J. ESWARA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions, the question for consideration is whether respondents 2 and 3 have power and jurisdiction to levy fine based on the value of the cost of construction, in accordance with the Provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (act No. 34) (for short, "the act" ). ( 2 ) THE petitioners have made constructions after obtaining the necessary sanctions from respondents 1 and 2. Alleging that there were deviations from the sanctioned plans while making the constructions by the petitioners, the respondents 2 and 3 issued notices proposing to impose fine, being 30% of the costs of such construction area and demanded the petitioners to show cause against such action. The petitioners sent replies to the show-cause notices explaining the variations and requested the respondents to drop the proposed action. The third respondent passed a resolution dated 19-9-1989 in Annexure-C fixing the basis and schedule of fines to be levied. This was intimated to the petitioners by the impugned orders, levying fine by 30% of the costs of the constructed area and the petitioners were required to make payments within seven days of receipt of the orders. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no power vested in the 2nd and 3rd respondents to levy fine based on the cost of construction and that the levy is made without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that under Section 75 of the act it is open to the authorities to levy penalty for breach of the Provisions of the act and inasmuch as the petitioners have violated the sanctioned plans by making deviations, they are liable to be fined and they were accordingly imposed fine and it requires no interference by this court. ( 5 ) SECTION 75 of the act reads as follows:"whoever contravenes any of the Provisions of this act or of any Rule, regulation or bye-laws or scheme made or sanctioned thereunder shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and in the case of a continuing contravention, with fine which may extend to fifty rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues". A reading of the Section 75 will show that in case any person contravenes any of the Provisions of the act or Rule, regulation or bye-laws or scheme that is made or sanctioned thereunder, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- and in case of continuing contravention, it is open to the authority to impose fine, which may extend to Rs. 50/- for each day after the first during which the contravention continues. Once it is found that there was a contravention of the rules or regulations or bye-laws or scheme, it is open to the authority to impose fine upto Rs. 500/-, in addition to imposition of fine of Rs. 50/- for each day of continuance of the violation. There is no other provision under the act which enables the authority to impose fine based on the constructed value, as done in this case. It is therefore clear that the impugned orders have no authority of law as they cannot be traced to any power under the act and have to be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is however open to the respondents 2 and 3 to issue notices to the petitioners proposing to levy fine under Section 75 of the act and after giving an opportunity of hearing to impose such fine as they deem fit, in accordance with Section 75 of the act. ( 7 ) WRIT petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. All other contentions are left open. No costs. --- *** --- .