( 1 ) PALLAVI Enclave Flat Owners welfare Association (the Association, for brevity) and nineteen (19) of its members filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein - in G. O. Rt. No. 706, dated 17. 6. 1995 as illegal and arbitrary, to set aside the same and consequently direct respondents 2 and 3 - namely, visakhapatnam Urban Development authority (VUDA) and Visakhapatnam municipal Corporation (VMC) to demolish illegal constructions made by fourth j respondent in the premises known as Pallavi enclave in survey Nos. 2/3, 44/3a, 3b, 44/4 and 44/5 of Dondaparthy Village, visakhapatnam. The petitioners also seek a direction to the fourth respondent to surrender 763. 84 Sq. metres of site and also the land covered by 40 feet service road to enable VMC to lay said road. Be it noted that by G. O. Rt. No. 706, dated 17. 6. 1995 the first respondent purporting to exercise the powers vested under A. P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (hereafter called, urban Development Act) relaxed Regulation 10 (B) (ii) of VUDA Zoning Regulations to an extent of 164. 36 Sq. metres so as to allow 184. 36 Sq. metres as against permissible area of 20. 00 Sq. metres for the construction of twelve (12) petty shops in excess area of stilt floor area in favour of Sri K. Subba raju, the Managing Partner of M/s. Rama raj Enterprises, the fourth respondent herein. ( 2 ) ELABORATE pleadings are on record. To resolve the controversy, however, it is necessary only to notice the admitted facts, duly pointing out the allegations, which are not disputed or denied by the rival parties to the case. This is because ultimately the entire case depends on the interpretation of Section 59 of Urban development Act, Regulation 12 of Zonal regulations of Hyderabad Urban development Authority, 1981 (HUDA regulations, for brevity) and Regulation 19 of Hyderabad Multi Storied Building regulations, 1981 (MSB Regulations ). Be it noted that HUDA Regulations are applicable to VUDA also. ( 3 ) THE fourth respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. The firm applied to vmc seeking permission for construction of Multi-storied residential apartment block in the premises admeasuring 2,508. 03 Sq. mts at Dondaparthy Village. Be it noted that HUDA Regulations are applicable to VUDA also. ( 3 ) THE fourth respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. The firm applied to vmc seeking permission for construction of Multi-storied residential apartment block in the premises admeasuring 2,508. 03 Sq. mts at Dondaparthy Village. As the area falls within the limits of VUDA, the building plans submitted by the fourth respondent were forwarded to VUDA. By proceedings d. Dis. No. l341/91-G3, dated 16. 8. 1991, vuda approved the plans restricting floor area ratio (FAR) to below 1:1. 50. The request of fourth respondent for construction of 12 shops in the stilt floor area reserved for parking was rejected. VUDA also directed to delete two dwelling units in third floor besides imposing other conditions. There is no denial that in the original plans, the entire stilt area was shown and earmarked for parking. VUDA directed to maintain parking as shown in the original plans and also directed the fourth respondent to handover 40 feet service road to VMC. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by fourth respondent in December 1991, the petitioners 2 to 20 purchased residential flats from the firm. The fourth respondent executed sale deeds in favour of purchasers, in respect of proportionate area of land on which apartments were being constructed. ( 4 ) ON 27. 11. 1992, the fourth respondent made a representation to first respondent through VMC requesting to alter the conditions imposed by VUDA regarding demolition of two apartments in the third floor and refusal for construction of shop rooms in the stilt floor. The first respondent, after considering the request of the fourth respondent, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 477 dated 17. 4. 1993 granting permission for construction of two dwelling units in the third floor, but refused permission for construction of shop rooms in the stilt floor. Be that as it is, the fourth respondent constructed twelve shop rooms in the stilt area in anticipation of favourable orders from the first respondent. Though VMC directed the fourth respondent to submit revised plans as per the orders in G. O. Rt. No. 477 dated 17. 4. 1993, the same was not done, but the fourth respondent completed construction of flats. Though VMC directed the fourth respondent to submit revised plans as per the orders in G. O. Rt. No. 477 dated 17. 4. 1993, the same was not done, but the fourth respondent completed construction of flats. It is alleged that after the petitioners entered into agreement for purchase of flats, the fourth respondent insisted on their giving consent for using stilt area for construction of shops threatening that the firm would not deliver the flats purchased by them. Having paid entire sale consideration, the petitioners had no other go, except to give consent letters to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent constructed twelve shop rooms in the stilt area and a pent house on the third floor without there being any permission from any authority. These unauthorised and illegal constructions were brought to the notice of the authorities. After issuing notices dated 21. 9. 1993, VMC demolshed 12 shops in stilt floor. ( 5 ) THE fourth respondent filed W. P. No. 14905 of 1993 and obtained ad interim orders of stay of demolition. Though this court directed the fourth respondent not to make any further constructions, the fourth respondent again constructed 12 shop rooms on 6. 10. 1993 and this was also disclosed in the report submitted by the Commissioner of VMC to this Court. The fourth respondent again made another representation to the first respondent seeking relaxation with regard to construction of 12 shop rooms in the stilt area. The first respondent, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 706 dated 17. 6. 1995-relaxing regulation 10 (B) (ii) of Zonal regulations. Apart from raising various contentions, it is also the contention of the petitioners that the State Government issued impugned order without applying its mind to the situation and without authority of law. ( 6 ) THE first respondent through its deputy Director, Municipal Administration, filed counter-affidavit sustaining the impugned government Order. Reliance is placed on regulation 12 of Zonal Regulations, 1981 and Regulation 19 of MSB Regulations. It is stated that initially all the requests received for relaxation/regularisation of the unauthorised construction, were being placed before a Committee and decision was taken in accordance with the recommendation of the said Committee. In 1998, the Government took a policy decision not to exercise power of relaxation and accordingly issued new FAR policy and housing Regulations in G. O. Ms. No. 422 dated 31. 7. In 1998, the Government took a policy decision not to exercise power of relaxation and accordingly issued new FAR policy and housing Regulations in G. O. Ms. No. 422 dated 31. 7. 1978 and G. O. Ms. No. 423 of even date. It is further stated that impugned g. O. was issued after obtaining remarks from VMC, keeping in view that there is sufficient parking space available in the stilt floor subject to the condition that the fourth respondent should surrender 760. 83 sq. metres for 40 feet service road abutting n. H. 5 in favour of VMC. If the fourth respondent fails to comply with the same, it shall be -open to VMC to proceed against unauthorised constructions made contrary to the sanctioned plan. Even after lapse of six years, the fourth respondent has not complied with the conditions imposed by the government and therefore, VMC has not granted any licences for carrying on any trade or business in the 12 shops, which are kept vacant till now. ( 7 ) VUDA has filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that building permission was granted restricting FAR to 1:1. 5 and for construction of residential flats with stilt floor exclusively for parking. VUDA however was not aware of the deviations made by the fourth respondent as the powers of VUDA were delegated to VMC by orders of the Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 502 dated 23. 10. 1991. It is categorically stated that it is VMC, which has to implement the plans in view of the delegation of powers of VUDA under Urban development Act. ( 8 ) VMC also has filed separate counter-affidavit. It is stated that Dondaparthy village where the land is situated was included in VMC limits, that the plan submitted by the fourth respondent for construction of stilt floor, ground floor + three upper floors, was forwarded to VUDA on 5. 6. 1991, that VUDA granted permission on 16. 8. 1991 specifically directing the fourth respondent to handover 40 feet service road free of cost to VMC and that the permission for construction of shops in the stilt floor was refused. 6. 1991, that VUDA granted permission on 16. 8. 1991 specifically directing the fourth respondent to handover 40 feet service road free of cost to VMC and that the permission for construction of shops in the stilt floor was refused. While submitting remarks to the Government on the representation submitted by the fourth respondent regarding construction of two residential flats on third floor and for construction of 12 shops in the stilt floor, VMC specifically did not make any recommendation for such construction and that the Government issued orders in g. O. Rt. No. 477 granting exemption for construction of two residential flats on the third floor subject to the condition that the fourth respondent to surrender 760. 83 sq. metres of land for laying 40 feet service road abutting N. H. 5. Pursuant to the orders of the Government, VMC gave an endorsement to the fourth respondent to surrender the site for laying service road. When fourth respondent constructed 12 petty shops unauthorisedly, they were demolished by VMC, but fourth respondent reconstructed the shops subsequently after obtaining interim orders from this Court. The 12 shops constructed by the fourth respondent in the stilt floor contrary to the directions issued by the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 477 dated 17. 4. 1993. In view of the impugned orders, the revised plan submitted by the fourth respondent was forwarded to the Government and that the third respondent is not in favour of allowing 12 petty shops in the stilt floor. ( 9 ) THE fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit through its Managing partner, K. Subba Raju. The case of the fourth respondent is as follows. A plan was submitted to VMC. When certain objections were raised, a revised plan was submitted on 29. 7. 1991. The plans were forwarded to vuda, which accorded permission for construction of stilt floor + three floors duly deleting two dwelling units in the third floor and further imposing a condition that the service road should be handed over to vmc. The fourth respondent was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,720/ -. Aggrieved by this, the fourth respondent filed W. P. No. 12025 of 1991 and this Court passed interim orders on 17. 9. 1991 directing release of the plan immediately on condition of depositing the said amount. The fourth respondent was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,720/ -. Aggrieved by this, the fourth respondent filed W. P. No. 12025 of 1991 and this Court passed interim orders on 17. 9. 1991 directing release of the plan immediately on condition of depositing the said amount. VMC accordingly released plans calling upon the firm to handover 40 feet service road free of cost. When the Government revised permissible FAR to 1:2, fourth respondent submitted an application on 27. 11. 1992 seeking approval for construction of two flats on third floor, twelve petty shops in the stilt floor. This representation was forwarded by the VMC to the Government. Government issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 477 dated 17. 4. 1993 relaxing Zonal regulations and permitting construction of two flats in third floor. Thereafter, on 15. 5. 1993, VMC issued endorsement calling upon the fourth respondent to comply with the said condition. As no orders are passed on the application of the fourth respondent, in accordance with Section 433 of Hyderabad municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (HMC act, for brevity), the firm proceeded with construction and completed the construction of two flats and petty shops as per deemed approval under Section 437 of HMC Act. The firm again filed W. P. No. 14905 of 1993 when there was a threat of demolition of the shops and two flats in the third floor. This Court stayed demolition on 5. 10. 1993. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued impugned order relaxing Regulation 10 (B) (ii) of Zonal Regulations. On 1. 7. 1997, W. P. No. 12025 of 1991 filed by the fourth respondent was allowed by Division Bench of this Court holding that leaving 40 feet service road free of cost does not arise and that if the land is required, VUDA has to acquire the land paying compensation to fourth respondent. It is further alleged by the fourth respondent that all the flat owners while taking possession gave letters to the firm that they are satisfied with the space provided for parking, which is more than 640 Sq. metres as against 395 Sq. metres and that they have no objection for the builder using open area northern side of the stilt floor as per his discretion. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from filing the writ petition. metres as against 395 Sq. metres and that they have no objection for the builder using open area northern side of the stilt floor as per his discretion. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from filing the writ petition. The allegation that the fourth respondent is constructing a pent house on the third floor is denied. It is stated that only small room is constructing in the third floor for providing accommodation to the Supervisor of the flats. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narsu, submits that the Government of A. P. has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned government Order by relaxing VUDA zoning Regulations. He would further urge that having noticed that parking for all the flat owners was provided in the stilt floor of the building for which VMC granted permission, Government of Andhra Pradesh earlier rejected the request of the fourth respondent vide orders in G. O. Rt. No. 477, dated 17. 4. 1993 and there were no changed circumstances warranting the issue of the impugned order. He further submits that the fourth respondent has no right of his own on the land on which the flats were constructed as the title in the land was proportionately alienated in favour of petitioners 2 to 20 as well as others and therefore the Government could not have permitted the fourth respondent to construct twelve petty shops on the land belonging to the flat owners. He placed reliance on judgment of this Court in C. S. R. Estates v. H. U. D. A. , 1998 (6) ALD 547 = 1998 (6) alt 540 , which was affirmed by the division Bench of this Court in C. Shekar reddy v. C. S. R. Estate Flat Owners welfare Association, 2003 (3) ALD 553 = 2003 (3) ALT 413 (DB ). The learned counsel would urge that the stilt floor, which is meant for parking of the vehicles, cannot be altered. Lastly, he would urge that the exercise of power by the government is illegal and that VUDA Zoning regulations do not empower the Government to grant relaxation permitting the fourth respondent to construct twelve petty shops in the stilt floor. The learned counsel would urge that the stilt floor, which is meant for parking of the vehicles, cannot be altered. Lastly, he would urge that the exercise of power by the government is illegal and that VUDA Zoning regulations do not empower the Government to grant relaxation permitting the fourth respondent to construct twelve petty shops in the stilt floor. ( 11 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the learned standing Counsel for VMC reiterated the submissions and contentions from in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent and the third respondent. The learned standing Counsel for VMC further submits that the VMC has not granted any permission for commencing any business and that the shops are kept vacant. He also submits that once the shops were demolished after following the procedure under HMC Act, but the fourth respondent reconstructed the shops after obtaining status quo orders from this Court. He also submits that VMC is not in favour of construction of shops in stilt floor, which is meant for parking. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, Sri Raghavacharyulu, submits that Regulation 10 (B) (ii) of VUDA Zoning regulations enable the Government to grant relaxation. According to the learned Counsel, such power vests in the Government by reason of Section 34 read with Section 59 of Urban Development Act. Secondly, he would urge that as per the original approved plan dated 16. 8. 1991 construction of residential flats in stilt floor leaving 260 square meters for parking is permissible and therefore construction of shops in the stilt floor is not illegal. He lastly submits that petitioners 2 to 20 have given consent letters for constructions of petty shops and therefore they are estopped from raising objections for the same. In support of his contention that contravention of the building plan, which is not prejudicial to public interest, can be condoned, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in M/s. Rajatha Enterprises v. S. K. Sharma, AIR 1989 SC 860 . ( 13 ) IN the background of the case and in the light of the rival submissions two points would arise for consideration: the first point is whether the Government has any power to grant relaxation in favour of fourth respondent enabling the constructions of twelve petty shops in the stilt floor of the building. ( 13 ) IN the background of the case and in the light of the rival submissions two points would arise for consideration: the first point is whether the Government has any power to grant relaxation in favour of fourth respondent enabling the constructions of twelve petty shops in the stilt floor of the building. The second point is whether the Government has exercised the power validly in accordance with law. The two points require consideration together. Before doing so, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions from the relevant statutes. ( 14 ) THE VMC was established under section 3 of Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation Act, 1979 (VMC Act ). Section 7 of the VMC Act by reference incorporates hmc Act, the Rules and Regulations made thereunder in VMC Act. Therefore, hmc Building Bye laws are made applicable to VMC. The HUDA and VUDA both were constituted under Urban Development act. HUDA in exercise of powers conferred under Section 59 of the Urban Development act, with prior approval of Government of andhra Pradesh, promulgated Zoning regulations of Bhagyanagar Urban development Authority Zoning Regulations, 1981 (HUDA Zoning Regulations, for brevity ). HUDA also made MSB Regulations, 1981. VUDA by resolution No. 363, dated 13. 10. 1998, made/approved VUDA Zoning Regulations. These Regulations were approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in g. O. Ms. No. 274, dated 23. 5. 1989 read with g. O. Ms. No. 440, dated 9. 8. 1989. The vuda MSB Regulations were also approved by the Government as adopted by vuda. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, a reference is made to regulation 12 of HUDA Zoning Regulations and Regulation 19 of MSB Regulations as amended by G. O. Ms. No. 39, Housing, municipal Administration and Urban development Department, dated 21. 1. 1982. These two provisions read as under. Regulation 12 of Zoning Regulations 12. The Government may either suo-moto or on an application exempt any proposal for development of any site, sub-division, layout from any of the provisions of these regulations. Regulation 19 of HUDA MSB Regulations 19. Power of Government to exempt the Government may, on an application exempt any of the provisions of these regulations and all except the regulations no. 8, 10 (ii) and (iii) and 11 subject to the following limitations, which shall apply to all cases of buildings.