Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-At the request of both the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had purchased residential plots in Malviya Nagar E-Block Scheme. As per terms and conditions of the auction mentioned in Schedule-I, the Scheme was exclusively for the private residential units only. The auction took place in the year 1989. At that time, the Building Regulations of 1989 were in force wherein it was specifically mentioned that the houses would not be constructed more than two storeys i.e., basement, ground and first floor and a perusal of the licence deed would show that condition No. 1 specifically prescribed that the licencee could use the said plot only for single residential use and not for any other purpose. 3. The controversy arose when the Respondent No. 3 submitted a site plan for construction of multi storeyed residential complex on the building and permission was granted accordingly. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Building Plan Committee (BPC) while considering the application submitted by the Respondent No. 3 wrongly applied the Building Regulations, 2000 which is contrary to Clause 19.8 of the Building Regulations, 2000 and as such, the permission granted to Respondent No. 3 to construct the multi storey residential complex is not only contrary to the Building Regulation 2000 but also contrary to the auction condition and lease condition. 5. When the Respondent No. 3 started construction, the petitioners submitted appeal before the JDA Tribunal against the decision of Building Plan Committee as well as the decision dated 12.05.2000, by which building permission was granted to the Respondent No. 3. 6. The appeal so filed by the petitioners was rejected by the JDA Tribunal, against which this writ petition is preferred by the petitioners. 7. The petitioners have given much emphasis on the terms and conditions of the auction and the lease conditions and Clause 19.8 of the Regulation 2000 which indicates that the plots which are sold in auction, the terms and conditions will remain same which were existed at the time of auction. 8. 7. The petitioners have given much emphasis on the terms and conditions of the auction and the lease conditions and Clause 19.8 of the Regulation 2000 which indicates that the plots which are sold in auction, the terms and conditions will remain same which were existed at the time of auction. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the plan was duly approved by the Building Committee and as also the JDA Tribunal has not committed any wrong to uphold the approval given by the Building Committee and he referred Clause 8.11 which deals with the height of the house situated at the particular road according to the width of the road and in the instant case, since, the road is wider than 24 meter, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 was given permission to raise his construction upto the height of 30 meters. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the petitioners have wrongly interpreted the provisions of Regulation 2000 and the respondents have also submitted that Clause 19.8 of the Regulation 2000 came up for consideration before this Court in the case of HV Hotels and the issue was decided in favour of the respondents and in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of HV Hotels, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in view of the ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rehman vs. State, the decision taken by the Specially Constituted Tribunal should not be interfered with normally since they are experts in the field. 11. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that on 110.2004, when Building Plan committee considered the plan submitted by the respondents, the Building Regulations 2000 was in force. Therefore, the Regulation 2000 was rightly applied to the present case. It was also given out that the plot in question is three side open and the apprehension and speculation of the petitioners that the light and air will be obstructed, is baseless. And as such, the authority concerned has rightly permitted the Respondent No. 3 to raise construction up to the height of 28 meter although the respondent is entitled to raise construction upto 30 meter. And as such, the authority concerned has rightly permitted the Respondent No. 3 to raise construction up to the height of 28 meter although the respondent is entitled to raise construction upto 30 meter. The petitioners just to harass the respondent unnecessarily preferred this writ petition although the petitioners have no locus to challenge the same. 12. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and Regulation 2000, as per the facts of the case, the plot in question was purchased by the respondent in the auction and at the time of submission of the plan, the Regulation 2000 was in force and the plot being corner plot, therefore, the Building Plan Committee has rightly considered the case of the respondent and granted permission to raise construction. As such, I do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in upholding the decision of the Building Plan Committee by the Tribunal and the decision passed by the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. 13. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequence thereof , the interim order dated 10.11.2005 is hereby vacated.