notice of intention to erect building or make well.- (1) Before beginning, within the limits of the Municipality,- (a) to erect a new building or new part of a building, or (b) to re-erect or make a material alteration in building, or (c) to make or enlarge a well, a person shall give notice of his intention to the Board. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) as required in the case of a building shall only be necessary where the building abuts on, or is adjacent to., a public street or place or property vested in Government or in the Board, unless, by a bye-law applicable to the area in which the building is situated, the necessity of giving notice is extended to all buildings. (3) An alteration in a building shall, for the purposes of this chapter and of any bye-law, be deemed to be material if- (a) it affects or is likely to affect pre judicially the stability or safety of the building or the condition of the building in respect of drainage, ventilation, sanitation or hygiene, or (b) it increases or diminishes the height of area covered by or cubical capacity of the building or reduces the cubical capacity of any room in the building below the minimum prescribed in any bye-law, or (c) it converts into a place for human habitation a building or part of a building originally constructed for other purposes, or (d) it is an alteration declared by a bye-law made in this behalf to be material alteration." The very first warning in Section 178, aforesaid, is that before erecting a new building or a new part of a building, even the intention to do so is to be intimated to the Municipal Board. In this regard the petitioner may mark the words at the beginning of the section. "Before beginning........" 13. Sub-clause (2), of which the petitioner is seeking aid, appears to have been misunderstood by the petitioner. Sub-clause (2) does mention that the notice referred to in sub-clause (2) does mention that the notice referred to in sub-clause (1) is to be given to the Municipal Board before erecting a building but it will not be necessary should the building abut on, or is adjacent to, a public street. But the petitioner has not paid attention to the rest of the stipulation in this sub-clause which says that in case a bye-law applicable to the area in which the building is situated, prescribes otherwise, then the notice, before proceeding to construct shall be applicable to all buildings. 14. Consequently, the bye-laws of the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, prohibit a building to go beyond a height of 30 feet and further do not permit the construction of a third storey. The other findings and the assessment of the authorities, whether the public Works Committee, the District Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, all were agreed that the building erected by the petitioner a third storey, by violating the bye-laws also offends good ventilation by preventing light and air of the objector. 15. The other findings and the assessment of the authorities, whether the public Works Committee, the District Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, all were agreed that the building erected by the petitioner a third storey, by violating the bye-laws also offends good ventilation by preventing light and air of the objector. 15. Thus, in,the circumstances, the law cannot permit the condonation of a construction, which the law would not permit to be sanctioned. The condonation of such unauthorised constructions cannot be done. What the law prohibits, in the discipline of urbanisation cannot be compounded. These are illegalities which are incurable AIR 1974 SC 2177 , K. Ramdas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer Town Municipal Council, Udipi. Thus, the Municipal Board, Saharanpur, was correct in requiring the petitioner to remove the constructions. Further, the petitioner has admitted on record that he constructed without permission and that when he was required to stop the constructions, he continued his activity. Thus, this is not a matter which this Court can condone as both the law and equity are against the petitioner. The High Court cannot permit the violation of the law, which in any case turns the equity against the petitioner, and then grant indulgence totally conscious of the circumstances that the writ petition is solely for the purpose to suppress the illegality which the public authorities have not permitted. Access to the High Court to utilise this discretionary and equitable remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not meant for such occasions. No illegality has been committed by the Municipal Board (Nagar Palika), Saharanpur. The notice requiring the petitioner to remove the constructions as the third storey is in order. The petitioner may remove these constructions by 31st October, 1992, failing which the Nagar Palika, Saharanpur may demolish them. 16. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.