JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari, order or direction of this Court quashing the order dated 21-05-1993 passed by the Chief Judidal Magistrate, Almora (respondent no. 1), whereby the learned C.J.M. allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 2 and set-aside the order of the petitioner dated 16-02-1993 relating to the plan of the building in appeal no. 1 of f993 Chandra Mohan Tiwari Vs. Nagar Palika. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Almora sent a letter dated 18-01-1993 to the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that he was constructing a building without the sanctioned Map thereby violating the provisions of Municipalities Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this letter the respondent no. 2 was required to stop the construction work within 24 hours from the date of receipt else he would be put to prosecution. The respondent paid no heed to the aforesaid letter, therefore vide letter dated 22-11-1993 the petitioner authority informed the respondent no. 2 that the period of notice had expired and he is bound to take necessary action in the matter. Consequently, the Nagar Palika issued an notice under Sections 185, 186 and 307 of the aforesaid Act to respondent no.2 dated 23-01-1993 stating therein that the alleged construction having been carried out by him was illegal punishable under the Act and the respondent was directed to remove the illegal construction within 24 hours, otherwise he was required to be prosecuted under the relevant law. Ultimately the petitioner-authority rejected the building plan of the respondent submitted to the petitioner on 19-1-1993 by holding that the disputed construction was illegal vide order dated 16-02-1993. Alongwith the memo of writ petition the petitioner has annexed copies of notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 dated 18-1-1993. notice dated 22-1-1993 and notice dated 23-1-1993 as well as. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 went up in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, which was registered as Appeal No.1 of 1993. In the appeal the appellant has taken a ground that the petitioner had no jurisdiction to reject the building plan/map under the law. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 2 went up in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, which was registered as Appeal No.1 of 1993. In the appeal the appellant has taken a ground that the petitioner had no jurisdiction to reject the building plan/map under the law. After hearing both the parties and considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the learned C.J.M. did not find favour with the impugned order of the Executive Officer and accordingly allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 21-51993, which gave rise to this writ petition. 4. The ground of challenge before this Court as raised by the Municipal Board is that the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the respondent no.2 continued his 'construction work without getting the plan sanctioned from Nagar Palika, Almora; that the construction work carried out by the respondent no. 2 without getting his plan approved was illegal and that the act of the petitioner Municipal Board was proper In view of the provisions of Section 180 (5) of the Municipalities Act, 1916 which provides that "no person shall commence any work of which notice has been given under Section 178 until sanction has been given or deemed to have been given under this section". The petitioner has also raised a ground that the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the only course open to the Nagar Palika was to take action against the respondent no. 2 according to the provisions of the Municipalities Act is perverse. It was submitted that the provisions of imposing' penalty and fine as per Section 185 of the Act is in addition to the powers of the Nagar Palika and the Municipal Board can take action otherwise than penalty and punishment as per Section 185. It was further contended that the respondent no. 2 violated the provisions of Section 180 (5) of the Act therefore the petitioner had a valid ground to refuse sanction of the plan submitted by him. The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate suffers from gross illegality. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the Municipal Board-petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 180 (2) of the Act. The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate suffers from gross illegality. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the Municipal Board-petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 180 (2) of the Act. It was submitted that as per provision if the municipality refuses to sanction under Sub-Section (1), the municipality was required to communicate in writing the reasons for such refusal to the person giving notice under Section 185 of the Act, the 'petitioner Nagar Palika was well within its power to impose a fine upon the respondent no. 2 in case he was found to have begun, continued or completed the erection or re-erection, of, or any material alteration in a building or part of a building or the 'construction' or enlargement of a well, without giving the notice required by Section 178, but in this case the petitioner-municipality violated the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 180 inasmuch as the building plan of the respondent no. 2 was rejected without assigning any reasons therefor. It was also submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly held that the order of the petitioner rejecting the building plan of the respondent no. 2 was illegal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Almora. 7. In this writ petition before this Court, it has to be seen whether the impugned order suffers from manifest error of law or it has caused grave injustice. The record shows that the respondent no. 2 has submitted a building plan for sanction before the Nagar Palika Almora on 18-01-1993 in accordance with the provisions of Section 178 of the Act. The building plan submitted by the respondent no.2 was rejected by the petitioner only on the ground that the respondent no.2 had started the building work without having the map sanctioned by the Nagar Palika vide its letter dated 16-2-1993. Aggrieved the respondent no. 2 preferred in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, which was registered as Appeal No.1 of 1993. The learned C.J.M. on perusal of the record found that the petitioner Issued three consecutive notices dated 10-01-1993, 22-01-1993 and 25-01-1993 to the respondent no. 2 to stop the construction work of the building. Aggrieved the respondent no. 2 preferred in appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, which was registered as Appeal No.1 of 1993. The learned C.J.M. on perusal of the record found that the petitioner Issued three consecutive notices dated 10-01-1993, 22-01-1993 and 25-01-1993 to the respondent no. 2 to stop the construction work of the building. In all these notices the petitioner had asked the respondent no. 2 to stop the construction work unless the plan is sanctioned and that the authority will take suitable action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It may be mentioned here that it is provided under sub-section (5) of Section 180 of the Act that: "No person shall commence any work of which notice has been given or deemed to have been given under Section 178 until sanction has been given or deemed to have been given under this Section". Section 185 of the Act provides as under : "Illegal erection or alteration of a building: Whoever begins, continues or completes the erection or re-erection of, or any material alteration in a building or part of a building or the construction or enlargement of a well, without giving the notice required by Section 178, or in contravention [of the provisions of Section 180, sub-section (5) or] of an order of [Municipality] refusing sanction or any written directions made by the [Municipality] under Section 180 or any bye-law, shall be liable upon conviction to a fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees but which. in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, shall not be less than two hundred and tiny rupees ].” 8. The provisions of law as envisaged by Section 185 of the Act show that in case of contravention of the provisions of Section 180 (5) of the Act, it is always open to the petitioner to have filed a complaint to prosecute the defaulter. But the petitioner has not taken the proper recourse against the respondent no. 2 though the petitioner in its letter dated 16-02-1993 itself has mentioned that the construction work without obtaining the building plan sanctioned is liable for punishment and violation of Rules. The last paragraph of the letter dated 16-02-1993 reads as follows :- 9. But the petitioner has not taken the proper recourse against the respondent no. 2 though the petitioner in its letter dated 16-02-1993 itself has mentioned that the construction work without obtaining the building plan sanctioned is liable for punishment and violation of Rules. The last paragraph of the letter dated 16-02-1993 reads as follows :- 9. This observation in itself is sufficient to show that not a single reason was mentioned by the petitioner, while rejecting building plan submitted by the respondent no. 2. Sub- section (2) of Section 180 clearly lays down that "In the case of a refusal to sanction under sub-section (1), the [Municipality] shall communicate in writing the reasons for such refusal to the person giving notice under Section 178". Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have mentioned the reasons in writing for rejection of the building plan. But it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have mentioned the reasons in writing for rejection of the building plan. But it was not at all done by the petitioner. The learned C.J.M. has rightly held that it was open to the Nagar Palika Almora to have initiated prosecution in case of violation of the provisions of the Act, but the same could not be a reason for rejection of the building plan. The Court below has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 2 and setaside the letter dated 16-02-1993 issued by the petitioner. 10. Having considered the relevant provisions of the Act, I, am of the opinion that the learned C.J.M. has neither committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of record nor the impugned order suffers from perversity so as to cause grave injustice. No case of Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out in the present writ petition. 11. In the result the writ petition has no merit and must fail. 12. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the authority concerned may proceed to sanction the building plan submitted by the respondent no. 2 according to Rules.