JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') passed by respondent No. 1 as also for issuance of a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus to the respondent for grant of permission to carry on the construction work of of Dharamshala and the main gate of the temple as per the application and plan submitted on 30.1.1990 so also to restrain the respondent from obstructing in the construction activities to be carried on by the petitioner. By order dated 22.1.1991 this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E'). The petition was admitted for final hearing on 3.7.91. The respondents have filed their return. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this petition may be disposed of on the ground that he had applied for permission of construction on 30.1.1990 and as per clause (6) of section 187 of the M.P. Municipalities Act; 1961, the permission was not refused by the respondents and under the deemed permission clause, he was entitled to raise construction but by Annexure - 'R-I') dated 13.2.1990 a notice was given by the respondents Municipality inviting objections on the construction and by order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') a specific direction was given that the construction work should not be started without obtaining prior permission from the Municipality. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also that the order dated 21 .12.1990 was issued after 11 months, he filed this writ petition and this court had stayed the operation of the order dated 21.12.1990 by order dated 22.1.1991 and thereafter he had completed the construction work and for that more than nine years have already been elapsed. Since the construction work has already been completed by the petitioner, this notice dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') became infructuous and inoperative. The further submission of the petitioner is that it is a construction work relating to the temple, a direction be given to the Municipality not to demolish the same in future. Since the construction work has already been completed by the petitioner, this notice dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') became infructuous and inoperative. The further submission of the petitioner is that it is a construction work relating to the temple, a direction be given to the Municipality not to demolish the same in future. In reply, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents Municipality is that by notice dated 13.2.1990 (Annexure - 'R-1') objections were invited and a direction was given not to start the construction and thereafter by order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') a direction was given that the petitioner shall not raise further construction. I have gone through the record of the case in hand that by notice dated 13.2.1990 objections were invited and a direction was given not to make any construction and by order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') subsequently also this specific notice was given to the petitioner not to make constructions. But they have completed the construction after obtaining the stay order from this Court on 22.1.1991. The provisions of section 187(3) of the Act provides that the Council may either refuse to give permission ,or give permission to erect, alter, add to or reconstruct the building according to the plan and information furnished. In this case I do not find that any such notice or order was served on the petitioner that their permission is refused or their application dated 30.1.1990 is rejected by the respondents Municipality and this position is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly there is no such letter or order on record that at any point of time the permission was ever refused by the respondents Municipality. The construction on a particular public place like temple has already been completed under the clause of deemed permission by the petitioner as the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') remained stayed herein all these years right from 22.1.1991. The respondents also never objected the constructions, no such application was ever filed by the respondents Municipality before this Court either for vacation of the stay order or for modification in the order or for seeking the relief to stop the construction. The respondents also never objected the constructions, no such application was ever filed by the respondents Municipality before this Court either for vacation of the stay order or for modification in the order or for seeking the relief to stop the construction. In view of the aforesaid factual position it is to be treated that the construction was completed under the deeming clause and after completion of the construction, order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure - 'E') became automatically infructuous. Therefore, this petition can only be disposed of with the direction that the respondents Municipality shall not demolish the construction raised under the deemed permission and under the stay order granted by this Court. It is the settled rule "actus curiae neminem gravabit" an act of the Court shall not prejudice any one. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties and with the aforesaid direction. There shall be no order as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.