ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of writ directing Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to release 60 plots illegally withheld by the Corporation under their charge. Petitioner has been granted building permission which is valid for one year. 2. Petitioner/Gandhi Medical College Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit is a registered co-operative society duly registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. It was also registered under Rule 3 of M. P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). An application was filed under Rule 8 of the Rules to develop the colony. Under Rule 12 of the Rules, 25% of the plots are required to be mortgaged with the Municipal Corporation. These plots shall be released from mortgage and will be available to the Colonizer for sale on the completion of internal development works of the colony as provided under Rule 12(i) of the rules. Petitioner submits that petitioner has been granted permission to raise the building, initially permission P/10 was granted on 14-9-2001 which was stayed as per communication P/ll dated 27-9-2001, again permission P/14 was granted on 3-4-2002 which is valid for one year. Petitioner prayed for release of the mortgaged plots by submitting representation P/15 to Municipal Corporation. As Municipal Corporation did not release the mortgaged plots, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds that : colony has been developed before completion of the requisite period and only thereafter the building permission has been granted in accordance with Rule 12-A of the Rules, no show cause notice was given informing the non-compliance of terms and conditions of the agreement. Corporation has not assigned any reason why the building permission once granted was cancelled. Action of the respondents is unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and is based on extraneous considerations. Action of the respondents in releasing only one plot is illegal and improper, hence, direction be issued to permit raising of construction on the remaining plots so that same is done within the requisite period. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents. Action of the respondents is unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and is based on extraneous considerations. Action of the respondents in releasing only one plot is illegal and improper, hence, direction be issued to permit raising of construction on the remaining plots so that same is done within the requisite period. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is contended in the return by the Municipal Corporation that there is non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules; internal development has not been done which is prescribed under Rule 12, latest inspection was carried out on 13-1-2003 after advance notice to the petitioner, notice R/l was given; City Engineer submitted report R/2 which indicates that most of the work is either incomplete or is of sub-standard quality; internal and external development work as per norms has not been done; report R/2 has been filed which indicates that construction of the road is not upto the mark. There are several cracks, fitness of the road is not proper, construction of culvert is not as per IRC standard, tree plantation by the side of the roads has not been done as required under the rules. Certain photographs have also been filed collectively as R/3 in support of report R/2 of the City Engineer. 4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in which it is submitted that requisite work has been done, it is not possible to construct over-head tank pursuant to the strict instructions issued by the Airport Authority of India, communication P/21 has been filed to submit that structure of more than 10 mtrs. height cannot be raised as Airport is nearby the site, hence, it is not possible to construct over-head tank. The action of the respondents is illegal, rules have been complied with. Other NOCs have been issued which indicate that development has been done and five plots have been released which also indicates that development has been done. Now this is an afterthought of the Municipal Corporation to contend that development has not been done as required under the Rules. 5. An Additional Return has been filed by the respondents contending that it is incorrect that development work has been carried out. Whatever work has been done is not of the standard prescribed. Now this is an afterthought of the Municipal Corporation to contend that development has not been done as required under the Rules. 5. An Additional Return has been filed by the respondents contending that it is incorrect that development work has been carried out. Whatever work has been done is not of the standard prescribed. Over-head tank can be constructed within the height restriction imposed by Airport Authority, it is permissible to raise construction of the over-head tank upto the height of 10 mtrs. It has been denied that over-head tank's minimum height should be more than 10 mtrs. The other society, namely, Tilak Grah Nirman Colony situate just 300 mtrs. away where over-head tank has been constructed for effecting water supply. In the colony of petitioner society 236 residential plots have been proposed and for those families effective water supply is necessary. To ensure water supply, construction of over-head tank is compulsory. Petitioner has also to provide houses for persons of weaker sections of the society. Petitioner is bound to comply with the conditions, hence, no interference is called for in the writ petition. Five plots have not been released, only one plot has been released out of the mortgaged plots, that too on the request of the petitioner. 6. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that development work has been done, permission for building has been granted which means that competent authority was satisfied that development has been done as per the prescribed norms in the colony concerned. Rule 12-A of the Rules has been pressed into service by learned senior counsel and she submits that as the height restriction operates in the area, thus, it is not possible to construct over-head tank. As one plot was released by the Corporation which could be done only after development has been done, it means that objections now put are baseless, untenable, an afterthought and with ulterior purpose. Thus, Corporation be directed to release the plots which are mortgaged with the Corporation. 7. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that construction of over-head tank is an internal development prescribed under the rules. Roads, culverts have not been properly constructed, plantation has not been done on the sides of the roads. He placed reliance on the report R/2 and the photographs R/3. 7. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that construction of over-head tank is an internal development prescribed under the rules. Roads, culverts have not been properly constructed, plantation has not been done on the sides of the roads. He placed reliance on the report R/2 and the photographs R/3. He submitted that simply by granting of permission, it cannot be inferred that development has been done. He has also submitted that permissions were granted subject to the fulfillment of the rules. An agreement Annexure R/4 was executed on 27-5-2000 in which petitioner has undertaken to raise the requisite construction as per rules. In lay out R/10, sanction was granted to construct over-head tank. He further submitted that overhead tank can be raised upto the height of 10 mtrs. and that is absolutely necessary for supply of the water to the inhabitants of 236 proposed houses of the colony in question. 8. The first question for consideration is whether the petitioner has carried out the internal development work which is admittedly necessary to be done. Internal development work is defined in rule 2(i) of the rules thus :- 2(i) "Internal Development Work" means the following development works to be done within the limits of the colony under the prescribed standards:- (one) Leveling; (two) Demarcation of the proposed roads and plots sanctioned in the layout; (three) Construction of the proposed road (as per IRC standards); (four) If in the land of the colony, the road exists at present, in that case the construction or widening of the road on the basis of sanctioned layout (as per IRC standards); (five) Construction of culverts (as per IRC standards); (six) Construction of proposed drain, if existing then the canalisation of existing drain (as per PHE standards); (seven) Implementation of internal water supply system (as per PHE standards); (eight) Construction of Internal sewage line (as per PHE standards); (nine) Construction of septic tank (if proposed) (as per PHE standards); (ten) Fixation of electric polls under the internal electricity system (as per the standards prescribed by the MPEB); (eleven) Construction of overhead tank; (twelve) Development of proposed open areas in the colony; (thirteen) Plantation on road side. 9. It is clear that construction of overhead tank is included along with other works such as culverts, roads as per IRC standards in the "internal development work" along with plantation on road sides. 9. It is clear that construction of overhead tank is included along with other works such as culverts, roads as per IRC standards in the "internal development work" along with plantation on road sides. There is report R/2 on record of the City Engineer supported by photographs R/3 from which it is clear that overhead tank has not been constructed. This fact is not in dispute that overhead tank has not been constructed. The condition of the roads constructed by the petitioner is not in a good shape as found by the City Engineer and supported by the photographs. There is no tree plantation done as required under Rule 2(i) (thirteen) of the Rules. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not possible to construct overhead tank owing to the conditions imposed in P/21. A close scrutiny of P/21 NOC issued by the Airport Authority of India indicates that no objection certificate has been granted to the petitioner to raise the construction of the building by the Airport Authority of India over the plots in question upto the height of 10 mtrs above ground level and as submitted by the Corporation it is possible to construct overhead tank within the height restriction of 10 mtrs. Sanctioned lay out R/10 indicates that permission was granted to construct the over-head tank and in nearby colony the same has been constructed. When 236 houses are to be constructed, obviously petitioner has to take care of the Rules and the requirement of the water supply and it is necessary to abide by the conditions prescribed under the rules. It is clear that petitioner has failed so far to construct the overhead tank, thus, Rule 13 of the rules comes into play according to which Corporation can continue with the mortgage of plots till internal development is done. It is also permissible to the corporation if the colonizer has not completed the internal development work of colony, to carry out the development work and to recover expenses incurred by sale of 25% of the plots mortgaged under clause (i) of rule 12 of the Rules. Rule 14 further gives the power to the Corporation to cancel the registration of colonizer and take such other action under the law, obviously after giving due opportunity to the colonizer for presenting his case. Rule 12(i), 12-A and Rule 13 read thus :- 12. Rule 14 further gives the power to the Corporation to cancel the registration of colonizer and take such other action under the law, obviously after giving due opportunity to the colonizer for presenting his case. Rule 12(i), 12-A and Rule 13 read thus :- 12. Permission for the development works of the colony. - On receipt of the application under Rule 8, subject to the provisions mentioned in Rule 9, 10 and 11, after fulfillment of the following conditions, the permission for the development of the colony in Form-Five shall be given by the competent authority :- (i) Out of the plots or houses or flats, as the case may be, to be developed by the Colonizer, the plots or houses or flats, as the case may be, in number of twenty-five per cent leaving the plots or houses or flats, as the case may be, reserved for the economically weaker sections, shall have to be mortgaged with the concerned Municipality. These plots or houses or flats, as the case may be, shall be released from mortgage and will be available to the Colonizer for sale on the completion of internal development works of the colony, subject to sub-rule (2) of Rule 13, the notice regarding mortgaged shall be got published in newspapers for the information of the general public by the Competent Authority and a copy of such notice shall also be sent to the Sub-Registrar. 12-A. Permission for Building Construction in any Colony. - Permission for building construction in any colony shall be granted only when the competent authority ensure that the development as per prescribed norms have been completed in the colony concerned but in case of group housing such condition shall not apply. 13. Period of completion of the internal development works of the colony. - (1) It shall be necessary to complete the internal development works of the colony by the Colonizer within a maximum period of three years from the date of issue of the permission of development of the colony under Rule 12; Provided that if any lacunas are found in the development work of the colony then the aforesaid period may be extended for a maximum period of one year by the competent authority to remove such lacuna or lacunas. (2) If within the stipulated period in sub-rule (1), and Colonizer does not complete the internal development works of the colony, then the Competent Authority, after giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Colonizer, shall take up the internal development works of the colony and shall get the development works completed and on execution of such works the expenditure incurred thereon shall be recouped by selling of twenty-five per cent plots mortgaged under clause (i) of Rule 12. 11. It is clear from the Rule 12 that it is permissible to the Corporation to mortgage 25 per cent of the plots. Simply by the fact that permission for building was granted, there is no estoppel created on the Corporation not to insist on the conditions prescribed under the rules of internal development work as defined under Rule 2(i) of the Rules. Release of one of the plots out of 25 per cent cannot also come in the way of the Corporation and Corporation has a right to retain in mortgage the plots till development is not completed as per prescribed norms. It is the duty of the Corporation to ensure under Rule 12-A of the Rules that such development is done. Thus, the other submission raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Corporation having granted permission for building is bound to release the plots is untenable and also the submission based on release of one of the plots is equally futile as work of internal development has not been completed. In case petitioner completes the work to the satisfaction of the Corporation and the Rules, constructs overhead tank, improves roads, does tree plantation and construct culverts, only thereafter the mortgaged plots can be released by Corporation not otherwise. 12. I find writ petition to be devoid of merit. Resultantly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.