Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, P.M.C. and the State. 2. Petitioner is a builder who raised Shivalik Apartment in New Patliputra Colony, Patna and it is submitted on his behalf that the construction is on the basis of a plan sanctioned by the authorities of Patna Regional Development Authority yet a vigilance case was initiated against him asserting that the construction raised is contrary to the sanctioned plan which allegation was refuted by the petitioner, with reference to a revised plan (Annexure-9) appended with the supplementary affidavit. The authorities of the P.M.C. successor body of P.R.D.A. however stated that the revised plan has yet not been formally handed over to the petitioner in the circumstances, he is not entitled to rely over the same as according to the authorities, revised plan itself has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Building Bye-Laws and as the revised plan has not been formally handed over to the petitioner, the authorities of the PMC are within their jurisdiction to doubt even at this stage, the correctness of the revised plan A/9 in the light of the provisions of the Building Bye-Laws. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I deem it expedient that the authorities of the P.M.C. the successor body of P.R.D.A. should consider the revised plan in the light of provisions of the Building Bye-Laws and pass a reasoned order and thereafter, examine the existing constructions of the petitioner and if anything is contrary to the reasoned order and the revised plan which the authorities will formally sanction, then that part of the structure be demolished after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Compliance of this order be made as early as possible in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ communication of a copy of this order. It is made clear that revised plan and the reasoned order must be given to the petitioner before any action is taken against him. It goes without saying that until fresh order is passed in the light of this order, no further action be taken against the petitioner. The reasoned order should also consider as to what amount of the condonation fee already deposited by the petitioner is required to be retained balance whereof be returned. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.