Judgment R.M. Lodha, J.-The petitioner-Gyan Vihar Senior Secondary School was allotted a piece of land in the D-Block, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for the purposes of the school in the year 1987. The construction of the school was completed in the year 1987. The construction of the school was completed in the year 1994. The school is C.B.S.E. affiliated 10 + 2 and has more than one thousand students. A 40 feet road from the Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (JLN Marg) is the connecting road to D-Block, Malviya Nagar. 2. The grievance in the writ petition relates to the closure of that road and the construction over and beneath the said road by the Respondent No. 3 for World Trade Park. 3. The petitioner has alleged that the said road has been dug almost 50 Feet and corrugated in sheds have been put up with a sign board, "this obstruction is temporary". According to the petitioner the construction under and over the road by the Respondent No. 3 is illegal. They approached this Court for the following reliefs : "(a) To reopen the way under the norms, adequate to avoid traffic hazards with width of 40 feet and adequate set backs and be directed to leave it as public way without any hindrance/obstacle and also permit the petitioner to put indication for their institution. .(b) Toappoint independent experts of structural Engineering to verify the strength of structure and load bearing capacity, under any seismic movement of the earth. .(c) Any other order or direction which this Honble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case". 4. Inter alia, the Respondent No. 1 (the State Government) and 2 (J.D.A.) have, in their reply, stated that on 02.07.2005, the land was allotted to the Respondent No. 3 for World Trade Park on the terms and conditions enumerated therein. They have not disputed the existence of the subject road between the two plots of land allotted to the Respondent No. 3 and asserted that the said road would continue as such. They have not disputed the existence of the subject road between the two plots of land allotted to the Respondent No. 3 and asserted that the said road would continue as such. About the building plan for the World Trade Park, they submitted that looking to the special nature of the building, the State Government has relaxed certain provisions contained in the Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region) Regulations, 2000 (for short, Regulations, 2000), particularly with regard to the height of the building and the basement in its communication dated 31.08.2005. The Respondent No. 3 has been permitted height of the building upto 62.78 meters including the structure above a height of 20 meters from the road, that shall connect the structure on both the plots on the side of the road. The Respondent No. 3 has also been permitted construction of three basements under the subject road for the purposes of parking; the parking area after construction shall be handed over to the JDA and shall be its property. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic) is said to have given approval on 211.2005 with regard to the basement parking in the proposed building. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that besides the subject road, there are many other roads connecting the D-block, Malviya Nagar from the J.L.N. Marg and that the obstruction in the subject road by the Respondent No. 3 is only temporary and as soon as the construction under and around the road is over, it shall be restored in its original form and shall be available for regular traffic. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have emphasized that the road has not been given to the Respondent No. 3 and that it shall be open for regular traffic beneath the building which shall be connecting the World Trade Park building from both the sides at the height of 20 meters. This would rather facilitate the traffic on the road and would make it more convenient for the public-at-large. The construction under the road has been allowed only for the purpose of construction of J.D.A. parking without any additional F.A.R. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also stated that upon restoration, the width of the road would increase to 60. 5. The construction under the road has been allowed only for the purpose of construction of J.D.A. parking without any additional F.A.R. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also stated that upon restoration, the width of the road would increase to 60. 5. The Respondent No. 3 in their separate reply have not resisted the prayers sought for by the petitioner being granted which according to them are/would be undertaken as part of the approved construction. Their response is otherwise in line with the reply filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to them, the J.D.A. hasbeen duly informed of undertaking the work of road section as per approved plan and that the excavation of the road by them for construction of the basement as per approved building plan did not amount to pay illegality. They have stated that the work of road section was taken up in December, 2006; that girders have been erected at the end section of the road in terms of building plan and that the Respondent No. 3 has organized an additional work force of 150 persons specifically for expeditious reconstruction of road in earliest possible time frame. That the process for making the road would involve shuttering, reinforcement and casting of concrete and even if the maximum possible three sets of shuttering are simultaneously employed, a minimum time required will be of three months. 6. The petitioner filed the rejoinder on 17.03.2003 and clarified that the present writ petition has not been filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner submitted that alternative roads suggested by the Respondent No. 3 cannot justify illegality of construction over and under the subject public road and that the permission granted for multi-storied basement under the road and allowing a building of commercial complex in the air space joining two plots was wholly illegal. Rule 86 of the Regulations, 2000, says the petitioner, has no application since the World Trade Park is a commercial building and that the whole activity is an illegal felicitation to the Respondent No. 3 to join the building and give a look of one building even when the plot allotted is specifically bifurcated by a sector road of 40 feet width. The petitioner highlighted that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is the closure and unauthorised construction over and under the road by the Respondent No. 3. 7. That the Respondent No. 3 has dug the subject road for the purposes of constructions of three basement parking is not in dispute. That the subject road in a public road is also not in dispute. It is admitted by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the Respondent No. 3 that due to construction activity, the subject public road has been rendered closed to the public-at-large, albeit, upon completion of the construction of the basement for parking area, which is to be handed over to J.D.A., the said road shall be put to use again and the width of the road then shall be increased from 40 feet to 60 feet. The question that falls for our determination is whether the closure of the subject public road by the Respondent No. 3, though temporarily, is legal and after obtaining requisite permission. .8. We may immediately refer to some of the provisions of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, "the Act of 1982") that are relevant for consideration of the aforenoted issue. 9. Section 2(2) defines "amenities", that inter-alia includes roads and streets. 10. Section 2(5) defines "development" thus : "development with its grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in or over, or under any land (including land under river, lake or any other water) or the making of any material change in any building or land or in the use of any building or land, and includes re-development and lay-out, and sub-division of any land and also the provision of amenities and projects and schemes for developments of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, diary development, poultry farming, piggery, cattle breeding, fisheries and other similar activities and to develop shall be construed accordingly". 11. The Act of 1982 provides for establishment of Jaipur Traffic Control Board, Inter-alia as per the Sub-section (3) of Section 13, the Jaipur Traffic Control Board has the power to grant permission to any person, Government Department (Central or State), any local authority or any other body to cut the roads for various purposes and to impose conditions thereof . 12. 12. Section 16 provides for the functions of the J.D.A. that inter-alia includes execution of the projects and schemes directly by itself or through a local authority or any other agency and to prepare Master Plan for traffic control and management, devise policy and programme of action for smooth flow of traffic and matters connected therewith. 13. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 upon which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents is reproduced to the extent it is relevant : "29. Declaration of Development Areas : .(1) . . . . . .(2) . . . . . (3) On or after the date on which notification under Sub-section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land without the permission in writing of the Authority (or Nagar Nigam, Jaipur in their respective jurisdiction) except the breaking open of any public street for which the previous permissions of the Jaipur Traffic Control Board shall be obtained : Provided that, no such permission shall be necessary- .(i) . . . . . .(ii) the carrying out of works in compliance with any order or direction made by any authority under any law for the time being in force; (iii) . . . . . .(iv) . . . . . .(v) . . . . . . .(vi) . . . . . (vii) . . . . . (viii) . . . . (ix) . . . . . 14. In exercise of the powers conferred in it under Section 16 read with Sections 96, 32 and 68, the J.D.A. framed the Regulations, 2000. 15. Regulation 6.7 empowers the State Government to relax the provisions contained in the regulations. 16. Regulation 8.6 provides that the buildings of special types which are not covered in the category of residential/commercial/institutional/industrial like mix land use and for which no guidelines have been fixed, the construction of such building shall be as per the standards prescribed by Building Plans Committee. 17. Schedule-I appended to the Regulations, 2000 gives description of nature of buildings namely residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and the special category buildings. 18. 17. Schedule-I appended to the Regulations, 2000 gives description of nature of buildings namely residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and the special category buildings. 18. Though much argument was advanced that the proposed building for World Trade Park is commercial building and does not fall in the category of special category of buildings and, therefore, Regulation 8.6 is not applicable, we are no persuaded by the submission. 9. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 850 of 2006 filed by Poonam Chand Bhandari, challenging the allotment of the land to the present Respondent No. 3, we have held that the project is infrastructure and in that sense outside the category of commercial buildings though it has an element of commerce in it. This is what we observed : "In conventional meaning infrastructure projects would be projects concerning roads, ports and airports but in the context of economy and development, the projects of diverse nature leading to overall development shall be nothing but infrastructure projects and it is for this reason that Rule 15-B has widened the scope of infrastructure projects by using the term "includes". A brief sketch of the project, that we have indicated in the beginning of the Judgment would bring the project. Obviously every infrastructure project has an element of commerce and, therefore, in that sense "commercial" but for the purpose of applicability of Rule 15-B what is important is that the project must be primarily infrastructure project. Once the said category has been carved out with regard to the infrastructure projects, Rule 15-B of the Rules of 1974 comes into play and Rule 15 that relates to disposal of land for commercial purposes shall stand excluded". 20. Since the building is of mix land use, in our considered view, the building of World Trade Park falls in the category of special category of building and, therefore, regulation 8.6 is applicable. 21. In exercise of its power under Regulation 6.7, the State Government has relaxed the provisions of Regulations, 2000 to the extent provided in its order dated 31.08.2005 for the construction of World Trade Park. The Respondent No. 3 has been granted permission to join the plots to them at a height of above 20 meters from the road after leaving 10-10 ft. on either side and thus increasing the width of road to 60 ft. The Respondent No. 3 has been granted permission to join the plots to them at a height of above 20 meters from the road after leaving 10-10 ft. on either side and thus increasing the width of road to 60 ft. Though the Regulations, 2000 permit two basement parking only, the Government permitted the construction of three basement parking under the road on the condition that the basement parking area shall be handed over to the J.D.A. The Government further provided that the entire parking area shall be J.D.A. property and that it shall be used solely for the parking purposes. The Government can relax the provisions of Regulations, 2000 by virtue of regulation 6.7 admits of no doubt. 22. The public road is meant for the use by the public all the time without obstruction and hindrance. A public road is a road or way over which all members of the public are entitled to pass and repass; the right of the public to pass and repass extends over every inch of the public road; every person has a right to use it and for the appropriate kind of traffic and any interference with that right and use of the public without lawful order of the competent authority is wrongful an unauthorised. "At the same time, it is well known position in law that despite the right of the public to use the road for pass and repass, the soil belongs to the owner. As a necessary corollary, permission for construction of basement under the subject public road for being handed over to J.D.A. cannot be said to be illegal. As noticed above, the question before us is whether the temporary closure of the road by the Respondent No. 3 is wrongful and unauthorised. 23. Relying upon Sub-section (3) of Section 29 it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the permission of the Jaipur Traffic Control Board was not necessary for closing the road since development is being carried out by the Respondent No. 3 in compliance with the order and direction of the State Government dated 31.08.2005. 24. The argument is founded on erroneous reading of law. 24. The argument is founded on erroneous reading of law. In our considered view Sections 13(3) and 29(3) of the Act of 1982 must be read harmoniously and the conjoint reading thereof leaves no manner of doubt that it was incumbent upon the Respondent No. 3 to obtain the permission of the Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing the road. The permission of the State Government dated 31.08.2005 is not and cannot be read as a direction by any authority within the meaning of Clause (ii) of proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 29. Armed with the building permission, the Respondent No. 3 could not have taken upon itself the power and authority to close the public road. This is nothing but usurpation of authority by a private person that cannot be countenanced. The permission by the State Government relaxing the provisions of Regulations 2000, permitting the construction of three basement for parking under the road did not justify the Respondent No. 3 to take law in its hand and without permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board, close the road. 25. The action of the Respondent No. 3 in digging the road without permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board is, thus, grossly illegal. The road has to be restored. The Respondent No. 3, as a matter of fact, has not even shown any resistance to the main prayer sought for by the petitioner being granted. It was rather submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 that delay in restoration of the road has been due to interim order passed by the Single Judge on 22.02.2007 whereby the Respondent No. 3 was restrained from undertaking any further construction on the road in question as per the approved plan. 26. In our considered view the road has to be restored and that too with the width of 60 as per the permission of the State Government dated 31.08.2005 for the public use as early as possible. 27. 26. In our considered view the road has to be restored and that too with the width of 60 as per the permission of the State Government dated 31.08.2005 for the public use as early as possible. 27. On behalf of the Respondent No. 3, an undertaking has been given through their Managing Director-Anoop Bartaria to the following effect : "That the Respondent No. 3 herein undertakes to reconstruct the road section having width of 40 feet running between the allotted plot of the Respondent No. 3 within a period of 75 days and open the same for traffic and use within 90 days of permission to do so granted by this Honble Court. That the Respondent No. 3 herein undertakes to maintain the road section running between the allotted plot of the Respondent No. 3 free of cost as also provide for street lighting and bear the charges of electricity on the said road section. That the Respondent No. 3 further undertakes to cleanup, restore and maintain the storm water drain (nalah) nearby for a length of 100 meters on the 60 feet road section adjoining the allotted plot and also for a further length of 100 meters on JLN road. The Respondent No. 3 shall beautify the drain". 28. The offer made by the Respondent No. 3 to maintain the road section running between the allotted plot of the Respondent No. 3 free of cost as also provide for street lighting and bear and charges of electricity on the said road section and to clean up, restore and maintain the storm water drain (nalah) nearby for a length of 100 meters on the 60 feet and section adjoining the allotted plot and also for a further length of 100 meters on JLN road is fair and deserves to be accepted. 29. We may also notice that an additional affidavit has been filed by L.C. Aswal, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority stating therein that all the three basements for parking to be surrendered by the Respondent No. 3 to J.D.A. as per the order of the State Government dated 31.08.2005 shall vest in the J.D.A. and J.D.A. will be at liberty to use it in accordance with the conditions imposed by the State Government. In the said affidavit it is stated that the parking area shall be the property of the J.D.A. upon its completion and J.D.A. will be entitled to make use thereof . 30. In what we have discussed above, we dispose of the writ petition by the following order : (i) TheRespondent No. 3 shall reconstruct the road with the width of 40 plus 3 meters strip on either side (i.e. 60 wide) running between allotted plot of the Respondent No. 3 as early as possible and in no case later than 31.07.2007. .(ii) The undertaking given by the Respondent No. 3 through their Managing Director dated 25.04.2007 is accepted with clarification that the re-constructed road shall be 40 wide plus 3 meters strip on either side (i.e. 60 wide) and made open for traffic and use by the 15.08.2007. (iii) The Jaipur Traffic Control Board shall monitor (reconstruction of the road and ensure that smooth flow of traffic is available on the re-constructed road on and from 15.08.2007. The Jaipur Traffic Control Board is also directed to determine the compensation for the wrongful closure of the road by the Respondent No. 3 without its permission in exercise of the power conferred in it under Section 13(3)(vii) of the Act of 1982. .(iv) The parking area so surrendered by the Respondent No. 3 to the J.D.A. shall not be given back for its operation on lease, license or otherwise to the Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. .(v) The Respondent No. 3 shall pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/-to the petitioner.