Judgment :- N.V.Balasubramanian, J. This petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other direction to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate coercive proceedings for demolition of the illegal structure put up by the third respondent at Door No.11/25 (New No.13/78), A.Thadagam Main Road, Edayarpalayam Village, Coimbatore District. 2. We may refer to the relevant facts which led to the filing of the present petition:- The petitioner/Muthulakshmi is the owner of 7-1/2 cents in S.F.No.243/01 Kavundampalayam Village, Coimbatore District. In the aforesaid extent of 7-1/2 cents, in December 2001, the petitioner sold specific extent of 1333 sq.ft. of vacant site with tiled building thereon, to the third respondent/Dr.Selvi. In the beginning of 2002, the third respondent has put up R.C.C. roof building, consisting of ground floor without leaving any space on the northern side and eastern side boundaries. 3. The third respondent is residing in the ground floor and is running a hospital in the first floor of the building. The husband of the petitioner-vendor has filed the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, alleging that by putting up superstructure in the entire extent of 1333 sq.ft., without leaving space as per the Building Rules, has caused much inconvenience, affecting the right of easement and convenient enjoyment of the property by adjacent owners. It is alleged that the construction is made contrary to the Building Rules. According to the petitioner, there should be a plan as per Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities and Building Rules, 1971 (G.O.Ms.No.1009, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 19.3.1972). 4. It is further alleged that as per the Government Order, no building shall be constructed beyond 2.4 meters above the ground floor and the height of the building shall also not exceed 1-1/2 times of the width of the Street immediately abutting it, plus the open space between the Street and building. After purchase of the property, the third respondent had put up construction, which is in total violation of the Building Regulations. Despite the objection by the petitioner to the Statutory Authorities, no action had been taken by them. The obligation is created upon Town and Country Planning Authorities under Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act to remove such unauthorised construction when the building is not in conformity with the standards prescribed. Despite the objection by the petitioner to the Statutory Authorities, no action had been taken by them. The obligation is created upon Town and Country Planning Authorities under Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act to remove such unauthorised construction when the building is not in conformity with the standards prescribed. The petitioner has also alleged that waste materials are being dumped in and around the area, causing pollution. 5. Denying the averments in the petition, the first respondent / Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Kavundampalayam Town Panchayat has filed elaborate counter. According to the first respondent, the third respondent Dr.Selvi has got a building licence to construct building from the first respondent on 30.1.2001 and had put up construction as per the licence. The first respondent denies any violation of the Construction Rules. 6. The fourth respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed a report that suitable direction is given to segregate Bio-Medical Waste as per the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 (for short, Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules, 1998) and dispose of the same through common Bio-Medical waste treatment facility proposed at Orathukuppai Village of Madukkarai Panchayat Union, Coimbatore District. No in-patient is admitted in the hospital and there is no operation theatre provided in the hospital. 7. We have heard Mr.V.Lakshminarayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and we have carefully considered the averments in the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned counsel for the first respondent / Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer and the second respondent / Assistant Director of Town Panchayat. 8. The third respondent has filed the Counter Statement stating that the Ground Floor of the premises is used as a Clinic and the first and second Floors are used as residence. According to third respondent, though the name is "SIVA HOSPITAL", the premises is used only as a Clinic and an Observation Centre for her medical practice. There are three Beds available to observe the patients and treat them for any immediate relief such as providing them Intra Venous Fluid or other medical fluids. The Clinic could neither be treated as a Hospital nor as an Industry. There are three Beds available to observe the patients and treat them for any immediate relief such as providing them Intra Venous Fluid or other medical fluids. The Clinic could neither be treated as a Hospital nor as an Industry. Since in a month only less than 300 or 400 persons are being treated in the Clinic, the third respondent Clinic would not come under the purview of the Rules of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and therefore the question of maintaining Bio-Medical Wastes would not arise. Further the third respondent has expressed her willingness to abide by any condition that the Pollution Control Board may impose. 9. Fourth respondent / Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed the Report stating that in the premises at present, three numbers of Beds for Observation Purpose and a small Blood Testing Laboratory have been provided in the Ground Floor. There is no Operation Theatre provided in the Hospital. The Hospital treats twenty numbers of Outpatients every day and no one is admitted as inpatient. The sewage of 500 litres per day generated by its activity is being let into Septic Tank. The Bio-Medical Waste such as used Syringes, Needles and IVF Bottles are being disposed through Local Body Collection System. 10. We have heard Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for third respondent and Mrs. Rita Chandraskar, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent / Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 11. Seeking for the extreme remedy of direction of demolition of the superstructure put up by the third respondent, the petitioner has mainly raised the following contentions: (i) That no construction shall be made contrary to the Rules of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities and Building Rules of 1971 (G.O.Ms.No.1009, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 19.3.1972); (ii) As per the Government Order, every building is to comply with the floor area ratio, the side space, etc., and that no building shall be constructed beyond 2.4 meters above the ground floor level. The height of the building shall also not exceed 1-1/2 times of the width of the Street immediately abutting it, plus the open space between the Street and the building; (iii)For running nursing home, different scheme and Rules are provided for construction of the building; (iv) Hospital waste products of the third respondent are not disposed of in accordance with Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules, 1998, thereby polluting the area, endangering human life. 12. Reiterating the above points, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Building Rules of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities and Building Rules are violated. The main contention urged is that the bio-medical waste of the hospital is not disposed of in accordance with the Rules prescribed under the Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules, 1998. 13. Reiterating the averments in the Counter, the learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that the Bio-Medical Waste from the Hospital is presently being disposed of through the Local Body Collection System in Separate Bags. It is further submitted that there is no heavy disposal requiring for putting up a separate treatment Plan for disposing the Bio-Medical Waste. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent /Pollution Control Board has submitted that the hospital wastes are being cleared through local Municipality system. The learned counsel appearing for R.4 / Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has also submitted that a Separate Private Bio-Medical Waste Management Project is under proposal and that suitable direction could be given to the third respondent Clinic. 15. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In consideration of the averments in the petition and the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for demolition of the alleged illegal structure put up by the third respondent at Door No.11/25. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner sold 1333 sq.ft. in S.No.243/01. From the counter filed by the first respondent, it is seen that the third respondent has obtained building licence to construct building on 30.1.2001. After the writ petition was filed, the first respondent has inspected the spot. In the counter, the first respondent has asserted that there is no material to suggest that the third respondent has violated any Building Rules. After the writ petition was filed, the first respondent has inspected the spot. In the counter, the first respondent has asserted that there is no material to suggest that the third respondent has violated any Building Rules. The contention of the petitioner that the building has been constructed without obtaining the licence from the first respondent, is prima facie unsupported by other materials. 17. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the Building Rules have been violated and that the third respondent has put up construction without leaving the space area. From the counter statement filed by the first respondent, we could see that the petitioner has alleged that the third respondent had encroached more than the area under the sale. During inspection, the first respondent was unable to find the actual limits of the boundary of the petitioner without a request for survey from the Revenue Authorities. If there is any bona fide dispute regarding the extent of sold or the boundary, the petitioner is to seek redressal only before appropriate forum and the remedy of writ is not the appropriate relief. 18. The main grievance of the petitioner is that during construction, the third respondent has not kept up the norms fixed for the hospital and that no space has been left surrounding the building. This seems to be the main grievance of the petitioner. Prior to the writ petition, there was exchange of notices between parties. In the legal notice dated 5.7.2003 issued by the petitioner-Muthulakshmi, the main allegation levelled against the third respondent is that the building is put up " ... without leaving any space on the northern side boundary and eastern side boundary of your 1333 Sq.Ft. of vacant site". As noted earlier, the first respondent-Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat has denied any violation of Building Rules. Assuming that there had been violations of Building Rules, we are of the view that it is a matter of ascertainment of facts and evidence. Those factual details cannot be gone in depth in the writ proceedings to know whether there had been violation of Building Rules; much less to direct the demolition of the building. 19. Assuming that there had been violations of Building Rules, we are of the view that it is a matter of ascertainment of facts and evidence. Those factual details cannot be gone in depth in the writ proceedings to know whether there had been violation of Building Rules; much less to direct the demolition of the building. 19. In so far as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the hospital waste materials are being drawn which are violative of the provisions of Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules is concerned, this Court in RAMA.MUTHURAMALINGAM v. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ( 2004 (5) CTC 554 ) in which one of us was a party held that the Court must exercise self-restraint in matters relating to administration in which the authorities are specialists and the Court which has no expertise in those matters should leave the same to the discretion of the authorities concerned. We are therefore of the view, the petitioner has to approach the authorities concerned when her case is that the hospital is not disposing the bio-medical waste in accordance with the Rules and we are not inclined to interfere with the factual dispute and give a direction and it is for the authorities concerned to issue necessary directions. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 3(5) of Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules dealing with Bio-medical waste and Rule 3(7) dealing with Bio-medical waste treatment facility which read as under:- Rules 3(5) and 3(7) read thus: 3(5): "Bio-medical waste" means any waste, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunisation of human beings or animals or in research activities pertaining thereto or in the production or testing of biologicals, and including categories mentioned in Schedule I; 3(7): "Bio-medical waste treatment facility" means any facility wherein treatment disposal of bio-medical waste or processes incidental to such treatment or disposal is carried out. Laying emphasis on Rules 5 and 6 of the Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner has forcibly contended that bio-medical waste may be treated and disposed of only in accordance with Schedule-I and in compliance with the standards prescribed in Schedule-V and disposal otherwise would amount to violation of the above Rules. Laying emphasis on Rules 5 and 6 of the Bio-Medical Waste (M & H) Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner has forcibly contended that bio-medical waste may be treated and disposed of only in accordance with Schedule-I and in compliance with the standards prescribed in Schedule-V and disposal otherwise would amount to violation of the above Rules. Further, learned counsel has taken us through various Schedules in support of his contention that the Rules have not been properly complied with and the hospital waste drawn by the third respondent is endangering human life. 21. It is also brought to our attention that the fourth respondent filed a report wherein it is stated that the hospital treats 20 numbers of out-patients every day and no one is admitted as inpatient. The sewage of 500 litres per day generated by its activity is said to be let into septic tank. Bio-medical waste such as syringe, needles & IVF bottles are being disposed of through local body collection systems. The Advocate Commissioner, who has inspected the hospital premises on two occasions, namely, 01.11.2003 and 03.11.2003, in his report has stated that during inspection, he has not noted any cotton waste swabs and bandage cloth with blood stains used for dressing of patient-wounds. The Advocate Commissioner has also stated that he has not found any dumping material of "hospital wastage" at the petitioner's site in Door No.11/24, Sivaji Colony and Edayarpalayam Village, Coimbatore District. However, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Rama.Muthuramalingam case, cited supra, in so far as the alleged violation of the Rules in the disposal of bio-medical waste by the respondent-hospital is concerned, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned. 22. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.